-
Govt loses court case on triggering Article 50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
Moderator: As the subject of this is likely to run for sometime me, have split this from the Result of the Referendum thread and set it asva Stickied Topic.
-
Dear Jack, Jakswan, Sass and T8, ( there may be others lurking in the undergrowth ::) )
given the decision of the high court do you think this is a good decision, is Brexit a small decision or a massive decision, should parliament debate every step/negotiating strategy we make before we trigger article 50.
Should it be left to the government to make every decision on how we leave the EU.
Given that the people who voted for Brexit came from all different walks of political life should it not be in their interests that all parties debate our exit from Europe.
Gonnagle.
-
Govt loses court case on triggering Article 50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
I have just seen this on-line and wonder if it will make any difference?
-
I don't think the Commons would oppose Brexit, as the consequences could be awful. Not sure about the Lords. But obviously, Parliament should have a say in what kind of Brexit. I would think that Mrs May doesn't like that idea, as she seems to be interpreting the referendum like a medieval monarch.
-
I have just seen this on-line and wonder if it will make any difference?
In a couple of ways it already has, the pound is up a bit and the betting for triggering Article 50 has shifted to later next year. Not sure that appealling it will look politically good, especially were they to lose again.
For parliament to actually vote it down when the time cones, would I suspect be a difficult one. There are more than enough MPs in favour of staying to defeat it but I suspect it would lead to an immediate GE where Labour would be annihilated, followed by it being triggered after that. I would suspect that a number of Tories would vote not to trigger it but they would need to be either not that ambitious or very principled.
The idea that thus is somehow a betrayal of the people is ludicrous rhetoric from Farage and his ilk
-
I've not seen many MPs saying they would vote against Brexit - very risky, I would think. I think David Lammy has said this, but he is probably in a strong Remain area. To do this in a Leave area courts disaster. That is why Labour are saying that they support Brexit.
-
I ordered a 2" clipper comb from the US last week, as you can't buy them in the UK. It cost $25 including postage, so I reckon I paid about £6 more because of the exchange rate :(
It's for the hair on top, by the way.
Saves a lot on barber costs in the long run.
-
Dear Sane,
Just been listening to the Labour man Stephen Kinnock who stated that this is the biggest decision we have had to make since WW11, I am not sure about that but this brexit is a massive step and should be debated across the house, I would go further and suggest that UKIP have a seat at the table, well as long as Farage desists from his yah boo sucks commentary.
This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.
Gonnagle.
-
I've not seen many MPs saying they would vote against Brexit - very risky, I would think. I think David Lammy has said this, but he is probably in a strong Remain area. To do this in a Leave area courts disaster. That is why Labour are saying that they support Brexit.
There might be a way where they could vote against Article 50 being triggered in the absence of any real meaning of Brexit. They could argue that we need to know what Nissan appears to to approve it as not knowing could put the negotiations in jeopardy.
-
This is no real solution: I know one party which will oppose the unelected prime minister of a government we did not vote for's 'hard' brexit at every turn, and should May win the day, that will only be the start of the politics!
-
Dear Sane,
Just been listening to the Labour man Stephen Kinnock who stated that this is the biggest decision we have had to make since WW11, I am not sure about that but this brexit is a massive step and should be debated across the house, I would go further and suggest that UKIP have a seat at the table, well as long as Farage desists from his yah boo sucks commentary.
This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.
Gonnagle.
UKIP have 'a seat'. In terms of the HoC, that is their representation. It should in my opinion be more but then I have been in favour of PR for 40 years. They missed a trick in not having it as a manifesto commitment years ago. I don't see how in the nature of the HoC they can have a bigger role in that discussion.
-
There is something comical in the Brexiteers saying they want sovereignty returned, and now they are screeching that this judgment is betraying the people, since parliament should not interfere. Yet it's Parliament that is sovereign, isn't it?
Big danger is an election, where May could easily win a Brexit vote, and Labour would be annihilated.
-
I see also attacking the idea of unelected judges because that is all to do with the EU - oh wait it isn't, it's the constitution that they wanted back that has had that, but hey who cares about facts.
-
This is quite good as a summary, though doesn't cover that the Supreme Court could be appealed to the European Court of Justice! You have to love Dominic Raab's belief that being able to appeal to the law of the land is somehow dubious!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37860618
-
Labour continue to support Brexit, ergo why have an appeal, just have the vote that states govt has right to invoke Article 50, when it chooses
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-article-50-high-court-ruling-jeremy-corbyn-a7395101.html
-
I note that the DM originally headlined one of the judges as an 'openly gay ex-Olympic fencer' as if that was worthy of opprobrium. Even the twats at the Mail seem to have worked out that was offensively and idiotically stupid, though some of it still covered in the story.
-
Dear Wigs,
Why go for an early election, I just can't see any traction in it for the Tories, sure they might gub Labour but the whole election would be fought on the Brexit question which the Tories have no reply to well except Brexit means Brexit.
Every political party would be snapping at the heels of the Tories for answers, I can only see it damaging the Tories.
Why would another election affect this High Court ruling, the only possible way I can see this as a plus for the Tories is if they won by a landslide and the state they are in just now I can't see that happening.
Laura Kuenssberg ( BBC ) is also talking about an early election,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37861456
The only way of making this headache go away could be a general election.
How!! why!! It would only highlight the Tories short comings.
Just trying to get my head around this nonsense, I can't see any benefit for the Tories asking for a early election.
Gonnagle.
-
This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, the people/party most 'out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit' are Labour. There are probably more pro-EU Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted 'Leave' than there are pro-leave Tory MPs representing constituencies who voted 'Remain'.
I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.
-
I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.
Whose opinion?
I'll go with the opinion of Scottish voters.
-
Gonners, the people/party most 'out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit' are Labour. There are probably more pro-EU Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted 'Leave' than there are pro-leave Tory MPs representing constituencies who voted 'Remain'.
I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.
You mean it follows the law? You think that denying the constitution supports the rule of law?
-
Just when you thought things weren't 'interesting' enough, enter Nicola! http://news.sky.com/story/sturgeon-holyrood-might-join-brexit-court-case-10643023 Yep. it's a mess. all right!
-
In a couple of ways it already has, the pound is up a bit and the betting for triggering Article 50 has shifted to later next year. Not sure that appealling it will look politically good, especially were they to lose again.
For parliament to actually vote it down when the time cones, would I suspect be a difficult one. There are more than enough MPs in favour of staying to defeat it but I suspect it would lead to an immediate GE where Labour would be annihilated, followed by it being triggered after that. I would suspect that a number of Tories would vote not to trigger it but they would need to be either not that ambitious or very principled.
The idea that thus is somehow a betrayal of the people is ludicrous rhetoric from Farage and his ilk
"I will make it legal" Emperor Palpatine.
-
Dear Hope,
Gonners, the people/party most 'out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit' are Labour.
No, sorry but totally wrong.
There are probably more pro-EU Labour MPs representing constituencies that voted 'Leave' than there are pro-leave Tory MPs representing constituencies who voted 'Remain'.
Maybe, but it was underfunding by the Tories, a failure by the Tories through austerity to invest in certain sections of the British electorate which fueled this Brexit nonsense, it's there, it is fact, you can't argue with the facts, the Tories forgot about the little man sitting in the pub watching as immigrants took all the jobs and housing, this might be a myth, but people needed something to vent their anger on, the Tories allowed this.
I think my concern with the court ruling is that is places Parliament even further away from public opinion, since it appears that it allows MPs to potentially ride roughshod over public opinion.
No that is Tory propaganda, what it does is give voice to everyone, the British public voted for Brexit, the Tories are not the voice of Brexit.
Gonnagle.
-
Quite unbelievable that Brexiters are complaining that a British court has ruled that the sovereign and democratically elected British parliament should be allowed to exercise its right as a sovereign parliament. I thought it was all about bringing back control to our sovereign British parliament - clearly not according to the hypocrite Brexiters.
What I find supremely amusing if that if the government loses its appeal in the Supreme Court it would need to look to the European Court of Justice as its last hope of overturning the decision. Irony of ironies.
-
Dear Hope,
No, sorry but totally wrong.
Sorry, not wrong, Gonners. The British people have been split over the EU for many years - and Nigel farage picked up on this when he started UKIP back in 1993. As such, the referendum was only partly to do with internal party divisions - it was just as much about Labour's internal party divisions on the subject.
Maybe, but it was underfunding by the Tories, a failure by the Tories through austerity to invest in certain sections of the British electorate which fueled this Brexit nonsense, it's there, it is fact, you can't argue with the facts, the Tories forgot about the little man sitting in the pub watching as immigrants took all the jobs and housing, this might be a myth, but people needed something to vent their anger on, the Tories allowed this.
And, of course, research points to the fact that very few 'British' jobs were taken by immigrants. For one thing, very few immigrants are able to work in the first place - especially asylum seekers; many immigrants who did get jobs often got well-paid jobs in industries such as engineering and IT, in part because they were 'head-hunted' as it were when the shortages of such people became clear after decades of under-investment by consecutive governments. Ironically, their gatting such jobs has actually created more 'lower-tier' posts for Brits who don't have the skills for more highly skilled posts.
The Tories and other Remain campaigners made all this very clear for months prior to the referendum; sadly, the British people chose to give more credence to the evidence-less claims of the likes of UKIP and the other Leave campaigners - some of whom were Tories, but not all.
No that is Tory propaganda, what it does is give voice to everyone, the British public voted for Brexit, the Tories are not the voice of Brexit.
Interesting that you call it Tory propaganda - I've been asking that question for weeks, if not months. All the court ruling does is require that Parliament vote on the act of triggering Article 50. It says absolutely nothing about anyone having a say on the progress and outcome of the negotiations.
If anything, your interpretation suggests that you have imbibed more UKIP propaganda than you might like to think.
-
Quite unbelievable that Brexiters are complaining that a British court was ruled that the sovereign and democratically elected British parliament should be allowed to exercise its right as a sovereign parliament. I thought it was all about bringing back control to our sovereign British parliament - clearly not according to the hypocrite Brexiters.
I don't find it unbelievable, PD. The Leave campaign have never really wanted the British Parliament to regain its sovereignity; all they want is for the power of Parliament to be subsumed beneath the will of the people. This ruling goes against that principle.
-
Dear Jack, Jakswan, Sass and T8, ( there may be others lurking in the undergrowth ::) )
given the decision of the high court do you think this is a good decision, is Brexit a small decision or a massive decision, should parliament debate every step/negotiating strategy we make before we trigger article 50.
Should it be left to the government to make every decision on how we leave the EU.
Given that the people who voted for Brexit came from all different walks of political life should it not be in their interests that all parties debate our exit from Europe.
Gonnagle.
This decision is wrong but the way the referendum was run and set up was sloppy and ill formed.
Let us see what the supreme court says first before we consider the ins and outs of all this. But if this decision holds then there is going to be chaos on several levels; and possibly a GE.
Also, all the EU treaties were done on the governments prerogative, no parliament vote was taken on them, so if we can do that in signing into Treaties why not getting out of them?
-
I don't think the Commons would oppose Brexit, as the consequences could be awful. Not sure about the Lords. But obviously, Parliament should have a say in what kind of Brexit. I would think that Mrs May doesn't like that idea, as she seems to be interpreting the referendum like a medieval monarch.
You mean the way Brown sneaked in to sign the Lisbon treaty without a vote in parliament or a promised referendum on it?
-
In a couple of ways it already has, the pound is up a bit and the betting for triggering Article 50 has shifted to later next year. Not sure that appealling it will look politically good, especially were they to lose again.
For parliament to actually vote it down when the time cones, would I suspect be a difficult one. There are more than enough MPs in favour of staying to defeat it but I suspect it would lead to an immediate GE where Labour would be annihilated, followed by it being triggered after that. I would suspect that a number of Tories would vote not to trigger it but they would need to be either not that ambitious or very principled.
The idea that thus is somehow a betrayal of the people is ludicrous rhetoric from Farage and his ilk
If they are going to vote it through why vote on it?
-
There is something comical in the Brexiteers saying they want sovereignty returned, and now they are screeching that this judgment is betraying the people, since parliament should not interfere. Yet it's Parliament that is sovereign, isn't it?
No it's not. The sovereignty was against the EU not the people.
-
I see also attacking the idea of unelected judges because that is all to do with the EU - oh wait it isn't, it's the constitution that they wanted back that has had that, but hey who cares about facts.
The law says that judges can't pass decisions on this. The court case was basically illegal. This was mentioned by Gerard Batten - I suggest people look out for this in the news.
-
This decision is wrong but the way the referendum was run and set up was sloppy and ill formed.
Let us see what the supreme court says first before we consider the ins and outs of all this. But if this decision holds then there is going to be chaos on several levels; and possibly a GE.
Also, all the EU treaties were done on the governments prerogative, no parliament vote was taken on them, so if we can do that in signing into Treaties why not getting out of them?
why is the decision wrong? Please cite legal argument.
-
You mean the way Brown sneaked in to sign the Lisbon treaty without a vote in parliament or a promised referendum on it?
and prize for the irrelevant tu quoque goes to Jack Knave
-
If they are going to vote it through why vote on it?
Because that's how our constitution works. Are you suggesting that because you or Nige thinks it will pass, we don't need a parliamentary vote?
-
Ah, yes we believe in sovereignty except when we don't
http://tinyurl.com/jmy4rhy
-
Sorry, not wrong, Gonners. The British people have been split over the EU for many years - and Nigel farage picked up on this when he started UKIP back in 1993. As such, the referendum was only partly to do with internal party divisions - it was just as much about Labour's internal party divisions on the subject.
And, of course, research points to the fact that very few 'British' jobs were taken by immigrants. For one thing, very few immigrants are able to work in the first place - especially asylum seekers; many immigrants who did get jobs often got well-paid jobs in industries such as engineering and IT, in part because they were 'head-hunted' as it were when the shortages of such people became clear after decades of under-investment by consecutive governments. Ironically, their gatting such jobs has actually created more 'lower-tier' posts for Brits who don't have the skills for more highly skilled posts.
The Tories and other Remain campaigners made all this very clear for months prior to the referendum; sadly, the British people chose to give more credence to the evidence-less claims of the likes of UKIP and the other Leave campaigners - some of whom were Tories, but not all.
Interesting that you call it Tory propaganda - I've been asking that question for weeks, if not months. All the court ruling does is require that Parliament vote on the act of triggering Article 50. It says absolutely nothing about anyone having a say on the progress and outcome of the negotiations.
If anything, your interpretation suggests that you have imbibed more UKIP propaganda than you might like to think.
Cameron's mission was pure Bullingdon. Rag the country and make a splash.
I'm glad the ball is back in the court of brexiteers who thought this whole thing was a five minute job.
-
I have just seen this on-line and wonder if it will make any difference?
If the decision is upheld in the Supreme court, the Brexit negotiations could be mired in the British political process for years.
I have to say that I am totally astonished that the decision went this way. In an episode of Unreliable Evidence recently, all three legal experts (Brexiters and Remainers amongst them) thought the action would fail.
-
I would go further and suggest that UKIP have a seat at the table,
They have an MP therefore they have a seat at the table.
This decision should not be left in the hands of the Tories, it is far to big to be left in the hands of a government who are so out of touch with the very people who actually swayed a win for Brexit.
Are you serious? A fair proportion of people who voted Brexit were Tories or UKIP little Englander ex Tories. The areas where the Tories are weak: cities and Scotland voted Remain.
-
The Leave campaign have never really wanted the British Parliament to regain its sovereignity; all they want is for the power of Parliament to be subsumed beneath the will of the people. This ruling goes against that principle.
Rubbish.
You are saying that the Leave Campaign wanted a coup in effect.
The British Parliament is the democratically elected body that takes decisions about running the country on behalf of the British people. That's the way it has been for nearly a hundred years and if people had remembered that before having that stupid referendum that just showed a significant proportion of the electorate are too irresponsible to take important decisions* like this we wouldn't be in this huge mess now.
*By that, I don't mean everybody who voted for Brexit, only those who voted just to kick the establishment up the arse or those who voted only on the issue of immigration.
-
Also, all the EU treaties were done on the governments prerogative
Wrong.
-
Having read the whole thread, I see there seems to be some misconception about this vote that now has to happen.
It really isn't as simple as just having a vote in Parliament. There has to be a bill which means it has to go through the full parliamentary process. That means that the Bill can be made subject to amendments. So, although MPs probably don't have the nerve to stand up for their convictions and vote down the Bill (don't forget amongst MPs the majority is for remain), it is very likely that various amendments will be tabled. For example, somebody might table an amendment to require the government to maintain access to the single market. MPs could vote for that without denying the result of the referendum.
Then there is the process itself that requires readings and committee stages etc etc etc. This will certainly push back article 50 which means there's more time for the economy to take a dive and more time for public opinion to change.
Part of the process, by the way, requires the Bill to go through the House of Lords. They can't stop it altogether, but they can delay it with amendments.
All the above shows why the government has to appeal the decision if it wants a hard Brexit on the original timetable.
This court decision is a really big deal. It's a victory for British Parliamentary democracy assuming it doesn't get overturned by the Supreme Court (which I think it probably will, if I'm being honest).
-
No, Jeremyp, it isn't clear that that is what the decision means. It asks for parliamentary consent but that isn't defined. There is no indication that it needs a bill.
-
No, Jeremyp, it isn't clear that that is what the decision means. It asks for parliamentary consent but that isn't defined. There is no indication that it needs a bill.
Nope. Not according to the BBC's political editor last night on Radio 4. There needs to be a bill. This is not going to be just a debate and a vote.
-
Nope. Not according to the BBC's political editor last night on Radio 4. There needs to be a bill. This is not going to be just a debate and a vote.
how did they d le out a resolution being sufficient?
-
No it's not. The sovereignty was against the EU not the people.
Rubbish - the Brexit campaign was all about bringing back control to the sovereign British parliament, democratically elected by the British people.
I never heard anyone in the Brexit campaign claim that the British parliament should be sidelined (quite the reverse) and that somehow all decisions in a post-Brexit word should be by direct vote of the people (i.e. a referendum). That was never discussed.
-
You mean the way Brown sneaked in to sign the Lisbon treaty without a vote in parliament or a promised referendum on it?
Rubbish - the UK only signed the Lisbon treaty via an Act Parliament, in other words after it had been debated in parliament and had been passed by votes in both the commons and lords and a bill receiving royal assent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290871.stm
To give some context the bill was passed by 346 to 206 in the commons after 6 weeks of debate.
-
how did they d le out a resolution being sufficient?
Sorry, I can't work out what the mangled word should be. Anyway, David Davis says there needs to be an Act of Parliament (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfrp2y3o7QAhWqBcAKHfx9DIoQqQIIITAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fdavid-davis-lords-and-commons-will-have-to-approve-brexit-a3386606.html&usg=AFQjCNHU1Lu_Ah7BW0qCQwo5CQsnbCW8ng&sig2=0z7o0yz2BYdtZ5KK5T6OSQ) and on the Today Programme shortly before interviewing Nick Clegg, they said he will be introducing one. Nock Clegg, btw, said exactly what I hoped he would say: the Lib Dems will table an amendment to insist on a soft Brexit and for there to be a democratic decision (possibly a referendum) at the end of the negotiation to say yes no to the final package.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Good morning Mr Wrong ( again )
Are you serious? A fair proportion of people who voted Brexit were Tories or UKIP little Englander ex Tories. The areas where the Tories are weak: cities and Scotland voted Remain.
Actually maybe my accusation of wrong is, well wrong :P :P misguided maybe, or just forgetful, below is a breakdown of how the country voted.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/
More than one in three people along the coast north of Hartlepool placed themselves in the DE social-class in the last census. Leave's victory here can be seen as a sign that they successfully appealed to working-class voters.
Working class voters or you could call them, disaffected Labour supporters, and remember I used the word swayed, these are the people who the Tory party forgot about, the people who the Tory party turned into, what you rightly call "UKIP little Englander" but not ex Tories.
I would just like to add ( whilst I am chuntering along here ;) ) Sane and Gordon tell me you are doing a fine job behind the scenes of keeping our little forum motoring along, so thank you old chum ;)
Also, and just because it is you but I will also include ProfDavey ( I highly respect both of your postings ) simply because the both of you are/were two of Jack Knaves most voracious opponents, as this Brexit nonsense unfolds there seems to me ( my opinion ) that Jack Knave spoke a lot of truth in highlighting what the EU was up to behind closed doors, TTIP and CETA for example.
To end, I am now wondering if there is an up side to Farage and his little cronies, well is there??
Gonnagle.
-
Rubbish - the UK only signed the Lisbon treaty via an Act Parliament, in other words after it had been debated in parliament and had been passed by votes in both the commons and lords and a bill receiving royal assent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290871.stm
To give some context the bill was passed by 346 to 206 in the commons after 6 weeks of debate.
Also, Maastricht had to be ratified by Parliament. That was the political soap opera of the day with John Major's government in danger of being undermined by its own back benchers (Ian Duncan-Snake amongst them).
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Good morning Mr Wrong ( again )
Actually maybe my accusation of wrong is, well wrong :P :P misguided maybe, or just forgetful, below is a breakdown of how the country voted.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-referendum-results-and-live-maps/
Interesting. It says Scotland and the city voted Remain. Wow, that's exactly what I said.
I would just like to add ( whilst I am chuntering along here ;) ) Sane and Gordon tell me you are doing a fine job behind the scenes of keeping our little forum motoring along, so thank you old chum ;)
Flattery will get you everywhere.
Also, and just because it is you but I will also include ProfDavey ( I highly respect both of your postings ) simply because the both of you are/were two of Jack Knaves most voracious opponents, as this Brexit nonsense unfolds there seems to me ( my opinion ) that Jack Knave spoke a lot of truth in highlighting what the EU was up to behind closed doors, TTIP and CETA for example.
Negotiating trade agreements? If Brexit goes through, we'll be doing a lot of that on our own over the next ten years (for example, we'll have to do Canada again). If you think we'll end up with something different to what the EU has got, you're having a laugh.
-
Sorry, I can't work out what the mangled word should be. Anyway, David Davis says there needs to be an Act of Parliament (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjfrp2y3o7QAhWqBcAKHfx9DIoQqQIIITAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standard.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fdavid-davis-lords-and-commons-will-have-to-approve-brexit-a3386606.html&usg=AFQjCNHU1Lu_Ah7BW0qCQwo5CQsnbCW8ng&sig2=0z7o0yz2BYdtZ5KK5T6OSQ) and on the Today Programme shortly before interviewing Nick Clegg, they said he will be introducing one. Nock Clegg, btw, said exactly what I hoped he would say: the Lib Dems will table an amendment to insist on a soft Brexit and for there to be a democratic decision (possibly a referendum) at the end of the negotiation to say yes no to the final package.
It was meant to read rule out. I still don't see that it can be ruled out that a resolution would be sufficient. As Davis clearly states, the judgement is not clear but they are presuming that that will need a piece of legislation. Colour me cynical about politicians' motives, but this reads like an attempt to ramo up sentiment against the decision by talking about it as if it is a major block.
-
Odd resignation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899
-
Wow, the tabloids are something else this morning. DM - 'Enemies of the people' - this is about the 3 judges. This is quite scary, the use of plebiscites to over-rule Parliament. Sounds familiar.
-
Odd resignation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37872899
This is rather worrying. I gather he is what might be called a moderate Brexiter - he supported leave but favours retaining access to the single market and a balanced approach to immigration. That he now feels that there are irreconcilable differences with the Government, that he has described the Government as lurching to the right.
-
I think the first sentence in the article here is particularly important.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/unhinged-backlash-high-courts-brexit-ruling/
-
This is rather worrying. I gather he is what might be called a moderate Brexiter - he supported leave but favours retaining access to the single market and a balanced approach to immigration. That he now feels that there are irreconcilable differences with the Government, that he has described the Government as lurching to the right.
I find it odd that he happily stood throughout the last govt, and then voted to leave but thought that the single market would stay. Why not stay on and attempt to change the policy than just resign?
-
I think the first sentence in the article here is particularly important.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/unhinged-backlash-high-courts-brexit-ruling/
One of the reasons that I supported remaining in the EU is that it provided extremely important checks and balances to our own government. I have already expressed on different threads my concern that our already unreasonably centralised system of government would get even more so without the EU, with far, far too much power rested in the Westminster government.
Those concerns are getting greater with the push firstly to sideline parliament, which itself acts as a check to government, but also the courts - we are in really dangerous territory when we feel that the Government can do what it likes without being accountable to both parliament and the courts.
-
why is the decision wrong? Please cite legal argument.
The courts have no right to tell parliament what to do or how to carryout their procedures.
-
and prize for the irrelevant tu quoque goes to Jack Knave
It is very relevant because he used his prerogative to do the Lisbon deal, which was never put to a vote in the Commons. So by signing it and not giving parliament a chance to vote on it he did exactly what May wants to do.
-
Because that's how our constitution works. Are you suggesting that because you or Nige thinks it will pass, we don't need a parliamentary vote?
May has a mandate from the people to trigger Art.50.
-
Ah, yes we believe in sovereignty except when we don't
http://tinyurl.com/jmy4rhy
The sovereignty bit was against Brussels not the people, who trump parliament when they vote on a specific issue.
-
May has a mandate from the people to trigger Art.50.
And that 'mandate' may only be realised via the normal Governmental process, i.e. through authorisation by Parliament.
You don't seem to understand that the Government can't just change to law on a whim, laws are only changed when they have been through and passed by parliament. Only then can they receive Royal Assent.
Do you somehow believe that this issue should ride roughshod over our constitutional processes.
-
The courts have no right to tell parliament what to do or how to carryout their procedures.
Yes they do - Parliament can change the law (via the correct constitutional process), but Parliament and the Government are not above the law, they must adhere to the law just as the rest of us do. Hence there are plenty of examples where actions of Government have been shown to be unlawful and therefore must be withdrawn.
-
It is very relevant because he used his prerogative to do the Lisbon deal, which was never put to a vote in the Commons. So by signing it and not giving parliament a chance to vote on it he did exactly what May wants to do.
That is a lie - the Lisbon treaty was only ratified after it had been through parliament via a bill which was enacted via the normal process.
-
Wrong.
Right!!!
-
Having read the whole thread, I see there seems to be some misconception about this vote that now has to happen.
It really isn't as simple as just having a vote in Parliament. There has to be a bill which means it has to go through the full parliamentary process. That means that the Bill can be made subject to amendments. So, although MPs probably don't have the nerve to stand up for their convictions and vote down the Bill (don't forget amongst MPs the majority is for remain), it is very likely that various amendments will be tabled. For example, somebody might table an amendment to require the government to maintain access to the single market. MPs could vote for that without denying the result of the referendum.
Then there is the process itself that requires readings and committee stages etc etc etc. This will certainly push back article 50 which means there's more time for the economy to take a dive and more time for public opinion to change.
Part of the process, by the way, requires the Bill to go through the House of Lords. They can't stop it altogether, but they can delay it with amendments.
All the above shows why the government has to appeal the decision if it wants a hard Brexit on the original timetable.
This court decision is a really big deal. It's a victory for British Parliamentary democracy assuming it doesn't get overturned by the Supreme Court (which I think it probably will, if I'm being honest).
Or May could just trigger Art.50. What could they (who ever they are) do? She has a mandate from the people.
-
Rubbish - the Brexit campaign was all about bringing back control to the sovereign British parliament, democratically elected by the British people.
I never heard anyone in the Brexit campaign claim that the British parliament should be sidelined (quite the reverse) and that somehow all decisions in a post-Brexit word should be by direct vote of the people (i.e. a referendum). That was never discussed.
What a stupid comment. MP are there because of the people. If the people vote on a specific issue, as in a referendum, then that trumps parliaments views on the matter.
"...democratically elected by the British people." - See, you agree with me!!! ;D
-
One of the reasons that I supported remaining in the EU is that it provided extremely important checks and balances to our own government. I have already expressed on different threads my concern that our already unreasonably centralised system of government would get even more so without the EU, with far, far too much power rested in the Westminster government.
Those concerns are getting greater with the push firstly to sideline parliament, which itself acts as a check to government, but also the courts - we are in really dangerous territory when we feel that the Government can do what it likes without being accountable to both parliament and the courts.
My irony-meter has just blown a fuse. The venal, corrupt EU keeping a check on our government!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
Barroso got a job with Goldman Sachs. Those lobbyists are sure running things in Brussels by offering a great revolving door menu!!!
-
And that 'mandate' may only be realised via the normal Governmental process, i.e. through authorisation by Parliament.
You don't seem to understand that the Government can't just change to law on a whim, laws are only changed when they have been through and passed by parliament. Only then can they receive Royal Assent.
Do you somehow believe that this issue should ride roughshod over our constitutional processes.
No law is being changed. She is just starting the negotiation process, as mandated by the people.
The constitutional process occurred in the carrying out of the referendum, as passed by parliament in a bill.
-
It's all one huge game.... and we are pawns in the game..
-
May has a mandate from the people to trigger Art.50.
Well it's the only one she'll get .....and the only one Brexiteers will get to give.
At least it will buck the three Los Wankeros up.
-
Dear Jack, Jakswan, Sass and T8, ( there may be others lurking in the undergrowth ::) )
given the decision of the high court do you think this is a good decision, is Brexit a small decision or a massive decision, should parliament debate every step/negotiating strategy we make before we trigger article 50.
Should it be left to the government to make every decision on how we leave the EU.
Given that the people who voted for Brexit came from all different walks of political life should it not be in their interests that all parties debate our exit from Europe.
Gonnagle.
What is there to debate? The nation has voted (albeit in an advisory fashion) to leave the EU. Things could have been organised better in the wording of the 'order' that established the referendum - should it be merely advisory or binding; what majority would be needed to count as a telling one - is 5%+1 sufficient on a constitutional issue as important as this?; ... . However, for better or worse, the political parties have decided to treat the result as binding.
Why should Parliament debate something and hold a vote that could potentially overturn the will of the people? Is the will of Parliament paramount, or is the will of the people.
I would argue, as a staunch Remainer, that requiring Parliament to have a debate about the timing of the triggering of Article 50 is pointless and could even be seen as undemocratic. Get Parliament to debate the various processes and fruits of negotiation, by all means, but should Parliament get a say in when a trigger is pulled, NO.
OK, if the Government of th day had chosen to delay and delay and delay any such triggering, such that we had reached 2018 or '19 without any sign of its being executed, perhaps a vote would be appropriate, simply because such a scenario could be seen as denying the will of the people.
-
What is there to debate? The nation has voted (albeit in an advisory fashion) to leave the EU. Things could have been organised better in the wording of the 'order' that established the referendum - should it be merely advisory or binding; what majority would be needed to count as a telling one - is 5%+1 sufficient on a constitutional issue as important as this?; ... . However, for better or worse, the political parties have decided to treat the result as binding.
Why should Parliament debate something and hold a vote that could potentially overturn the will of the people? Is the will of Parliament paramount, or is the will of the people.
The referendum was a vote on a broad principle and intention; what will emerge during negotiations is a more detailed and authentic picture of what that change in future direction will mean in practice. I don't see a strong case for ending the democratic process because minds will change as new information and insights come to light. There has to be a mechanism for the will of the people to be expressed when we know the detail and we are more confident in the projections.
There is a difference between a betrothal and a marriage. A betrothal indicates an intention but it is not binding and the space between betrothal and marriage gives the lovers time to reflect and get to know each other better and hence the opportunity for get-out if it becomes clear their original intention was unwise. This seems sensible to me
-
A betrothal indicates an intention but it is not binding and the space between betrothal and marriage gives the lovers time to reflect and get to know each other better and hence the opportunity for get-out if it becomes clear their original intention was unwise. This seems sensible to me
I would suggest that the triggering of the Article is the 'betrothal' not the referendum. The latter is simply the people saying we want this move investigated. Remember that negotiations can't officially start until Article 50 is actually triggered (though I am sure that there have been discussions about negotiations going on since the moment the result became known).
-
I would suggest that the triggering of the Article is the 'betrothal' not the referendum. The latter is simply the people saying we want this move investigated. Remember that negotiations can't officially start until Article 50 is actually triggered (though I am sure that there have been discussions about negotiations going on since the moment the result became known).
Maybe that's right. But it doesn't stop the May government treating it as an irreversible done deal whatever transpires. Given that May was a mild remainer, you have to suspect that she see the Brexit bandwagon as a vehicle with which to rout UKIP and Labour.
-
What is there to debate?
Absolutely everything.
Brexit could mean anything from Norway to pretty well complete isolationism. Surely our sovereign and democratically elected parliament must play a major role in determining which flavour of Brexit we get. And remember parliament is meant to represent all the people, not just the 52% (or much less of the total electorate or population) who voted leave. May seems only to be interested in pandering to a narrow faction of the leave voters (hence one of her own MPs - a Brexiter - resigning yesterday) - that is not right, she must develop a plan for Brexit in the best interests of the whole population.
-
Given that May was a mild remainer, you have to suspect that she see the Brexit bandwagon as a vehicle with which to rout UKIP and Labour.
I have suspected this, too. If so, then she is making exactly the same mistake that her immediate predecessor made: putting party interests before those of the nation. Being a party creature, of course, may mean that she perceives the two interests as being the same.
-
One monster which might well rear its' head and make things even worse is the Northern Ireland question. NI voted remain....and now there are pressures on Sinn Fein to join SDLP in Westminster and ask that the devolved governments have a say in the High Court/Supreme Court ruling. I think we ignore the EU's relevence to the peace process at our peril,....because many republicans only bought into the Good Friday agreement believing they, like their countrymen south of the border, would be part of a single EU. They see a barrier (physical, strategic or political) between them as a return to british rule - and that would be unacceptable to the hotheads, no matter how deluded they are. More to the point, though, Sinn Fein has to be seen to listen to the more radical republicans, or it will lose credibility in the North - with possibly disasterous repercussions for the fragile peace process.
-
One monster which might well rear its' head and make things even worse is the Northern Ireland question. NI voted remain....and now there are pressures on Sinn Fein to join SDLP in Westminster and ask that the devolved governments have a say in the High Court/Supreme Court ruling. I think we ignore the EU's relevence to the peace process at our peril,....because many republicans only bought into the Good Friday agreement believing they, like their countrymen south of the border, would be part of a single EU. They see a barrier (physical, strategic or political) between them as a return to british rule - and that would be unacceptable to the hotheads, no matter how deluded they are. More to the point, though, Sinn Fein has to be seen to listen to the more radical republicans, or it will lose credibility in the North - with possibly disasterous repercussions for the fragile peace process.
I agree - and I also thought that a Scottish vote for independence would have had the same destabilising effect. It is quite possible that if there were another IndyRef, which was won that the fragile peace process in NI would rapidly unwind as nationalist demand that the only way to protect NI's interests are to leave the UK and join with the Republic.
-
I'm genuinely scared of the situation, Prof. I think Westminster has taken its eyes off the ball where Northern Ireland is concerned; the peace process is still fragile, and the underlying tensions have not gone away. Wheras we Scots simply moan and agitate with all the democratic force we can muster under the law, there are strands of radical republicanism which are itching to take up the struggle. Sinn Fein, like them or loathe them (and I'm not all that comfortable with them) have managed to keep the situation under some control. A Brexit which further distances the province from the republic (in their eyes, if no-one else's) would just be the last straw, I'm afraid.
-
I'm genuinely scared of the situation, Prof. I think Westminster has taken its eyes off the ball where Northern Ireland is concerned; the peace process is still fragile, and the underlying tensions have not gone away. Wheras we Scots simply moan and agitate with all the democratic force we can muster under the law, there are strands of radical republicanism which are itching to take up the struggle. Sinn Fein, like them or loathe them (and I'm not all that comfortable with them) have managed to keep the situation under some control. A Brexit which further distances the province from the republic (in their eyes, if no-one else's) would just be the last straw, I'm afraid.
Maybe NI will decide to join the south and become a united Ireland again, and no bad thing imo!
-
I'm wholly in favour of a united Ireland, floo - but the chances of persuading the more radical unionists are zero. And no sane, liberal democratic nation - as the Republic now is - would welcome a section of people who adamantly will not recognise it.
-
Maybe NI will decide to join the south and become a united Ireland again, and no bad thing imo!
I'm not sure that the issue is whether you or I think a united Ireland is a good thing. No, it is whether a resurgence of support for pushing for a united Ireland on the nationalist side would lead to a resurgence of violence. I think it would sadly.
At the moment the uneasy peace is held together by a view on the nationalist side to put the notion of fighting for a united Ireland to one side for the moment and to focus on both sides on improving the lives of those living in NI. That precious balance would be destroyed by a resurgence of a strong nationalist agenda.
-
I'm not sure that the issue is whether you or I think a united Ireland is a good thing. No, it is whether a resurgence of support for pushing for a united Ireland on the nationalist side would lead to a resurgence of violence. I think it would sadly.
At the moment the uneasy peace is held together by a view on the nationalist side to put the notion of fighting for a united Ireland to one side for the moment and to focus on both sides on improving the lives of those living in NI. That precious balance would be destroyed by a resurgence of a strong nationalist agenda.
Of course there is no excuse for violence whatsoever, however Ireland should NEVER have been divided in the first place. The British treatment of Ireland is the past has been despicable, to say the very least. I have British/Irish nationality.
-
Of course there is no excuse for violence whatsoever, however Ireland should NEVER have been divided in the first place. The British treatment of Ireland is the past has been despicable, to say the very least. I have British/Irish nationality.
I believe that many 'British Irish' (for want of a better term) would disagree with you, Floo. Whilstthe religious divide is often cited as the issue, reality shows that it is only one of a number of issues.
-
I believe that many 'British Irish' (for want of a better term) would disagree with you, Floo. Whilstthe religious divide is often cited as the issue, reality shows that it is only one of a number of issues.
Ireland was invaded by the Brits who had no business to be there in the first place.
-
That's a rather simplistic view of history, floo. 'Invasion; actually worked both ways" (Have a look at Dalriada, for example) And religion has little to do with the divide nowadays - 'loyalists' use it as a label to stick their perceived grievances on - wheras in actuality, the laws of the Republic are more liberal than those of NI - for example, on both same sex marriage and abortion.
-
This puts the cat among the pigeons, and might threaten a Tory majority - if true: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-martin-mcguinness-refuses-to-rule-out-sinn-f ein-mps-entering-westminster-to-a7397201.html
-
This puts the cat among the pigeons, and might threaten a Tory majority - if true: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-martin-mcguinness-refuses-to-rule-out-sinn-f ein-mps-entering-westminster-to-a7397201.html
There is no chance of the numbers being threatened unless the Labour Party change their position, and even then a quick election would wipe them out
-
Rubbish - the UK only signed the Lisbon treaty via an Act Parliament, in other words after it had been debated in parliament and had been passed by votes in both the commons and lords and a bill receiving royal assent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290871.stm
To give some context the bill was passed by 346 to 206 in the commons after 6 weeks of debate.
This thread isn't about that end of the process. The decision to negotiate in the Maastricht/Lisbon treaties were note carried by a vote in the Commons. Neither were the terms of those negotiations voted on in parliament. That is what this is about. Yet now that the Remoaners have lost they what this part of the deal voted on. That is wrong.
-
Also, Maastricht had to be ratified by Parliament. That was the political soap opera of the day with John Major's government in danger of being undermined by its own back benchers (Ian Duncan-Snake amongst them).
We are not talking about that end of the process, but the beginning of it which was never voted on in parliament.
-
It's all one huge game.... and we are pawns in the game..
Or a humble SweetPea!
-
Well it's the only one she'll get .....and the only one Brexiteers will get to give.
At least it will buck the three Los Wankeros up.
There's talk of an early GE. ;D
-
The referendum was a vote on a broad principle and intention; what will emerge during negotiations is a more detailed and authentic picture of what that change in future direction will mean in practice. I don't see a strong case for ending the democratic process because minds will change as new information and insights come to light. There has to be a mechanism for the will of the people to be expressed when we know the detail and we are more confident in the projections.
If that was the case why was there an official leave group? (Vote leave), if all it was was a broad principle.
There is a difference between a betrothal and a marriage. A betrothal indicates an intention but it is not binding and the space between betrothal and marriage gives the lovers time to reflect and get to know each other better and hence the opportunity for get-out if it becomes clear their original intention was unwise. This seems sensible to me
Bad analogy. People voted to leave, there was no indication of a cooling off period. Cameron said he would trigger Art 50 straight away showing that there was no intention of a period of grace.
-
I would suggest that the triggering of the Article is the 'betrothal' not the referendum. The latter is simply the people saying we want this move investigated. Remember that negotiations can't officially start until Article 50 is actually triggered (though I am sure that there have been discussions about negotiations going on since the moment the result became known).
Once Art 50 is triggered we are out in one way or another. The clock is ticking and after two years it is done; unless all sides agree to extend it but that only puts off the inevitable.
-
One monster which might well rear its' head and make things even worse is the Northern Ireland question. NI voted remain....and now there are pressures on Sinn Fein to join SDLP in Westminster and ask that the devolved governments have a say in the High Court/Supreme Court ruling. I think we ignore the EU's relevence to the peace process at our peril,....because many republicans only bought into the Good Friday agreement believing they, like their countrymen south of the border, would be part of a single EU. They see a barrier (physical, strategic or political) between them as a return to british rule - and that would be unacceptable to the hotheads, no matter how deluded they are. More to the point, though, Sinn Fein has to be seen to listen to the more radical republicans, or it will lose credibility in the North - with possibly disasterous repercussions for the fragile peace process.
NI did not vote to remain, only the UK voted.
And, yeah, lets given into violence and fear!!!
-
Maybe NI will decide to join the south and become a united Ireland again, and no bad thing imo!
Or better still the South leaves the EU and solves this infantile situation.
-
If that was the case why was there an official leave group? (Vote leave), if all it was was a broad principle.
Bad analogy. People voted to leave, there was no indication of a cooling off period. Cameron said he would trigger Art 50 straight away showing that there was no intention of a period of grace.
Cameron said that because he thought he was going to win.
..and he didn't, win or trigger.
LFP....
-
Ireland was invaded by the Brits who had no business to be there in the first place.
I thought you liked immigration, Floo? Oh I see you're two faced about it depending on the context.
-
Cameron said that because he thought he was going to win.
..and he didn't, win or trigger.
LFP....
My point wasn't about what he did or did not do but that there was no intention of a cooling off period, else he couldn't have said that.
-
NI did not vote to remain, only the UK voted.
Whilst you are correct to an extent, JK, certain areas of the UK voted to remain. For instance, some 68%(?) Scottish voters voted to remain, as did a similar number in London; a slighly smaller number (~62%) of people in Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan and Gwynedd did the same, as did 96% 0f Gibraltarians. You will appreciate that electors in those areas will expect their MPs to vote in any trigger debate to reflect that voting pattern.
-
My point wasn't about what he did or did not do but that there was no intention of a cooling off period, else he couldn't have said that.
What?
You actually believed a politician?
Come on now. Really?
-
NI did not vote to remain, only the UK voted.
And, yeah, lets given into violence and fear!!!
NI did, in fact, vote to remain, JK.
And I'd respectfully suggest that the wishes of the majority of those in the province must be addressed. Treating them as a region or ignoring the special circumstances which exist there is not only dengerous, but incredibly foolish.
-
Ooh er, missus!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-block-article-50-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access-brexit-a7400266.html
-
You will appreciate that electors in those areas will expect their MPs to vote in any trigger debate to reflect that voting pattern.
I think it's right for MPs to vote on triggering Article 50. But I don't think the government should have to disclose any plans regarding negotiations that will occur once it is triggered. It would be a bit like being at an auction and having to disclose your maximum price to all the other bidders. The other EU member states would know how far they could push the government in the negotiations. There is a need for secrecy.
-
Ooh er, missus!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-block-article-50-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access-brexit-a7400266.html
Ah, back to normal
http://tinyurl.com/hlb5w8t
-
NI did, in fact, vote to remain, JK.
And I'd respectfully suggest that the wishes of the majority of those in the province must be addressed. Treating them as a region or ignoring the special circumstances which exist there is not only dengerous, but incredibly foolish.
Jim, whilst I agree with the possible outcomes you outlined in a previous post, I also agree with JK insofar as the referendum was a UK referendum; it wasn't a Scottish/Welsh/N.Irish/English one (we saw the anger that was associated with the Scottish Indy referendum, when the rest of the UK weren't given a say). You could, for instance, argue that if more Scots had voted to remain we mightn't find ourselves in our present predicament (or N. Irish, Welsh or English, for that matter), but the constituent parts of the UK aren't independent of each other in the way Ms Sturgeon seems to what Scotland to be.
Remember that there wasn't even a 4 point difference in the result; in fact, there are more people in England who voted to remain than there are in Scotland. The very fact that - whilst the various websites dealing with the referendum give the headline percentage (51.7% - 48.3% [or whatever]) few if any of them seem to give the percentages for the various constituencies, let alone the 3 devolved nations and England.
-
Ooh er, missus!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-block-article-50-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access-brexit-a7400266.html
The problem with this story is this sentence
The opposition will join forces with Tory Remain supporters and other parties to prevent Article 50 from being triggered if this trade access is not assured, the Labour leader told the Sunday Mirror.
Article 50 is the point at which these negotiations can formally commence, so having an assurance on the access issue is not something that any Government could deliver ahead of time.
-
I can see why Labour have pulled back on this one, as it can be portrayed as rejecting the referendum. That could lead to a horrorshow for Labour, if there is a 'Brexit' election. I would think that this on May's mind now, as she could hope to annihilate Labour, as non-patriotic Remoaners. On the other hand, Starmer seems to have his head screwed on, he is surely the dauphin now? He might secretly want an election, in order to clean out Corbyn, and leave a vacancy.
-
I find it odd that he happily stood throughout the last govt, and then voted to leave but thought that the single market would stay. Why not stay on and attempt to change the policy than just resign?
Which is incidentally the same argument as for staying in the imperfect EU instead of running away.
-
The courts have no right to tell parliament what to do or how to carryout their procedures.
Who else is supposed to tell them to stop breaking the law?
-
(we saw the anger that was associated with the Scottish Indy referendum, when the rest of the UK weren't given a say).
What kind of say would that be?
-
Or May could just trigger Art.50. What could they (who ever they are) do? She has a mandate from the people.
As of now, if she did that unilaterally, she would be in contempt of court, so they could put her in prison.
-
Ooh er, missus!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-block-article-50-theresa-may-cannot-guarantee-single-market-access-brexit-a7400266.html
Dangerous for him in that, if May calls a general election now, I think Labour would lose miserably. However, I applaud his position.
-
Ah, back to normal
http://tinyurl.com/hlb5w8t
Ah, my opinion of him returns to where it was before.
-
What kind of say would that be?
A say in whether Scotland should be allowed to secede from the UK. Ironically, the referendum might have been closer if the rest of us had been given a say. I know a few English people whose attitude was "let the whining Scots fuck off if they want to". The analogous situation with respect to Brexit would have been to have a Europe wide referendum on it. I suspect the attitude of quite a lot of Europeans would have been "let the whining British fuck off if they want to".
-
What kind of say would that be?
Well, for one thing, Scottish people living outside Scotland but within the UK; then there were the millions of English, Welsh and Northern Irish who would be affected by any break-up of the Union. Note, I don't indicate whether that affect would be positive or negative - just that it would have an affect.
-
As of now, if she did that unilaterally, she would be in contempt of court, so they could put her in prison.
Not sure they could put her in prison - rather her attempt to trigger A50 would be completely invalid and would be ignored in law both here and the rest of the EU.
-
Well, for one thing, Scottish people living outside Scotland but within the UK; then there were the millions of English, Welsh and Northern Irish who would be affected by any break-up of the Union. Note, I don't indicate whether that affect would be positive or negative - just that it would have an affect.
That would go against the idea of civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic. The SNP are proud of this, quite rightly, I think, so anyone living in Scotland had a vote. If Cameron had done this for the referendum, Remain would probably have won, but it would not please the racist press.
-
A say in whether Scotland should be allowed to secede from the UK. Ironically, the referendum might have been closer if the rest of us had been given a say. I know a few English people whose attitude was "let the whining Scots fuck off if they want to".
I was just wondering if the rest of the UK voted to let the whining Scots fuck off but the Scottish result was to stay in the UK?
What then?
-
Well, for one thing, Scottish people living outside Scotland but within the UK; then there were the millions of English, Welsh and Northern Irish who would be affected by any break-up of the Union. Note, I don't indicate whether that affect would be positive or negative - just that it would have an affect.
see Reply #119
-
I can see why Labour have pulled back on this one, as it can be portrayed as rejecting the referendum. That could lead to a horrorshow for Labour, if there is a 'Brexit' election. I would think that this on May's mind now, as she could hope to annihilate Labour, as non-patriotic Remoaners. On the other hand, Starmer seems to have his head screwed on, he is surely the dauphin now? He might secretly want an election, in order to clean out Corbyn, and leave a vacancy.
Can anybody be annihilated politically for being a remoaner? After all 48% were remainers and now isn't meant to be be 51%.
It's the political cycle reset slightly by a new PM and the tories are at the part of it where they can do anything and not get voted out and labour can't do anything to get voted in.
-
Can anybody be annihilated politically for being a remoaner? After all 48% were remainers and now isn't meant to be be 51%.
It's the political cycle reset slightly by a new PM and the tories are at the part of it where they can do anything and not get voted out and labour can't do anything to get voted in.
I agree - I think there is serious political mileage in setting out your stall to oppose Brexit, and specifically to demand a second referendum on the agreed terms against the status quo.
Sure remain lost, but only by a whisker and there are 16 million remain voters looking for a party to cast their vote for now we are (apparently) all Brexiters, cos Brexit means Brexit.
To use an analogy, I don't see the SNP suffering from siding with the losing 45% on IndyRef and with a clear agenda to overturn that referendum result in the future.
-
I'm pleased to hear the BBC (Radio 4) choosing to ask Kenneth Clark for his views on what's happening now. The voice of common sense I think.
-
That would go against the idea of civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic. The SNP are proud of this, quite rightly, I think, so anyone living in Scotland had a vote. If Cameron had done this for the referendum, Remain would probably have won, but it would not please the racist press.
I'm not sure that I'd have necessarily wanted a vote - I'm British English as opposed to British Welsh, but I know a number of Scottish folk who, by dint of being married to Welsh, N. Irish and English partners and living outside Scotland were denied what they believed to be a rightful vote. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that, had the Governments in Holyrood and Westminster allowed such people to vote, it would have cost more to hold the referendum than it did (costs of checking the validity of people's eligibility to vote)?
-
I thought it was a definite policy by the SNP to oppose ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism meant that Poles and other immigrants could vote, and this tallies with the strong SNP support for immigration. Ethnic nationalism is also quite close to racism.
-
Rumours that Mrs May's legal advisors are telling her that the Appeal Court's reasoning is not just solid, but rock hard. We shall see.
-
This was the comment from 'Lawyers for Britain' about the court ruling:
When it comes to using the prerogative for “less Europe”, there are implied imitations which do not seem to exist for “more Europe”.
On 3rd November 2016 the Divisional Court handed down its judgment in R (Miller) V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin). The court has, to the surprise of most informed observers, decided that it is outside the prerogative powers of the Crown for notice to be given under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to withdraw from the European Union.
In reaching this decision, the judgment has overturned the accepted understanding about the respective power of the Crown on the international plane to accede to and withdraw from international treaties, and the powers of Parliament to alter the internal law of the United Kingdom.
The European Communities Act 1972 was a constitutional innovation for the United Kingdom. It linked international treaties directly to the internal law of the United Kingdom by giving the European Treaties and supranational legislation made under them so called “direct effect.” That means that they have force in UK internal law – and therefore alter the content of the law – without recourse to Parliament.
The judgment argues that this feature of the 1972 Act means that the Crown has no power to withdraw from the EU treaties, because doing so would have the effect of altering domestic law, which only Parliament can do.
This argument is illogical and does not hold water. There are many acts which the government can carry out on the international plane under the European treaties which have the effect of altering UK domestic law, and in doing so either confer rights on people or deprive them of rights. Whenever the UK representative on the Council of Ministers joins in passing into law a directly applicable EU Regulation then the Crown in using the prerogative power to alter internal UK law without that alteration of the law going through Parliament. This is simply a consequence of the direct effect machinery of the 1972 Act.
So why should it be OK to have “more Europe” through exercise of the prerogative power, but wrong to have “less Europe” as a result of Article 50 being invoked and the direct effect parts of EU law ceasing to apply within the UK? Nothing in the wording of the 1972 Act supports such a distinction.
There is a further reason why this decision flies in the face of the obvious intention of Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty, which inserted Article 50 into the Treaty on European Union, was given effect in UK law by the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act therefore made the Article 50 power available for use by the Crown but did not specify that its exercise would need the approval of Parliament. That Act however explicitly provides for Parliamentary control over certain prerogative acts under the EU treaties, including Article 49 on Treaty revision. But notably, the statutory scheme of Parliamentary control of prerogative power does not extend to notifications under Article 50.
There has a been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms. However, when the prerogative is used to achieve “less Europe” in order to implement the decision of the British people which an Act of Parliament empowered them to take, it is suddenly found that there are implied limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose.
We welcome the decision of the government to appeal from this judgment. We hope that the Supreme Court will apply the law in a more orthodox and logical way, allowing the government to fulfil its promise to the British people to implement their clear decision.
Martin Howe QC
Thomas Sharpe QC
Clive Thorne
Francis Hoar
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml
Interesting, the different takes....
-
I thought it was a definite policy by the SNP to oppose ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism meant that Poles and other immigrants could vote, and this tallies with the strong SNP support for immigration. Ethnic nationalism is also quite close to racism.
Surely ethnic nationalism refers to the disallowing of rights to those who are not of that ethnicity, whereas civic nationalism is simply a means by which such people are included in the whole - rather than the 'residential nationalism' that seems to have occurred in the IndyRef. After all, it could be argued that, despite not residing within the borders of the country, Scots living elsewhere in the UK would have a level of civic involvement in Scotland (as would every other British citizen) as a result of the central methods of funding of all the devolved nations.
-
This was the comment from 'Lawyers for Britain' about the court ruling:
When it comes to using the prerogative for “less Europe”, there are implied imitations which do not seem to exist for “more Europe”.
On 3rd November 2016 the Divisional Court handed down its judgment in R (Miller) V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin). The court has, to the surprise of most informed observers, decided that it is outside the prerogative powers of the Crown for notice to be given under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to withdraw from the European Union.
In reaching this decision, the judgment has overturned the accepted understanding about the respective power of the Crown on the international plane to accede to and withdraw from international treaties, and the powers of Parliament to alter the internal law of the United Kingdom.
The European Communities Act 1972 was a constitutional innovation for the United Kingdom. It linked international treaties directly to the internal law of the United Kingdom by giving the European Treaties and supranational legislation made under them so called “direct effect.” That means that they have force in UK internal law – and therefore alter the content of the law – without recourse to Parliament.
The judgment argues that this feature of the 1972 Act means that the Crown has no power to withdraw from the EU treaties, because doing so would have the effect of altering domestic law, which only Parliament can do.
This argument is illogical and does not hold water. There are many acts which the government can carry out on the international plane under the European treaties which have the effect of altering UK domestic law, and in doing so either confer rights on people or deprive them of rights. Whenever the UK representative on the Council of Ministers joins in passing into law a directly applicable EU Regulation then the Crown in using the prerogative power to alter internal UK law without that alteration of the law going through Parliament. This is simply a consequence of the direct effect machinery of the 1972 Act.
So why should it be OK to have “more Europe” through exercise of the prerogative power, but wrong to have “less Europe” as a result of Article 50 being invoked and the direct effect parts of EU law ceasing to apply within the UK? Nothing in the wording of the 1972 Act supports such a distinction.
There is a further reason why this decision flies in the face of the obvious intention of Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty, which inserted Article 50 into the Treaty on European Union, was given effect in UK law by the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act therefore made the Article 50 power available for use by the Crown but did not specify that its exercise would need the approval of Parliament. That Act however explicitly provides for Parliamentary control over certain prerogative acts under the EU treaties, including Article 49 on Treaty revision. But notably, the statutory scheme of Parliamentary control of prerogative power does not extend to notifications under Article 50.
There has a been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms. However, when the prerogative is used to achieve “less Europe” in order to implement the decision of the British people which an Act of Parliament empowered them to take, it is suddenly found that there are implied limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose.
We welcome the decision of the government to appeal from this judgment. We hope that the Supreme Court will apply the law in a more orthodox and logical way, allowing the government to fulfil its promise to the British people to implement their clear decision.
Martin Howe QC
Thomas Sharpe QC
Clive Thorne
Francis Hoar
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml
Interesting, the different takes....
Lawyers for Britain?
A respected professional legal organisation - nope.
A campaigning group for Brexit - yup.
Their opinion is irrelevant because firstly the High Court has rule and disagrees with them. And secondly no organisation that has a tag on their web-site stating that the 'Referendum is binding' when any fool knows that the referendum is legally advisory only. That an organisation that purports to be lawyers fails to know that the referendum was advisory and not binding means they should rightly be ignored.
-
Whilst you are correct to an extent, JK, certain areas of the UK voted to remain. For instance, some 68%(?) Scottish voters voted to remain, as did a similar number in London; a slighly smaller number (~62%) of people in Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan and Gwynedd did the same, as did 96% 0f Gibraltarians. You will appreciate that electors in those areas will expect their MPs to vote in any trigger debate to reflect that voting pattern.
But all that is besides the point. Only the UK voted!
-
What?
You actually believed a politician?
Come on now. Really?
Come on, really, are you that stupid?
If he had said something that was legally incorrect then this would have been pointed out with a vociferousness proportional to his error.
-
NI did, in fact, vote to remain, JK.
And I'd respectfully suggest that the wishes of the majority of those in the province must be addressed. Treating them as a region or ignoring the special circumstances which exist there is not only dengerous, but incredibly foolish.
WRONG!!!
Only the UK voted.
-
WRONG!!!
Only the UK voted.
Factually only individuals voted.
-
I think it's right for MPs to vote on triggering Article 50. But I don't think the government should have to disclose any plans regarding negotiations that will occur once it is triggered. It would be a bit like being at an auction and having to disclose your maximum price to all the other bidders. The other EU member states would know how far they could push the government in the negotiations. There is a need for secrecy.
I agree. It seems absurd that the government have to first negotiate with a load of whinging gits and sour losers first, who would make them compromise their strong position, so weakening them, and then go and negotiate with the EU and compromise further giving the British people a lousy deal. Better to just allow UKIP do the negotiations and twist the EU into binding knots.
-
Who else is supposed to tell them to stop breaking the law?
No laws have been broken.
-
As of now, if she did that unilaterally, she would be in contempt of court, so they could put her in prison.
The courts don't make the law they only implement it. She would not have broken any laws in doing that.
-
The courts don't make the law they only implement it. She would not have broken any laws in doing that.
please set out your legal argument hete
-
Not sure they could put her in prison - rather her attempt to trigger A50 would be completely invalid and would be ignored in law both here and the rest of the EU.
That's not what the EU have said.
-
I agree - I think there is serious political mileage in setting out your stall to oppose Brexit, and specifically to demand a second referendum on the agreed terms against the status quo.
Sure remain lost, but only by a whisker and there are 16 million remain voters looking for a party to cast their vote for now we are (apparently) all Brexiters, cos Brexit means Brexit.
To use an analogy, I don't see the SNP suffering from siding with the losing 45% on IndyRef and with a clear agenda to overturn that referendum result in the future.
The status quo has already been voted on and rejected. It would have to be the agreed terms or full Brexit.
-
This was the comment from 'Lawyers for Britain' about the court ruling:
When it comes to using the prerogative for “less Europe”, there are implied imitations which do not seem to exist for “more Europe”.
On 3rd November 2016 the Divisional Court handed down its judgment in R (Miller) V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin). The court has, to the surprise of most informed observers, decided that it is outside the prerogative powers of the Crown for notice to be given under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to withdraw from the European Union.
In reaching this decision, the judgment has overturned the accepted understanding about the respective power of the Crown on the international plane to accede to and withdraw from international treaties, and the powers of Parliament to alter the internal law of the United Kingdom.
The European Communities Act 1972 was a constitutional innovation for the United Kingdom. It linked international treaties directly to the internal law of the United Kingdom by giving the European Treaties and supranational legislation made under them so called “direct effect.” That means that they have force in UK internal law – and therefore alter the content of the law – without recourse to Parliament.
The judgment argues that this feature of the 1972 Act means that the Crown has no power to withdraw from the EU treaties, because doing so would have the effect of altering domestic law, which only Parliament can do.
This argument is illogical and does not hold water. There are many acts which the government can carry out on the international plane under the European treaties which have the effect of altering UK domestic law, and in doing so either confer rights on people or deprive them of rights. Whenever the UK representative on the Council of Ministers joins in passing into law a directly applicable EU Regulation then the Crown in using the prerogative power to alter internal UK law without that alteration of the law going through Parliament. This is simply a consequence of the direct effect machinery of the 1972 Act.
So why should it be OK to have “more Europe” through exercise of the prerogative power, but wrong to have “less Europe” as a result of Article 50 being invoked and the direct effect parts of EU law ceasing to apply within the UK? Nothing in the wording of the 1972 Act supports such a distinction.
There is a further reason why this decision flies in the face of the obvious intention of Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty, which inserted Article 50 into the Treaty on European Union, was given effect in UK law by the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act therefore made the Article 50 power available for use by the Crown but did not specify that its exercise would need the approval of Parliament. That Act however explicitly provides for Parliamentary control over certain prerogative acts under the EU treaties, including Article 49 on Treaty revision. But notably, the statutory scheme of Parliamentary control of prerogative power does not extend to notifications under Article 50.
There has a been a long string of attempted challenges to the use of the prerogative power to extend EEC or EU powers, all of which have been rejected by the courts, sometimes in peremptory terms. However, when the prerogative is used to achieve “less Europe” in order to implement the decision of the British people which an Act of Parliament empowered them to take, it is suddenly found that there are implied limitations on the prerogative power which prevent it being used for this purpose.
We welcome the decision of the government to appeal from this judgment. We hope that the Supreme Court will apply the law in a more orthodox and logical way, allowing the government to fulfil its promise to the British people to implement their clear decision.
Martin Howe QC
Thomas Sharpe QC
Clive Thorne
Francis Hoar
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml
Interesting, the different takes....
The judges' judgement is bollocks. Art 50 does not withdraw anything it starts a process off just as a 'more EU' does, and which didn't need parliamentary approval.
EU act 1972 has nothing to do with Art 50.
-
Personally, JK, I couldn't give a Theresa May chicken impersonation regarding what the Untied Kingdom did or did not vote for (no typo). My concern is for the people of Scotland, and our voice will not be silenced by some Westminster drivel. We are not going to sit up and beg when Westminster tells us to, and it's time that they realised that we are a nation which did not elect their government, disdain their prime minister, and have nothing but derision for their much vaunted tradition.
-
please set out your legal argument hete
You tell me which law she would have broken if she did that?
-
Personally, JK, I couldn't give a Theresa May chicken impersonation regarding what the Untied Kingdom did or did not vote for (no typo). My concern is for the people of Scotland, and our voice will not be silenced by some Westminster drivel. We are not going to sit up and beg when Westminster tells us to, and it's time that they realised that we are a nation which did not elect their government, disdain their prime minister, and have nothing but derision for their much vaunted tradition.
Stamp your feet and cry out for mummy as much as you like it won't change anything. You lot need to vote but Scotland's finances don't look to good.
-
You tell me which law she would have broken if she did that?
Shifting the burden of proof, how unusual! Your claim, you justify it.
-
Shifting the burden of proof, how unusual! Your claim, you justify it.
I can't prove a negative, i.e. there is no law except to present to you all the laws in the land. You lot claim she is breaking a law, so which one?
-
I can't prove a negative, i.e. there is no law except to present to you all the laws in the land. You lot claim she is breaking a law, so which one?
I didn't make that claim. So still unable to shift that burden!
-
Personally, JK, I couldn't give a Theresa May chicken impersonation regarding what the Untied Kingdom did or did not vote for (no typo). My concern is for the people of Scotland, and our voice will not be silenced by some Westminster drivel. We are not going to sit up and beg when Westminster tells us to, and it's time that they realised that we are a nation which did not elect their government, disdain their prime minister, and have nothing but derision for their much vaunted tradition.
But Jim, the drivel isn't only from Westminster; in fact much of it emanates from beyond Westminster. For instance, it emanantes from places like the South Wales Valleys, from Cornwall, and from parts of the North of England. Some of it even emanates from north of the border. This was a UK referendum, which has an impact on the whole of the UK. Like you, I voted to remain, as did a majority in Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan and Gwynedd, but my vote was outweighed by others in my own nation. I'm afraid that you can't pick and choose which bits of democracy you will accept and which you won't. You can choose to work to change the hearts and minds of those who voted to leave, Parliament may even have the right to vote down any negotiated exit arrangements on the grounds that it took an Act of Parliament for us to join the EEC, so it needs an Act of Parliament to cede from its successor - but all this claiming to have a concern for the people of Scotland seems a tad hollow to someone who is proud to be English, but also British and European.
-
Come on, really, are you that stupid?
If he had said something that was legally incorrect then this would have been pointed out with a vociferousness proportional to his error.
Nothing to do with legality - as you said yourself, all to do with intention
My point wasn't about what he did or did not do but that there was no intention of a cooling off period, else he couldn't have said that.
So,
.....you believed a politician?
Are you really that stupid?
-
The status quo has already been voted on and rejected. It would have to be the agreed terms or full Brexit.
The status quo has not been rejected against any particular flavour of Brexit, merely against an undeliverable poly-anna-ish view of Brexit as whatever you wish it to be.
Once there is an agreed deal (or ever no deal, i.e. WTO hard Brexit) then that actual and deliverable (rather than fantasy and undeliverable) Brexit should require a democratic mandate against the status quo. How else are you going to be sure that a majority supports the actual Brexit settlement. On a wider issue, why are you suddenly so scared of the democratic process. I thought you Brexiters were all in favour of the people deciding, which they demonstrably haven't on an actual Brexit deal.
-
The status quo has not been rejected against any particular flavour of Brexit, merely against an undeliverable poly-anna-ish view of Brexit as whatever you wish it to be.
Once there is an agreed deal (or ever no deal, i.e. WTO hard Brexit) then that actual and deliverable (rather than fantasy and undeliverable) Brexit should require a democratic mandate against the status quo. How else are you going to be sure that a majority supports the actual Brexit settlement. On a wider issue, why are you suddenly so scared of the democratic process. I thought you Brexiters were all in favour of the people deciding, which they demonstrably haven't on an actual Brexit deal.
What happens if the deal is rejected? Do they negotiate another deal and then have a referendum on that? What if the EU just say that's the deal, off you go?
Referendums only really work on a simple yes no basis. Deals aren't like that so having referendum on the specifics here just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
-
What happens if the deal is rejected? Do they negotiate another deal and then have a referendum on that? What if the EU just say that's the deal, off you go?
Referendums only really work on a simple yes no basis. Deals aren't like that so having referendum on the specifics here just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
And there in lies the fundamental flaw in the whole process.
Problem is that in 2019 - the earliest time we might actually leave - there will be no democratic mandate for the actual terms for leaving. How can we be sure that the terms on which we leave in 3 years time are actually the 'will of the people'. We are on deeply unsafe democratic ground - particularly as, unlike a general election, we won't be able simply to reverse the decision in a further 5 years if we think we've got it wrong.
-
And there in lies the fundamental flaw in the whole process.
Problem is that in 2019 - the earliest time we might actually leave - there will be no democratic mandate for the actual terms for leaving. How can we be sure that the terms on which we leave in 3 years time are actually the 'will of the people'. We are on deeply unsafe democratic ground - particularly as, unlike a general election, we won't be able simply to reverse the decision in a further 5 years if we think we've got it wrong.
I don't see an easy way of making such decisions without referendums though since elections are not single issue decisions and since we have fptp to deal with. I think the problem is much wider than just whether the referendum is valid. We need to have proper PR so that govts are not based on minority voting. For any specific constitutional changes, we should have a definition of what requires referendums, and any change from the status quo needs a minimum turnout and a voting threshold.
However, since we won't get that, and since we have had the first referendum, the idea of a second one on the deal is a non starter in terms of its feasibility.
-
I don't see an easy way of making such decisions without referendums though since elections are not single issue decisions and since we have fptp to deal with. I think the problem is much wider than just whether the referendum is valid. We need to have proper PR so that govts are not based on minority voting. For any specific constitutional changes, we should have a definition of what requires referendums, and any change from the status quo needs a minimum turnout and a voting threshold.
There is a role for referendums, but they should only happen when there are explicitly clear alternative options, either of which are deliverable.
So good examples are the FPTP vs AV voting referendum - each was a clear option and the government was able to deliver either one. Likewise the London mayor, the creation of Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly. In every case all the discussion on detail had happened in advance and the final agreed and deliverable options were put to the people in a referendum.
The two unsafe examples are the IndyRef, where there was massive uncertainty over what independence would look like, so no clear option and also the Scottish government had no power to deliver some of its stated aspirations, e.g. using the £, remaining in the EU etc. Likewise the EU referendum where the nature of Breixt was (and remains) completely unclear plus again the stated aspirations (e.g. control of immigration, getting trade deals, being in single market etc) are not under the control of the UK government.
In those circumstances (and I said this on the IndyRef as well as the EU ref) you should have a two stage approach with 2 referendums. First a referendum to give a mandate to negotiate an agreement (e.g. on what independence would be like, or an agreed Brexit settlement between the UK and the EU), with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. Then a second (and it could be binding) referendum where that clear and deliverable deal is put to the electorate in a referendum against the status quo. Only in that way can you be sure that there is a mandate for the actual deal on Independence or Brexit.
However, since we won't get that, and since we have had the first referendum, the idea of a second one on the deal is a non starter in terms of its feasibility.
See above - the idea of a second referendum is not a non starter - and certainly if the economic situation deteriorates and public opinion swings against as people begin to realise that the kind of Brexit on offer isn't the kind they envisaged, or wanted, then I think there may be a serious clamour for a second (possible binding) referendum on the agreed deal in, let's say 2019.
If the public haven't changed their mind then there is nothing lost and the deal is securely mandated. If the public have changed their mind how can it be safe to proceed with the most monumental decision the UK has faced for decades against public opinion.
-
No, the idea of the two referendums is a non starter both politically and practically. Politically because any second referendum would be seen as making the first clear decision void on the basis of a technicality. Practically because it just locks you into a possible permanent state of negotiation.
-
No, the idea of the two referendums is a non starter both politically and practically. Politically because any second referendum would be seen as making the first clear decision void on the basis of a technicality.
You may be correct that it won't happen in practice but it certainly isn't a non starter.
And a democratic mandate is only valid until or unless a more recent mandate over-rules it. This is completely accepted democratically - the 2020 general election won't make the 2015 general election void - nope it will provide a more recent and therefore more relevant mandate.
And given that the recent referendum was advisory it would be perfectly reasonably and both constitutionally/democratically sound for the government to say 'thanks electorate, we have heard your advise and we will now negotiate an agreed Brexit deal. We will come back to you once that is sorted to obtain a democratic mandate on its implementation'. What's the problem with that. If in 2019 the public decide they don't like the actual Brexit deal and would prefer to remain, do you really think it would be safe democratically to leave when the public didn't support. To my mind a mandate some 3 years earlier on a vague notion of what Brexit might be (spun to include all the nice bits but non of the nasty bits) isn't safe as a mandate for an actual and deliverable deal at the point when it will be delivered.
For crying out load we often allow a 14 day 'cooling off' period on all sorts of deals, even when the exact terms and conditions are clearly stated at the point the deal is taken out.
I suspect this has a long long way to run - 3 years is a long time in politics and I wouldn't want to predict what the public mood will be in 2019.
-
But the two votes you are proposing are, as you know, about different things. Someone could vote for Brexit in the first and against the deal in the second but still be in favour of Brexit. So a vote against the deal would not be a vote against Brexit, it would be a vote for a different deal, and it's not clear that any such thing could happen.
-
But the two votes you are proposing are, as you know, about different things. Someone could vote for Brexit in the first and against the deal in the second but still be in favour of Brexit. So a vote against the deal would not be a vote against Brexit, it would be a vote for a different deal, and it's not clear that any such thing could happen.
Of course there might be people who voted for Brexit in theory (for example someone who's red line is maintaining single market) but vote against an actual Breixt deal that has hard Brexit. Likewise, our own JK might not support a Norway style Brexit as that isn't what he thinks Brexit should be. And there may be remainers who would be comfortable with a Norway style deal but voted remain as there was the possibility of hard Brexit.
Why is that a problem - if it means we get a mandate for the actual deal then surely that is the safest democratic approach. Currently we seem to be heading down a hard Brexit route and I'm struggling to see how there is any democratic mandate for that whatsoever, given that the 48% clearly wouldn't support and of the 52% are you really suggesting that less than 2% wanted soft Brexit.
-
It's a problem because you are equating voting on the specific with the voting on the general. It also means that you think that the 48% stay remain, no matter what. I would suggest that there could well be a fair amount of people voting for a deal, if it included a Norway style deal, who would have voted Remain in order to get the thing out of the way.
I'm not suggesting % either way on what people wanted. I also don't see what motivation there would be for the EU to take part in a long process of negotiation if at the end of it, you were to suggest it was all pointless.
-
Someone could vote for Brexit in the first and against the deal in the second but still be in favour of Brexit.
Indeed, and here is an analogy.
We had a referendum (a binding one with 2 clear and deliverable options) offering for general elections to remain conducted via first past the post or by alternative voting. There were plenty of people who don't like FPTP, yet voted for it because they found it preferable to the alternative on offer, AV, although their preference might have been a more pure proportional representation. But PR wasn't on the ballot paper.
So had their been an equivalent 'vague' referendum to the EU one - in other words asking whether we wanted to retain FPTP or to stop using FPTP those against FPTP would be a broad church, potentially supporting a range of alternative voting approaches, but of course you can only have one. So there would have been plenty of people who would have voted against FPTP (when there wasn't a clearly defined alternative on offer) but once that alternative is offered, AV vs FPTP would prefer FPTP.
-
Which gets you nowhere in taking their vote against tyge deal to be a vote in favour of remain.
-
Not entirely sure this is worth the candle, suspect it is in order to be seen to be doing something.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299
-
Which gets you nowhere in taking their vote against tyge deal to be a vote in favour of remain.
I never said it was - but currently we don't know, hence the need (in my view) to ask at the point where we have 2 clear and deliverable options on the table, which wasn't the case last June.
Why is that such a problem. Brexit will be holed below the waterline if in 2019 it becomes apparent that there is no majority in favour of the particular flavour of Brexit on offer. And anyhow there will be a more recent (albeit not specific) mandate in 2020 when the next general election takes place. So there could, quite plausibly, be a victory for a coalition of Labour (post Corbyn), LibDems and SNP all fighting the remain corner. It would be very easy for them to dismiss and roll back a vote on non specifics (i.e. no actual Brexit deal) in a vote some 4 years earlier, given they'd have the most recent mandate. Much harder to see off a more recent (2019) vote on an actual deal.
But the key point remains - this is the most important thing to happen to the UK in years, surely we should get it right and be certain there is a majority in favour for the actual deal. Why is that so hard for you to accept.
-
It's a problem because you are equating voting on the specific with the voting on the general.
But that's one of the huge problems with the EU referendum - to offered the specific on one side (remaining in the EU) with the general on the other, not remaining in the EU but with no clarity on what that meant.
It also means that you think that the 48% stay remain, no matter what. I would suggest that there could well be a fair amount of people voting for a deal, if it included a Norway style deal, who would have voted Remain in order to get the thing out of the way.
No I didn't - I clear said that there may be remainers who might vote for Norway style Brexit, but voted remain for fear of hard Brexit.
But unless you actually look for a mandate on the agreed deal you will never know whether there actually is majority public support for the actually Brexit we will be offered.
I'm not suggesting % either way on what people wanted. I also don't see what motivation there would be for the EU to take part in a long process of negotiation if at the end of it, you were to suggest it was all pointless.
The EU has done this plenty of times before, albeit without the stakes being so high. Why not this time - I suspect that the EU would actually be more minded to engage constructively in negotiations if there was a possibility that the UK might choose at the end of the day to remain.
-
I never said it was - but currently we don't know, hence the need (in my view) to ask at the point where we have 2 clear and deliverable options on the table, which wasn't the case last June.
Why is that such a problem. Brexit will be holed below the waterline if in 2019 it becomes apparent that there is no majority in favour of the particular flavour of Brexit on offer. And anyhow there will be a more recent (albeit not specific) mandate in 2020 when the next general election takes place. So there could, quite plausibly, be a victory for a coalition of Labour (post Corbyn), LibDems and SNP all fighting the remain corner. It would be very easy for them to dismiss and roll back a vote on non specifics (i.e. no actual Brexit deal) in a vote some 4 years earlier, given they'd have the most recent mandate. Much harder to see off a more recent (2019) vote on an actual deal.
But the key point remains - this is the most important thing to happen to the UK in years, surely we should get it right and be certain there is a majority in favour for the actual deal. Why is that so hard for you to accept.
Because I don't think it is politically practical. Any attempt to do this will look like a refusal to accept the vote - which is fine for some parties, SNP and Lib Dems, though even there there will be issues, particularly for the SNP. But more importantly, the current UK govt are committed to doing this now. The only way to get a referendum would be to defeat them now, and then a quick general election and you are looking at 5 years for the Tories to run with it with a much bigger majority.
-
Because I don't think it is politically practical. Any attempt to do this will look like a refusal to accept the vote
More democracy is always better - or is that only the case unless there is a chance that the people mightn't agree with you.
It isn't really a hard sell to say to people they will be given the final say on an actual deal. Even make it a binding referendum, as was the case in FPTP vs AV.
And it won't be not accepting the vote, because the vote will have triggered negotiations and an actual proposed Brexit deal (none of which would have happened had their been a remain vote in June) - all that would be being asked is to be confident that leaving the EU is firstly the clear and settled view of the UK people and secondly that the real Brexit deal (rather than a whole raft of hypothetical and often conflicting and unachievable deals as was the case in June) actually has the support of the people.
Why are you all of a sudden so against democracy NS?
- which is fine for some parties, SNP and Lib Dems, though even there there will be issues, particularly for the SNP. But more importantly, the current UK govt are committed to doing this now. The only way to get a referendum would be to defeat them now, and then a quick general election and you are looking at 5 years for the Tories to run with it with a much bigger majority.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next general election (even if held in May 2020) occurs before the point at which we actually leave the EU. Therefore that general election will become fundamentally on the actual Brexit deal, rather than Brexit in a theoretical sense.
I suspect even if A50 is triggered in the Spring that 2 years will not be enough time to sort out the huge, huge range of issues and it is certainly not in the UKs interests to be forced into a tight timetable because that will only diminish what can be achieved. A50 allows for extensions and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the UK clamouring for an extension, given that otherwise we'd to thrown to the wolves on the least favourable WTO terms.
-
Looks like our First Minister is to get more involved in the legal aspects.
I hope that via democratic means she can put a spanner in the works, since that she is able to do so would surely be further confirmation that Brexit as it stands is an utter shambles, where those responsible for implementing it are exposed as clueless if they didn't plan for the outcome of possible legal interventions.
If nothing else perhaps it will encourage someone to come up with a plan of sorts: at the minute the plan seems to be to say 'Brexit means Brexit' repeatedly and hope that nobody ever gets to know what is actually involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299
-
More democracy is always better - or is that only the case unless there is a chance that the people mightn't agree with you.
It isn't really a hard sell to say to people they will be given the final say on an actual deal. Even make it a binding referendum, as was the case in FPTP vs AV.
And it won't be not accepting the vote, because the vote will have triggered negotiations and an actual proposed Brexit deal (none of which would have happened had their been a remain vote in June) - all that would be being asked is to be confident that leaving the EU is firstly the clear and settled view of the UK people and secondly that the real Brexit deal (rather than a whole raft of hypothetical and often conflicting and unachievable deals as was the case in June) actually has the support of the people.
Why are you all of a sudden so against democracy NS?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next general election (even if held in May 2020) occurs before the point at which we actually leave the EU. Therefore that general election will become fundamentally on the actual Brexit deal, rather than Brexit in a theoretical sense.
I suspect even if A50 is triggered in the Spring that 2 years will not be enough time to sort out the huge, huge range of issues and it is certainly not in the UKs interests to be forced into a tight timetable because that will only diminish what can be achieved. A50 allows for extensions and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the UK clamouring for an extension, given that otherwise we'd to thrown to the wolves on the least favourable WTO terms.
Who says thinking about what is practical in political terns is being against democracy? Or that I'm trying to stop a vote because it wouldn't be in favour of what I wanted? You need to stop with the strawman personal comments on topics like this. I voted Remain, I campaigned for Remain.
That you would like a second referendum is fine but it doesn't deal with the practicalities here.
-
That you would like a second referendum is fine but it doesn't deal with the practicalities here.
I'm sorry I fail to see what the practicalities I am not dealing with are. Sure I understand that politically this is currently unlikely, but that is different to practicalities. There is no practical block to a referendum in say 2019 or even 2020 which deals with a related, but distinct question to the one in 2016 (i.e. a real deal rather than a hypothetical Brexit) and also is different in that it is binding rather than advisory.
And even on the politics, even if the Tories are in power they might realise that a second referendum may be practically essential and politically smart. Certainly if the courts rule that parliament must be involved at the key steps, May might prefer the belt and braces of a final binding referendum on an agreed deal compared to the possibility that parliament might vote down what it perceives to be a poor deal on the table in 2019, particularly if the economy is in poor shape and public opinion has moved decisively against Brexit.
-
I'm sorry I fail to see what the practicalities I am not dealing with are. Sure I understand that political this is currently unlikely, but that is different to practicalities. There is no practical block with a referendum in say 2019 or even 2020 which deals with a related, but distinct question to the one in 2016 and also is different in that it is binding rather than advisory.
And even on the politics, even if the Tories are in power they might realise that a second referendum may be practically essential and politically smart. Certainly if the courts rule that parliament must be involved at the key steps, May might prefer the belt and braces of a final binding referendum on an agreed deal compared to the possibility that parliament might vote down what it perceives to be a poor deal on the table in 2019, particularly if the economy is in poor shape and public opinion has moved decisively against Brexit.
the politics are the practicalities here. That's what makes a second referendum unlikely. The reason Brexit won is because people feel adrift from the political process. The idea of a second referendum which was not part of the manifesto will increase that. The Tories would split if such a thing were to be become likely.
-
Who says thinking about what is practical in political terns is being against democracy? Or that I'm trying to stop a vote because it wouldn't be in favour of what I wanted? You need to stop with the strawman personal comments on topics like this. I voted Remain, I campaigned for Remain.
Point taken, although this doesn't address why a second referendum is impractical as you seem to think it to be.
-
Article underlining the issues on trade deals
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/11/07/india-shows-the-ultimate-failure-of-the-brexit-project
-
Nothing to do with legality - as you said yourself, all to do with intention
So,
.....you believed a politician?
Are you really that stupid?
Mine is an argument of logic not a position of belief.
-
The status quo has not been rejected against any particular flavour of Brexit, merely against an undeliverable poly-anna-ish view of Brexit as whatever you wish it to be.
Once there is an agreed deal (or ever no deal, i.e. WTO hard Brexit) then that actual and deliverable (rather than fantasy and undeliverable) Brexit should require a democratic mandate against the status quo. How else are you going to be sure that a majority supports the actual Brexit settlement. On a wider issue, why are you suddenly so scared of the democratic process. I thought you Brexiters were all in favour of the people deciding, which they demonstrably haven't on an actual Brexit deal.
Quit obviously you can't read yet. What did it say on the ballot paper? You may need to ask someone this. Then make a note that is was rejected, that people voted to leave.
-
And there in lies the fundamental flaw in the whole process.
Problem is that in 2019 - the earliest time we might actually leave - there will be no democratic mandate for the actual terms for leaving. How can we be sure that the terms on which we leave in 3 years time are actually the 'will of the people'. We are on deeply unsafe democratic ground - particularly as, unlike a general election, we won't be able simply to reverse the decision in a further 5 years if we think we've got it wrong.
After 2 years that's it, regardless, unless everyone agrees to carry on.
-
No laws have been broken.
They would have been if they had carried on without referring to Parliament.
And, by the way, your claim was a general one. Somebody independent of the government needs to be the arbiter of what the government is allowed to do within the British legal framework. We can't have the government be above the law.
-
That's not what the EU have said.
I can't believe you had the nerve to write that. You think the EU should have more right to decide what is lawful in Britain than the British courts.
-
They would have been if they had carried on without referring to Parliament.
Specify the law that would have been broken.
-
Specify the law that would have been broken.
The ''Don't let the guys who crashed the car drive it to the Scrapyard'' law?
-
Which gets you nowhere in taking their vote against tyge deal to be a vote in favour of remain.
This all assumes that a referendum has to be a binary choice. The referendum that we have just had didn't even need to have just one question. Likewise, any referendum to validate the negotiated deal that we will hopefully have need not be structured as a simple yes/no. It could ask
- Do you wish to accept the negotiated Brexit deal? Yes/No
- If the deal is rejected, would you prefer:
- Brexit on WTO terms
- Stay in the EU
The questions may not necessarily be exactly that, but the straight yes/no idea is bunk.
By the way, I would rather not have another referendum, but that we let Parliament do the job it was created for.
-
Specify the law that would have been broken.
The constitutional right of Parliament to make and repeal primary legislation. You know, the same right that you misguidedly thought the EU was infringing.
-
This all assumes that a referendum has to be a binary choice. The referendum that we have just had didn't even need to have just one question. Likewise, any referendum to validate the negotiated deal that we will hopefully have need not be structured as a simple yes/no. It could ask
- Do you wish to accept the negotiated Brexit deal? Yes/No
- If the deal is rejected, would you prefer:
- Brexit on WTO terms
- Stay in the EU
The questions may not necessarily be exactly that, but the straight yes/no idea is bunk.
By the way, I would rather not have another referendum, but that we let Parliament do the job it was created for.
Conceptually this might work though I think that the phrasing of the options or indeed deciding what they are would be an issue. More problematically, I don't think that we have the political structure to deal with this
-
Conceptually this might work though I think that the phrasing of the options or indeed deciding what they are would be an issue.
We would sort something out. It's the kind of thing that the ONS does all the time - making questions that are unbiased and not leading.
More problematically, I don't think that we have the political structure to deal with this
What on Earth do you mean by that? If we have the political structure to deal with a yes/no referendum (in view of the current mess, maybe we don't), we surely have the political structure to deal with a better constructed referendum.
-
The constitutional right of Parliament to make and repeal primary legislation. You know, the same right that you misguidedly thought the EU was infringing.
Firstly this wasn't done for the negotiation of the treaties. Secondly, the government has a mandate from the people who trump parliament. And thirdly, no laws are needed to be made, here.
-
After 2 years that's it, regardless, unless everyone agrees to carry on.
Correct, and it is in the interests of both sides to extend if required.
Clearly the UK will be desperate to extend if not deal has been reached as otherwise they are staring into the abyss. But the EU will too, not because of trade, which I think isn't as big a deal to them as some on the Brexit side claim. No it will be because there are national of EU member states living here and those states will want to protect their interests which wouldn't be the case if the UK left prior to a deal being finalised.
So all in all I think it most likely that there won't be a deal in 2 years (remember all 27 member states must agree) and that the negotiation period will be extended.
-
We would sort something out. It's the kind of thing that the ONS does all the time - making questions that are unbiased and not leading.
What on Earth do you mean by that? If we have the political structure to deal with a yes/no referendum (in view of the current mess, maybe we don't), we surely have the political structure to deal with a better constructed referendum.
it's not a question of leading questions, the choice of questions are political decisions about what the possible options are, and I'm not clear that the second part in your example can be phrased in a binary fashion.
Yes/no questions are easy to structure and get support on. Even with that we had multiple campaigns arguing different takes, god knows how a multiple question referendum would fair.
Anyhoo this has virtually nothing to do with it being the political realities that stops the referendum from feasibility
-
Firstly this wasn't done for the negotiation of the treaties.
All the treaties were ratified by Parliament.
Secondly, the government has a mandate from the people who trump parliament.
No they don't. Britain has a representative democracy. The will of the people is exercised through their elected representatives in parliament.
In any case, I haven't heard a single MP say they are going to stop Brexit, only try to influence its terms. Even Nick Clegg only went as far as saying he would attempt to mandate a soft Brexit, not no Brexit.
And thirdly, no laws are needed to be made, here.
The court disagrees with you. Since you know absolutely fuck all about how this country is run, I'll take their decision over yours unless the supreme court overrides them.
-
it's not a question of leading questions, the choice of questions are political decisions about what the possible options are, and I'm not clear that the second part in your example can be phrased in a binary fashion.
As things stand, I don't see that there are any other options. I could have added a third option: carry on negotiating, but that would require the EU to cooperate (as would staying in to an extent, but we are more likely to get that cooperation).
Yes/no questions are easy to structure and get support on. Even with that we had multiple campaigns arguing different takes, god knows how a multiple question referendum would fair.
I'm sorry, but if the British public is too stupid to cope with more than two options on a question, it strikes me it can't possibly be qualified to understand the issues in any referendum.
What's the problem with multiple campaigns? We survive them at general election time.
Anyhoo this has virtually nothing to do with it being the political realities that stops the referendum from feasibility
What are these political realities?
-
Secondly, the government has a mandate from the people who trump parliament.
Wrong - the people elect parliament and parliament then decides who is in government and during that parliamentary term parliament 'trumps' the people, in that they may act without direct reference to the electorate. Of course when the parliamentary term comes to an end they are beholden to the people once more, who may kick them out if they don't like what they did in the previous 5 years.
And both the people and parliament/government are beholden to the law. Parliament can change the law, but it isn't above the law in as much as it cannot act unlawfully.
-
As things stand, I don't see that there are any other options. I could have added a third option: carry on negotiating, but that would require the EU to cooperate (as would staying in to an extent, but we are more likely to get that cooperation).
I'm sorry, but if the British public is too stupid to cope with more than two options on a question, it strikes me it can't possibly be qualified to understand the issues in any referendum.
What's the problem with multiple campaigns? We survive them at general election time.
What are these political realities?
That the Tories cannot offer a second referendum without splitting the party, that any early election will have a walkover for the Tories.
-
That the Tories cannot offer a second referendum without splitting the party, that any early election will have a walkover for the Tories.
The party is already split - don't forget that the majority of Tory MPs supported remain. And new we are seeing splits in their leave block, the clearest evidence being last week's resignation.
The Tories are now split three ways; remain, sold Brexit and hard Brexit. Ultimately May may conclude that getting the electorate to make the final decision, rather than her and her government might just be the smartest way to prevent her party terminally tearing itself apart. She can then transfer the blame for doing something that two thirds of her party don't want onto others (the people) rather than herself.
-
The party is already split - don't forget that the majority of Tory MPs supported remain. And new we are seeing splits in their leave block, the clearest evidence being last week's resignation.
The Tories are now split three ways; remain, sold Brexit and hard Brexit. Ultimately May may conclude that getting the electorate to make the final decision, rather than her and her government might just be the smartest way to prevent her party terminally tearing itself apart. She can then transfer the blame for doing something that two thirds of her party don't want onto others (the people) rather than herself.
Actual party splits are different from disagreements.
-
Actual party splits are different from disagreements.
Indeed and splits are the sort of thing that makes an MP resign from parliament, resulting in a by-election - just as we saw last week.
If the Tories really do go for hard Brexit I think we see further resignations as hard Brexit is completely anathema to a certain type of Tory, which is rather well represented in parliament, although perhaps less so in the membership.
-
Wrong - the people elect parliament and parliament then decides who is in government and during that parliamentary term parliament 'trumps' the people, in that they may act without direct reference to the electorate. Of course when the parliamentary term comes to an end they are beholden to the people once more, who may kick them out if they don't like what they did in the previous 5 years.
And both the people and parliament/government are beholden to the law. Parliament can change the law, but it isn't above the law in as much as it cannot act unlawfully.
PD, as I read JK's posts leading up to the one you quote, I get the feeling that he is referring specifically to the mandate that the government may or may not have been given by the public in the referendum. It can be argued - and has been by a number of folk - that in passing the legislation that initiated the referendum, Parliament returned the primacy from themselves to the public.
Now, I'm not sure that it as clean cut as that, simply because there was no instruction in that legislation as to the nature (binding or advisory) of the referendum. As a result, I understand that the law is somewhat over a barrel as both arguments can legitimately be made.
-
It can be argued - and has been by a number of folk - that in passing the legislation that initiated the referendum, Parliament returned the primacy from themselves to the public.
Then that would be in error. Parliament enacted the referendum as advisory only, thereby retaining their primacy. They didn't have to - they could have made the referendum binding, as was the case for the AV vs FPTP referendum. They chose not to and therefore primacy remains with parliament.
This is the actual wording on the official parliamentary briefing paper on the bill on the subject:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.'
-
Indeed and splits are the sort of thing that makes an MP resign from parliament, resulting in a by-election - just as we saw last week.
If the Tories really do go for hard Brexit I think we see further resignations as hard Brexit is completely anathema to a certain type of Tory, which is rather well represented in parliament, although perhaps less so in the membership.
No, one MP resigning isn't a split either. A real split in the Tories would need a number of senior Tories to be willing to out the Tory govt at risk. History indicates this won"t happen. Tories are the racer snakes of politics.
-
No, one MP resigning isn't a split either. A real split in the Tories would need a number of senior Tories to be willing to out the Tory govt at risk. History indicates this won"t happen. Tories are the racer snakes of politics.
When was the last time an MP completely resigned over irreconcilable differences with his or her party. Not just flounced out with the view of returning in a contrived by-election (e.g. Goldsmith, Carswell, Davis).
-
No, one MP resigning isn't a split either. A real split in the Tories would need a number of senior Tories to be willing to out the Tory govt at risk. History indicates this won"t happen.
The Tories were far and away the most split party throughout the referendum campaign - sure there were a couple of odd-ball Labourites for Brexit, but by and large they were pro-remain. The Lib-Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid completely for remain, and UKIP for Leave. The Tories were split right down the middle, and still are - just because the referendum is over doesn't mean that the divisions are healed - they aren't, by a long, long way.
-
When was the last time an MP completely resigned over irreconcilable differences with his or her party. Not just flounced out with the view of returning in a contrived by-election (e.g. Goldsmith, Carswell, Davis).
and? It's not a split. It's someone people have never heard of and will at best be a quiz question in the next few years about 'what's his face'.
-
and? It's not a split. It's someone people have never heard of and will at best be a quiz question in the next few years about 'what's his face'.
So you think the complete schism during the campaign is now somehow miraculously healed do you? Don't be daft. There may currently be a bit of an uneasy truce, but it won't last as negotiation aspiration becomes clearer and things get tougher. The pro-remain Cameroons haven't gone away - they are biding their time and boy do they hold a grudge.
-
So you think the complete schism during the campaign is now somehow miraculously healed do you? Don't be daft. There may currently be a bit of an uneasy truce, but it won't last as negotiation aspiration becomes clearer and things get tougher. The pro-remain Cameroons haven't gone away - they are biding their time and boy do they hold a grudge.
You do struggle not to personalise this, don't you. You get awfully emotional. This schism has been there for the last forty years. They still end up pulling together because it's about power. Individuals may resign but the Tory party likes power and is good at it.
-
You do struggle not to personalise this, don't you. You get awfully emotional. This schism has been there for the last forty years. They still end up pulling together because it's about power. Individuals may resign but the Tory party likes power and is good at it.
Nope not personal at all - merely challenging your unsubstantiated assertions ... which you have clearly now refuted yourself by confirming that the Tories remain torn asunder on this issue.
What is new now is that the two way split of the first half of 2016 (Brexit vs Remain) has now split further into three, with the Brexit factions now schisming into hard vs soft Brexit. We are just beginning to see the division, most notably demonstrated between those that belief the current immigration controls are too restrictive (in other words the economy should be as free to take non EU workers as EU ones) and those that believe that immigration must be restricted and isn't controlled enough. It is a debate age old within the Tories (and in other places within right wing politics), between free market liberalisation versus good old fashioned isolationism.
The Tories believed the referendum would lance the boil, but actually it has spawned yet more boils, and sadly we are all losers in their family squabble.
-
Nope not personal at all - merely challenging your unsubstantiated assertions ... which you have clearly now refuted yourself by confirming that the Tories remain torn asunder on this issue.
What is new now is that the two way split of the first half of 2016 (Brexit vs Remain) has now split further into three, with the Brexit factions now schisming into hard vs soft Brexit. We are just beginning to see the division, most notably demonstrated between those that belief the current immigration controls are too restrictive (in other words the economy should be as free to take non EU workers as EU ones) and those that believe that immigration must be restricted and isn't controlled enough. It is a debate age old within the Tories (and in other places within right wing politics), between free market liberalisation versus good old fashioned isolationism.
The Tories believed the referendum would lance the boil, but actually it has spawned yet more boils, and sadly we are all losers in their family squabble.
see boldened bit, and yet they don't split.
-
see boldened bit, and yet they don't split.
Split is a broader term than the narrow - a party splits to create two parties (in the manner of the SDP) that you seem to assume I am implying. A party can be fundamentally split internally - the Tories are now, and not just in two, but in three ideologically on the EU. Other parties may be just as split on other grounds, but none is more split on the EU.
And I suspect strongly that this will result in more splits (in your terms) soon. We have already seen splits off from the hard right end (Carswell) and last week's split from the soft Brexit faction. There will be more. The problem for May is that she can now only appease one of three factions, so all the time there will be two factions against her. Even Major only had two factions to deal with.
-
Split is a broader term than the narrow - a party splits to create two parties (in the manner of the SDP) that you seem to assume I am implying. A party can be fundamentally split internally - the Tories are now, and not just in two, but in three ideologically on the EU. Other parties may be just as split on other grounds, but none is more split on the EU.
And I suspect strongly that this will result in more splits (in your terms) soon. We have already seen splits off from the hard right end (Carswell) and last week's split from the soft Brexit faction. There will be more. The problem for May is that she can now only appease one of three factions, so all the time there will be two factions against her. Even Major only had two factions to deal with.
internal splits are irrelevant to whether there will be a second referendum. A second referendum would produce an external split, so not going to hapoen
-
internal splits are irrelevant to whether there will be a second referendum. A second referendum would produce an external split, so not going to hapoen
So internal splits didn't lead to the first referendum - hmm, I think history demonstrates it did. The whole reason we ended up voting in a referendum on an issue that typically rated in the single digits of most important issues in the longstanding MORI survey of key issues was critically because the Tories were fundamentally split on the issue. Cameron played a short term game - lancing his internal party boil by promising a referendum, fulling believing he wouldn't win an overall majority and therefore could quietly drop it in coalition.
Given that a previous PM saw a referendum as a way to manage internal splits, there is a strong argument that May may do the same. And the challenge is more acute that previously where you only had half the party against you. Whatever May does she is likely to have two thirds of the party against her. I don't envy her challenge.
She also has a problem on a general election - we've had loads of press over Corbyn and deselection of MPs. But what of the Tories - should they look to deselect the two thirds who aren't of her view on Brexit. Actually pretty well impossible as the Tory party gives greater power to individual constituency parties than does Labour. And if she ends up after a general election (early or otherwise) with a bunch of emboldened MPs, with mandates more recent than the referendum, but who don't agree with her negotiating strategy ... well heaven help her.
-
So internal splits didn't lead to the first referendum - hmm, I think history demonstrates it did. The whole reason we ended up voting in a referendum on an issue that typically rated in the single digits of most important issues in the longstanding MORI survey of key issues was critically because the Tories were fundamentally split on the issue. Cameron played a short term game - lancing his internal party boil by promising a referendum, fulling believing he wouldn't win an overall majority and therefore could quietly drop it in coalition.
Given that a previous PM saw a referendum as a way to manage internal splits, there is a strong argument that May may do the same. And the challenge is more acute that previously where you only had half the party against you. Whatever May does she is likely to have two thirds of the party against her. I don't envy her challenge.
She also has a problem on a general election - we've had loads of press over Corbyn and deselection of MPs. But what of the Tories - should they look to deselect the two thirds who aren't of her view on Brexit. Actually pretty well impossible as the Tory party gives greater power to individual constituency parties than does Labour. And if she ends up after a general election (early or otherwise) with a bunch of emboldened MPs, with mandates more recent than the referendum, but who don't agree with her negotiating strategy ... well heaven help her.
who is in govt?
-
who is in govt?
Who was elected as PM last year ... and where is he now?
-
Who was elected as PM last year ... and where is he now?
and which party is in Govt, and ahead in the opinion polls? The reason why the Tories do well is they have forgotten about Cameron and are still in power and doing well
Go back to 1990, And then think 1992
-
and which party is in Govt, and ahead in the opinion polls? The reason why the Tories do well is they have forgotten about Cameron and are still in power and doing well
Go back to 1990, And then think 1992
The discussion was about whether the Tories were split, not their polling. And their split has already claimed the scalp of the PM voted in just last year.
On your issue vs 1990 and 1992 - in part you are correct, but in other aspect wrong. Major had no option to have a general election in 1992, May is 'safe' until 2020 - indeed she actually has a problem with being able to call an early election. So you are right that Major won in 1992 (he had no choice) - would he have won in 1994, which would be the equivalent date in relation to May attaining PM. Hmm - I think we know the answer. Things can change pretty quickly in politics.
-
The discussion was about whether the Tories were split, not their polling. And their split has already claimed the scalp of the PM voted in just last year.
On your issue vs 1990 and 1992 - in part you are correct, but in other aspect wrong. Major had no option to have a general election in 1992, May is 'safe' until 2020 - indeed she actually has a problem with being able to call an early election. So you are right that Major won in 1992 (at his choice) - would he have won in 1994, which would be the equivalent date in relation to May attaining PM. Hmm - I think we know the answer. Things can change pretty quickly in politics.
no, the discussion is about what the Tories will do and how it works with the electorate. They are ruthless. The point about 1990 and 1992 is that getting rid of a leader is easy for them.
-
no, the discussion is about what the Tories will do and how it works with the electorate. They are ruthless. The point about 1990 and 1992 is that getting rid of a leader is easy for them.
So you are suggesting that May will be knifed in due course? Well I guess that rather proves my point.
You and I are up too late, and probably focussing more on events on the other side of the pond. Let's focus on that drama, shall we rather than a rather sterile dialogue on Brexit.
-
So you are suggesting that May will be knifed in due course? Well I guess that rather proves my point.
You and I are up too late, and probably focussing more on events on the other side of the pond. Let's focus on that drama, shall we rather than a rather sterile dialogue on Brexit.
Happy with that tonight. Take care
-
Happy with that tonight. Take care
And to you.
-
A second referendum would produce an external split, so not going to hapoen
You are assuming that the political landscape in two years time will be the same as it is now. Two years of unremitting bad news about Brexit could change everything.
-
You are assuming that the political landscape in two years time will be the same as it is now. Two years of unremitting bad news about Brexit could change everything.
Indeed - and the big news today isn't going to help as the US turns inward, isolationist and protectionist.
-
Indeed - and the big news today isn't going to help as the US turns inward, isolationist and protectionist.
And wait until next year, when Marine Le Pen becomes president of France ....
-
no, the discussion is about what the Tories will do and how it works with the electorate. They are ruthless. The point about 1990 and 1992 is that getting rid of a leader is easy for them.
Actually when you think about it the last 3 former Tory PMs were all brought down by splits over Europe.
Cameron had to promise a referendum to keep the Eurosceptic faction quiet - he lost, he went.
Major - sure he was eventually kicked out in a general election, but he was a lame duck for years prior to 1997 due to the splits in his party over Europe - remember him resigning and seeking re-election, and remember his comment about Eurosceptics in his cabinet as bastards.
And of course Thatcher - although the external perception was about the poll tax the key internal reason she was knifed was over Europe and the knifer in chief being Geoffrey Howe - remember his killer comment over her attitude to europe - "It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find the moment that the first balls are bowled that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain."
Who is to say that the Tory splits over europe won't claim a 4th PM scalp in May. I think she will find it impossible to reconcile and satisfy the three wings, pro-EU, hard Brexit and soft Brexit and whatever she does she will have two factions gunning for her - at least Cameron, Major and Thatcher had the somewhat simpler task of managing just two factions.
-
Again, the EU is falling apart so much of this is by the way, and in two years time things could be radically different making our leaving easier.
-
And wait until next year, when Marine Le Pen becomes president of France ....
Hopefully.
-
Why not go the whole hog, and bring in fascism? That would deal with immigrants, trade deals, trade unions, wages, and so on.
-
Again, the EU is falling apart so much of this is by the way, and in two years time things could be radically different making our leaving easier.
Possibly - alternatively UK Brexit and Trump may give pause for thought elsewhere in the EU with a redoubling to the project. Don't forget that affection for and engagement with the EU has always been much stronger in virtually all other EU countries compared to the UK.
Also in globally uncertain times there is a tendency to stick with what you know and to unite. If the US goes all protectionist under Trump I think it is less likely that other EU countries would jump into the unknown on trade by leaving the EU.
-
Hopefully.
I think the US election result will give them hope and the people of France that change is possible.
-
Why not go the whole hog, and bring in fascism? That would deal with immigrants, trade deals, trade unions, wages, and so on.
We have fascists, it's called the EU, and it hasn't worked.
-
I think the US election result will give them hope and the people of France that change is possible.
what vote do you hope for in France?
-
We have fascists, it's called the EU, and it hasn't worked.
is this a game where we can just redefine words? We have cheese, it's called Gareth Southgate.
-
what vote do you hope for in France?
Le Pen
-
is this a game where we can just redefine words? We have cheese, it's called Gareth Southgate.
No it is where people need to open their eyes and see the truth of the situation.
-
Le Pen
mmm there we are then, we have cheese, it's called Gareth Southgate
-
mmm there we are then, we have cheese, it's called Gareth Southgate
One thing is cheese is your odd reply. Do explain, NS.
-
One thing is cheese is your odd reply. Do explain, NS.
you define stuff, your way.
-
you define stuff, your way.
All I said was 'Le Pen'.....? ???
-
We have fascists, it's called the EU, and it hasn't worked.
You're defining the EU as fascist? OK, thanks for the chat.
-
If the US goes all protectionist under Trump I think it is less likely that other EU countries would jump into the unknown on trade by leaving the EU.
It would also be bad for any attempted trade deal the Brexiters promised we were going to make.
-
We have fascists, it's called the EU, and it hasn't worked.
Please give details of the traits of the EU that makes it fascist.
Actually, first it would be good if you could demonstrate that you know what "fascist" means.
-
All I said was 'Le Pen'.....? ???
You want the cheese, just pointing it out
-
Please give details of the traits of the EU that makes it fascist.
Actually, first it would be good if you could demonstrate that you know what "fascist" means.
The extreme left and extreme right are basically the same and they are about central control; the ruling of some chosen elites, of some sort. That is the concentration of all power in one place, with no voice from the people; or at least as little as they can give away before they have full power.
-
The extreme left and extreme right are basically the same and they are about central control; the ruling of some chosen elites, of some sort.
Fascists are usually considered to be on the extreme right. Why are you bringing the extreme left into it? Is it because you think the EU is left leaning and you want to justify your erroneous use of the term "fascist"?
That is the concentration of all power in one place, with no voice from the people; or at least as little as they can give away before they have full power.
The EU is nothing like that. The power resides with the sovereign governments of the member states.
-
That is the concentration of all power in one place, with no voice from the people
That is the absolute opposite of the EU.
The basic principles of the EU firstly rest power within the sovereign states - hence the requirement for EU member states individually to approve most matters. Secondly an underlying principle (one largely misunderstood in our overly centralised UK) is subsidiarity - in other words that all decisions should be taken at the most local level appropriate.
The UK is way more centralised than the EU, with our Westminster government meddling in all sorts of matters that would better be dealt with at a much more local level. So as an example my local school is effectively controlled directly from the DfE in Westminster as it is an academy. Once upon a time it was responsible to a local education authority which was locally accountable, but not any more.
-
Nigel being Nigel - isn't sexual assault funny?
http://tinyurl.com/zatw9ru
-
Fascists are usually considered to be on the extreme right. Why are you bringing the extreme left into it? Is it because you think the EU is left leaning and you want to justify your erroneous use of the term "fascist"?
Can't you read? I said they are basically the same, as I explained! This is like trying to explain to the permanently baffled!!!
The EU is nothing like that. The power resides with the sovereign governments of the member states.
I knew you would come out with this bland rhetoric. Ignore what is going on and look into their hearts and wishes of what they truly want - ever closer union; all the power concentrated in Brussels i.e. fascists, soviet style socialists, call it what you will. This is their end goal, absolute power for their absolute corruption.
-
Can't you read? I said they are basically the same,
Can't you read? I was saying your comment and bullshit are basically the same.
The EU is in no way far left or far right.
I knew you would come out with this bland rhetoric.
The truth is often less exciting than people like you want t admit.
Ignore what is going on and look into their hearts
Ask yourself "who is they?" and you'll understand why everything you have said is bollocks.
"They" are the heads of governments of the EU. It is the EU governments that set policy not officials in Brussels.
And what is wrong with ever closer union anyway? It's not as if the governments we elect are any good at running our own affairs.
-
Can't you read? I was saying your comment and bullshit are basically the same.
The EU is in no way far left or far right.
The truth is often less exciting than people like you want t admit.
Ask yourself "who is they?" and you'll understand why everything you have said is bollocks.
"They" are the heads of governments of the EU. It is the EU governments that set policy not officials in Brussels.
And what is wrong with ever closer union anyway? It's not as if the governments we elect are any good at running our own affairs.
You are redefining what I said so creating a straw man.
There are two things you can't do and that's prove a negative and debate rationally with a deluded idiot who has lost touch with reality.
-
There are two things you can't do and that's prove a negative and debate rationally with a deluded idiot who has lost touch with reality.
At last a cut and paste to use to reply to all of your posts! :D
-
You are redefining what I said so creating a straw man.
Nope. You claimed the EU was fascist and then said some vague nonsense about the far left being the same as the far right without showing that the EU was either.
There are two things you can't do and that's prove a negative
I'm not trying to prove a negative, I'm trying to get you to prove (by which I mean show evidence for) a positive claim, namely hat the EU is fascist.
and debate rationally with a deluded idiot who has lost touch with reality.
No you are right I can't, but I'm having fun trying.
-
At last a cut and paste to use to reply to all of your posts! :D
Except proper attention should be paid to the pronouns lest it could be read as your opponent being the "you".
-
Item on 'Today' this morning: A woman was pointing out that out of the EU will mean that nowhere near enough checks will be made to ensure that baby milk formulae are safe. I just hope Brexiters realise that there are going to be many hundreds if not thousands of such problems which will need the energy and commitment of such people as the woman mentioned, to avoid such dangers.
-
:D
Except proper attention should be paid to the pronouns lest it could be read as your opponent being the "you".
-
What is the govt trying to achieve here? Do they know?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/i-feel-truly-ashamed-keith-burnett-theresa-mays-trade-mission-india
-
What is the govt trying to achieve here? Do they know?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/i-feel-truly-ashamed-keith-burnett-theresa-mays-trade-mission-india
I don't know but I would like to see where he gets the 14 billion a year figure from.
-
I'm not trying to prove a negative, I'm trying to get you to prove (by which I mean show evidence for) a positive claim, namely hat the EU is fascist.
It was a general comment.
No you are right I can't, but I'm having fun trying.
Yes, you're very trying!
-
What is the govt trying to achieve here? Do they know?
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/i-feel-truly-ashamed-keith-burnett-theresa-mays-trade-mission-india
Basically it is about show and making friends etc., and where they want to take Britain i.e. future trade deals and so on. Only minor stuff will actually come from this visit.
-
Basically it is about show and making friends etc., and where they want to take Britain i.e. future trade deals and so on. Only minor stuff will actually come from this visit.
and it would appear that they missed the 'making friends' part wring and puffed up(lied) about the scale of achievement
-
and it would appear that they missed the 'making friends' part wring and puffed up(lied) about the scale of achievement
That's politics for you. All puffed up with whisking spin.
-
That's politics for you. All puffed up with whisking spin.
just a pity that they failed on the making friends part
-
Nice wee comment "Orange is the new black" From "The Wee Ginger Dug", courtesy of "The National" newspaper. http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-its-a-grave-new-world-for-the-us-and-for-us.24682
-
just a pity that they failed on the making friends part
I get the feeling that May thinks she has the clout and presence of Thatcher. This will be her undoing as she reaches for the sun like Icarus.
-
I get the feeling that May thinks she has the clout and presence of Thatcher. This will be her undoing as she reaches for the sun like Icarus.
Thatcher the neo con you mean?
-
Thatcher the neo con you mean?
She followed Reagan, so yeah. But possibly neo-neo-con.
-
She followed Reagan, so yeah. But possibly neo-neo-con.
can you print a little chart of these neo and neo neo cons, and neo libs and possibly neo old neo libs and people's front of neo old con libs?
-
can you print a little chart of these neo and neo neo cons, and neo libs and possibly neo old neo libs and people's front of neo old con libs?
The chart gets too complicated, one has to take it on faith that it all makes sense.
-
I don't know but I would like to see where he gets the 14 billion a year figure from.
I presume he means all international students not just from India. Since he is the vice chancellor of a major university I assume that his figure is likely to be accurate - after all, THES is not the kind of publication which would allow him to get away with a largely incorrect figure.
-
I don't know but I would like to see where he gets the 14 billion a year figure from.
It's believable. There are about 440 thousand foreign students in the UK. Fourteen billion means they each contribute around £30k. That would include their fees, stuff they buy, stuff the people who are paid through their fees buy and so on.
-
She followed Reagan, so yeah. But possibly neo-neo-con.
No she didn't. She gained power in 1979, Reagan gained power in 1981.
-
I don't know but I would like to see where he gets the 14 billion a year figure from.
http://tinyurl.com/hc63ku3
-
I presume he means all international students not just from India. Since he is the vice chancellor of a major university I assume that his figure is likely to be accurate - after all, THES is not the kind of publication which would allow him to get away with a largely incorrect figure.
That makes sense then if its not just Indian students. My bad!
-
I so hope this isn't true. The last thing we need is this to be screwed up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
-
No she didn't. She gained power in 1979, Reagan gained power in 1981.
That's besides the point. The academic idea of neo-liberalism had been around for some years before either were elected into power.
-
That's besides the point. The academic idea of neo-liberalism had been around for some years before either were elected into power.
No it isn't. The point was that you said Thatcher followed Reagan when it isn't true.
-
I so hope this isn't true. The last thing we need is this to be screwed up.
Which bit? It's a racing certainty that there are differences between cabinet members on how best to handle Brexit. That doesn't mean they won't settle on a course and it doesn't mean they will screw it up.
Actually, it will be screwed up, at least in part, it's far too complex a problem to get it completely right.
It's interesting that nobody mentioned how much it was going to cost to leave the EU in purely bureaucratic terms. Maybe they can take it out of the £350 million /sarcasm.
-
No it isn't. The point was that you said Thatcher followed Reagan when it isn't true.
Yes it is!!!
-
Which bit? It's a racing certainty that there are differences between cabinet members on how best to handle Brexit. That doesn't mean they won't settle on a course and it doesn't mean they will screw it up.
Actually, it will be screwed up, at least in part, it's far too complex a problem to get it completely right.
It's interesting that nobody mentioned how much it was going to cost to leave the EU in purely bureaucratic terms. Maybe they can take it out of the £350 million /sarcasm.
The bureaucratic costs are in the short term, the £350 million/week is for life!!! So screw that up your mile high, non-reality, arse.
-
the £350 million/week is for life!!!
the £350 million/week is a lie!!!
There you go - fixed it for you.
-
the £350 million/week is a lie!!!
There you go - fixed it for you.
Doesn't matter what the actual sum is IT IS FOR LIFE!!!!!!!
-
Doesn't matter what the actual sum is IT IS FOR LIFE!!!!!!!
£2.79 per week FOR LIFE.
-
£2.79 per week FOR LIFE.
How sad you had to type that out!!! Did it make you feel better?
-
How sad you had to type that out!!! Did it make you feel better?
Enormously. The sad fact that you had to respond to it- did that make you feel better?
-
The bureaucratic costs are in the short term, the £350 million/week is for life!!! So screw that up your mile high, non-reality, arse.
The £350 million per week was lie.
-
Enormously. The sad fact that you had to respond to it- did that make you feel better?
How sad you had to type that out!!! Did it make you feel better?
-
The £350 million per week was lie.
That comment has already been made. Do keep up!!! I know you live in your own little world but you must try to engage in the real world.
-
How sad you had to type that out!!! Did it make you feel better?
Do you feel any better for typing that?
-
Do you feel any better for typing that?
Blah, blah, blah get a life.
-
Blah, blah, blah get a life.
How sad you had type that out. Did it make you feel better?
-
That comment has already been made.
But you still haven't conceded its truth even though your beloved Nigel admitted it the next day.
-
Negotiations are going well (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/16/european-ministers-boris-johnson-prosecco-claim-brexit?CMP=soc_567). We seem to have accidentally put an albino baboon in charge of foreign policy.
-
Negotiations are going well (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/16/european-ministers-boris-johnson-prosecco-claim-brexit?CMP=soc_567). We seem to have accidentally put an albino baboon in charge of foreign policy.
Have you got autocorrect on? Does your version change "buffoon" like my one does?
-
Have you got autocorrect on? Does your version change "buffoon" like my one does?
No, baboon was intentional.
-
No, baboon was intentional.
Oh, mine changes it to 'Boris Johnson '.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/23/news/economy/uk-autumn-statement-budget-brexit/index.html
*******
The Brexit black hole is starting to take shape.
The U.K. will be forced to borrow an extra £58.7 billion ($72.6 billion) over the next five years because of an economic slowdown triggered by its vote to leave the European Union, according to the Office of Budget Responsibility.
The independent government agency said that growth will slump to just 1.4% next year, down from 2.2% predicted in March. That would be the weakest growth since 2009, according to IMF data.
*******
-
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/23/news/economy/uk-autumn-statement-budget-brexit/index.html
*******
The Brexit black hole is starting to take shape.
The U.K. will be forced to borrow an extra £58.7 billion ($72.6 billion) over the next five years because of an economic slowdown triggered by its vote to leave the European Union, according to the Office of Budget Responsibility.
The independent government agency said that growth will slump to just 1.4% next year, down from 2.2% predicted in March. That would be the weakest growth since 2009, according to IMF data.
*******
Yes, it's looking pretty grim, but the Brexiters will never admit that they screwed us over.
-
Angela, Theresa, Nicola.....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/30/eu-negotiators-outrank-uk-ministers-in-brexit-power-list
-
Brexit means... ????!?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942
-
So we are going to pay to have access to something in the future that we pay to have access to now.
And down the rabbit hole we go.
-
Brexit means... ????!?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942
FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o ::)
-
So we are going to pay to have access to something in the future that we pay to have access to now.
And down the rabbit hole we go.
Who knows? Perhaps it will be Schrödinger's Brexit.
-
Presumably, it means that the government has focused on no foreigners as the bottom line for their Brexit deal. They might accept the single market, and presumably they are being pressured to do this by business and the City, but definitely no nasty Poles and French people. Well, I don't know, but neither does anybody else.
Also, there may be exemptions for some areas such as agriculture, so that E. Europeans can still be employed for those nasty 6am shifts.
-
More information from a journalist friend: you can be in the single market, but leave the customs union, and therefore do trade deals with anybody. Also, you are out of CAP and Fisheries. I think there is a problem with the court (ECJ), but this seems confused. Any advance on this? Rather similar to Flexcit (Richard North), that is, a gradual Brexit, which is flexible.
-
Sadly all too credible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-38180748
-
Presumably, it means that the government has focused on no foreigners as the bottom line for their Brexit deal.
I doubt that very much. Remember the government are tories and the tories are in thrall to business and the markets. And those people willing be telling them that loss of the ability to recruit in a flexible labour market, effectively to access low skilled workers when brits won't do the job, and high skilled workers where there is a shortage of brits with appropriate skills is essential.
We tend to forget the half of immigration is from non EU countries, often half way around the world. That migration has been completely under the control of the UK government for ever - yet they haven't clamped down on nurses from the Philipeans or Nigerian doctors or cleaners from Ghana. Why, because the labour force market requires them. And so it will continue after brexit, no doubt with some sop to try to make it look like they are tougher.
-
Well, I agree really. My original post did mention exemptions and so on. It will be a nominal control of immigration, because in fact, nobody does control it, since labour shortages can develop very quickly. Also, probably without immigration, the economy would sink.
-
More information from a journalist friend: you can be in the single market, but leave the customs union, and therefore do trade deals with anybody. Also, you are out of CAP and Fisheries. I think there is a problem with the court (ECJ), but this seems confused. Any advance on this? Rather similar to Flexcit (Richard North), that is, a gradual Brexit, which is flexible.
Your journalist friend is talking out of his or her bottom. What we can and can't do is entirely contingent on what the other 27 states in the EU are prepared to give us. If free movement of labour is non negotiable, there is nothing we can pay them that will give us access to the single market (except free movement of labour).
-
I doubt that very much. Remember the government are tories and the tories are in thrall to business and the markets. And those people willing be telling them that loss of the ability to recruit in a flexible labour market, effectively to access low skilled workers when brits won't do the job, and high skilled workers where there is a shortage of brits with appropriate skills is essential.
We tend to forget the half of immigration is from non EU countries, often half way around the world. That migration has been completely under the control of the UK government for ever - yet they haven't clamped down on nurses from the Philipeans or Nigerian doctors or cleaners from Ghana. Why, because the labour force market requires them. And so it will continue after brexit, no doubt with some sop to try to make it look like they are tougher.
Bingo.
I have been saying this since before the vote. The government could reduce immigration by 50% today at a stroke and yet chooses not to. Apart from the rabid Brexiteers, there is no political will to do anything about immigration. It's good for business and it's good for government finances.
-
Bingo.
I have been saying this since before the vote. The government could reduce immigration by 50% today at a stroke and yet chooses not to. Apart from the rabid Brexiteers, there is no political will to do anything about immigration. It's good for business and it's good for government finances.
It has been this way for quite sometime - at least since Blunkett was Home Secretary ... but note that whatever the level of immigration allowed it does not stop successive PMs and the Home office from blaming migrants for all our ills and thus stoking anti-immigrant and anti EU feeling.
-
Your journalist friend is talking out of his or her bottom. What we can and can't do is entirely contingent on what the other 27 states in the EU are prepared to give us. If free movement of labour is non negotiable, there is nothing we can pay them that will give us access to the single market (except free movement of labour).
It's your bottom that is talking for you here. We can say no thanks and be like the US and be totally free of the EU claws.
-
Bingo.
I have been saying this since before the vote. The government could reduce immigration by 50% today at a stroke and yet chooses not to. Apart from the rabid Brexiteers, there is no political will to do anything about immigration. It's good for business and it's good for government finances.
But that would cut off the skilled workers we need. What the EU gives us much of the time are the scum and vagabonds of East Europe!!!
-
It has been this way for quite sometime - at least since Blunkett was Home Secretary ... but note that whatever the level of immigration allowed it does not stop successive PMs and the Home office from blaming migrants for all our ills and thus stoking anti-immigrant and anti EU feeling.
This is because all our political elites are in admiration of the Neo-Liberal project; globalization, the financial system etc.
-
Looks like hard brexit off the cards since there are developing electoral dangers for the Conservatives.
Recent report on BBC by John Curtice on an electoral alliance against tories and UKIP sees labour as gaining most, liberal democrats second, and greens third.
-
It has been this way for quite sometime - at least since Blunkett was Home Secretary ... but note that whatever the level of immigration allowed it does not stop successive PMs and the Home office from blaming migrants for all our ills and thus stoking anti-immigrant and anti EU feeling.
I don't think I've ever heard a PM or home secretary blame immigrants for our ills. The ones guilty of stoking up anti-immigrant feeling are the right wing media like the Daily Mail.
-
It's your bottom that is talking for you here. We can say no thanks and be like the US and be totally free of the EU claws.
What are you foaming at the mouth about now? Of course we can tell the EU no thanks. What we can't do (and what my post was about if you'd bothered to take a minute away from rabid hatred of our neighbours to read) is buy entry into the single market - or at least we can, but free movement of labour will be part of the price.
-
But that would cut off the skilled workers we need. What the EU gives us much of the time are the scum and vagabonds of East Europe!!!
So you finally reveal your naked xenophobia.
There's no reason to suppose that EU immigrants are any worse than immigrants from elsewhere. You just hate the Europeans because they are better than you.
-
But that would cut off the skilled workers we need. What the EU gives us much of the time are the scum and vagabonds of East Europe!!!
You are a nasty piece of work you really are! >:(
-
What are you foaming at the mouth about now? Of course we can tell the EU no thanks. What we can't do (and what my post was about if you'd bothered to take a minute away from rabid hatred of our neighbours to read) is buy entry into the single market - or at least we can, but free movement of labour will be part of the price.
So are you saying that the US, China etc. have no access or entry, as you put it, to the single market? Come on, Jeremy, get a grip on reality!!!
-
So you finally reveal your naked xenophobia.
There's no reason to suppose that EU immigrants are any worse than immigrants from elsewhere. You just hate the Europeans because they are better than you.
It is all about our control of who comes and who doesn't depending on our needs. Having a load of dirty pig farmers swarming here because they have free access due to the stupidity of EU rules doesn't help us at all.
-
You are a nasty piece of work you really are! >:(
And you're easily baited.
-
Just for clarification here, is it the pigs who are dirty or the farmers?
-
Just for clarification here, is it the pigs who are dirty or the farmers?
It's a reference to their general life style and attitudes. This is why when they come here they are quite happy to live 10 in a two up two down house, and as such they can then be paid next to nothing to work causing the fall in wages and cutting off our own people from getting the jobs - because they aren't slobs who are willing to live like 'pigs'.
-
It's a reference to their general life style and attitudes. This is why when they come here they are quite happy to live 10 in a two up two down house, and as such they can then be paid next to nothing to work causing the fall in wages and cutting off our own people from getting the jobs - because they aren't slobs who are willing to live like 'pigs'.
Who is causing the fall in wages?
The employers paying them or the workers accepting them?
-
That makes me laugh. I grew up on a rough council estate, all white people then, and believe me, some of them did live like pigs. In fact, eventually, they knocked it down, as nobody could figure out a way of refurbishing it, as the white people would immediately wreck it. Talk about a projection.
-
It's a reference to their general life style and attitudes. This is why when they come here they are quite happy to live 10 in a two up two down house, and as such they can then be paid next to nothing to work causing the fall in wages and cutting off our own people from getting the jobs - because they aren't slobs who are willing to live like 'pigs'.
What a nasty sweeping generalisation, but the sort one would expect from you! >:(
-
Who is causing the fall in wages?
The employers paying them or the workers accepting them?
Market forces. Simple economics that a child could understand.
-
That makes me laugh. I grew up on a rough council estate, all white people then, and believe me, some of them did live like pigs. In fact, eventually, they knocked it down, as nobody could figure out a way of refurbishing it, as the white people would immediately wreck it. Talk about a projection.
No doubt your younger years were destructive and there are types like that of white British decent but that doesn't mean we need to import even more of them who have none of our cultural background. Those types that are British are therefore our responsibility and concern, and to that fact to our shame as a nation.
-
What a nasty sweeping generalisation, but the sort one would expect from you! >:(
It was a reference to the unskilled, and generally low skilled lot, from areas like Eastern Europe. You just keep on taking the bait don't you.
-
Market forces. Simple economics that a child could understand.
Are you against market forces?
-
Are you against market forces?
Not when they are rigged.
-
Not when they are rigged.
You are not against them when they are rigged? :-\
-
And next in the ongoing series Brexit means wtf exactly?
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the-brexit-lie
-
This clears it all up!!!!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-call-for-red-white-and-blue-brexit-sparks-ridicule-a3413656.html
-
This clears it all up!!!!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-call-for-red-white-and-blue-brexit-sparks-ridicule-a3413656.html
Red, White and Blue, in other words the colours of the French flag, on the basis that it will be the French (who according to the photographed handwritten 'cake and eat it' memo will be driving the negotiations) who will be calling the shots and ensuring that the deal is the very best possible ... for the EU.
-
You are not against them when they are rigged? :-\
That should have been 'only'.
-
This clears it all up!!!!
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-mays-call-for-red-white-and-blue-brexit-sparks-ridicule-a3413656.html
Time for a GE.
-
Time for a GE.
please god/dog/Dawkins , No!!!
-
please god/dog/Dawkins , No!!!
Why not?
-
Why not?
because I'm electioned and referendummed out. We had in two years ,a GE, a Scottish Parliament election this year, a Scottish referendum two years ago, and the European referendum this year. Sort it out!
-
Yeah but, it is being sorted out. We now know it's a red, white and blue Brexit. Surely, this marks a significant intellectual, political and moral step forward.
-
I am struggling to follow the arguments about Scotland and N. Ireland, which seem to be (partly) that Brexit will alter the 'competences' of both countries. In relation to N. Ireland, the Good Friday agreement is bound up with the republic, which is in the EU, and of course, many people in N. Ireland are also Irish citizens. On Scotland, still struggling to catch up, but partly the question as to whether Westminster can dictate to Holyrood, and how much consent is required. Bloody hell, no wonder they get paid fifty grand a day, or whatever, (barristers).
Many rave reviews about Lord Bannick, but I missed TV film of him, reputed to be the best orator of his generation. So, £60, 000 a day, maybe?
-
because I'm electioned and referendummed out. We had in two years ,a GE, a Scottish Parliament election this year, a Scottish referendum two years ago, and the European referendum this year. Sort it out!
We've only had a GE and a referendum in that time and I'm still thirsty!!!
-
Dear Wigs,
We are the soundbite generation, Red, White and Blue Brexit, soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, Brexit means Brexit!
Tory smoke and mirrors, what is wrong with May Just coming out and saying, look folks we are in uncharted territory, but then, that is honesty, Tories don't do honesty.
Gonnagle.
-
We've only had a GE and a referendum in that time and I'm still thirsty!!!
Well I'm not. Just let the dust settle and let things work themselves out for better or worse. I suspect worse if certain mindsets prevail but hey ho.
The economic self emasculation begins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646
-
Dear Wigs,
We are the soundbite generation, Red, White and Blue Brexit, soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, Brexit means Brexit!
Tory smoke and mirrors, what is wrong with May Just coming out and saying, look folks we are in uncharted territory, but then, that is honesty, Tories don't do honesty.
Gonnagle.
Well, May is really looking after the Tory party, isn't she? She is trying to hold them together, but then I suppose Cameron was with his ***** referendum.
-
Dear Wigs,
Yes! And that is all she is doing, looking after her beloved Tory party, Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns, oh sorry! She is also visiting her pals in Saudi, so that's nice! Next port of call, dinner with that very nice chap Mr Trump!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Trent,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646
Well known fact, sailors knew when the ship was in trouble when the rats started leaving.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
Yes! And that is all she is doing, looking after her beloved Tory party, Nero fiddling whilst Rome burns, oh sorry! She is also visiting her pals in Saudi, so that's nice! Next port of call, dinner with that very nice chap Mr Trump!
Gonnagle.
Well, keep squeezing the poor and the disabled, and help the rich get richer, and everything will be OK in Toryland.
-
I am struggling to follow the arguments about Scotland and N. Ireland, which seem to be (partly) that Brexit will alter the 'competences' of both countries. In relation to N. Ireland, the Good Friday agreement is bound up with the republic, which is in the EU, and of course, many people in N. Ireland are also Irish citizens. On Scotland, still struggling to catch up, but partly the question as to whether Westminster can dictate to Holyrood, and how much consent is required. Bloody hell, no wonder they get paid fifty grand a day, or whatever, (barristers).
Many rave reviews about Lord Bannick, but I missed TV film of him, reputed to be the best orator of his generation. So, £60, 000 a day, maybe?
Keep struggling!
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1375141-act-of-union-forbids-uk-government-from-starting-brexit/?utm_content=buffer4a4b1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
Well, keep squeezing the poor and the disabled, and help the rich get richer, and everything will be OK in Toryland.
here here!
-
Keep struggling!
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1375141-act-of-union-forbids-uk-government-from-starting-brexit/?utm_content=buffer4a4b1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Cheers, Jim. I suspect that the Supremes will say that this is a convention not a law, and can therefore be ignored.
-
Dear Wigs,
We are the soundbite generation, Red, White and Blue Brexit, soft Brexit, Hard Brexit, Brexit means Brexit!
Tory smoke and mirrors, what is wrong with May Just coming out and saying, look folks we are in uncharted territory, but then, that is honesty, Tories don't do honesty.
Gonnagle.
All politicians are dishonest, especially if they are in power or want your vote.
-
Well I'm not. Just let the dust settle and let things work themselves out for better or worse. I suspect worse if certain mindsets prevail but hey ho.
The economic self emasculation begins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646
I reckon we are going to have an early GE because the Remoaners are causing so much trouble that they will ask the government to do something that they will refuse to do: reveal what their negotiation plans are in too much detail. This will be attached to the triggering of Art50; though I'm not sure how binding the motion they have just voted on is, I don't think very much. There will be a vote of no confidence in the government which could then lead to an early GE.
-
All politicians are dishonest, especially if they are in power or want your vote.
What an appalling generalisation. I have know a few MPs personally (of more than one party) plus a fair number of local politicians - county and district councillors.
While I might not have agreed with all on their political views in every case they were exceptionally hard working and were genuinely motivated by wanting to make a difference to people. I have never seen any dishonesty - I thought some were wrong-headed for sure at times - but dishonest, nope.
JK - do you actually personally know any politicians, e.g. MPs, MEPs, local councillors?
-
I reckon we are going to have an early GE because the Remoaners are causing so much trouble that they will ask the government to do something that they will refuse to do: reveal what their negotiation plans are in too much detail. This will be attached to the triggering of Art50; though I'm not sure how binding the motion they have just voted on is, I don't think very much. There will be a vote of no confidence in the government which could then lead to an early GE.
The only way there can be an early general election if if the government votes in favour of a vote of no confidence in itself (which would be the bizarrest of situations). Alternatively it would need to repeal the fixed term parliament act, which could be thwarted by a few MPs concerned about their majorities voting against.
-
All politicians are dishonest, especially if they are in power or want your vote.
That would include politicians like Trump and Farage then?
-
We are the soundbite generation
Yes you are.
-
What an appalling generalisation. I have know a few MPs personally (of more than one party) plus a fair number of local politicians - county and district councillors.
While I might not have agreed with all on their political views in every case they were exceptionally hard working and were genuinely motivated by wanting to make a difference to people. I have never seen any dishonesty - I thought some were wrong-headed for sure at times - but dishonest, nope.
JK - do you actually personally know any politicians, e.g. MPs, MEPs, local councillors?
All you have to do is view history to see that it is true in many cases, especially those at the top.
-
The only way there can be an early general election if if the government votes in favour of a vote of no confidence in itself (which would be the bizarrest of situations). Alternatively it would need to repeal the fixed term parliament act, which could be thwarted by a few MPs concerned about their majorities voting against.
Not really. If the government can't get its way and is being blocked they have at present, I think, a 42% polling and Labour have 25%. It would pay them to go to the country, who 17 million voted for Brexit and ask them for their support to carryout their Brexit plan. For most of the PLP, who hate Corbyn, they could get a GE in before the reselections are carried out and then use the thrashing Labour will get to oust Corbyn out and start to rebuild.
-
All you have to do is view history to see that it is true in many cases, especially those at the top.
I disagree that it is true in many cases, I would however agree that it is true in a very small minority of cases - certainly in the UK.
I note that you have failed to answer my question, so I will ask it again:
JK - do you actually personally know any politicians, e.g. MPs, MEPs, local councillors?
-
That would include politicians like Trump and Farage then?
Farage isn't a politician he is a single issue movement campaigner. That's why he is pretty much glad to be free of UKIP - though he will carry on with the anti-EU campaign where ever it is needed. Trump isn't a politician he is a business man just using the political arena for his own playground.
-
Not really. If the government can't get its way and is being blocked they have at present, I think, a 42% polling and Labour have 25%. It would pay them to go to the country, who 17 million voted for Brexit and ask them for their support to carryout their Brexit plan. For most of the PLP, who hate Corbyn, they could get a GE in before the reselections are carried out and then use the thrashing Labour will get to oust Corbyn out and start to rebuild.
I don't think you understand - a few years ago the coalition government brought in the Fixed Term Parliament Act - this prevents a Prime Minister from 'going to the country' early.
The only away for this to happen is for the government to lose a vote of no confidence, but unless the opposition table one, this would effectively require May to trigger a vote of no confidence in herself and then get her own MPs to vote that they have no confidence in the government.
The only other alternative would be for the FTPA to be repealed, but that would require something to be put in its place, and that won't happen quickly.
I agree that were May to be able to 'go to the country' she'd likely (although who can predict in this topsy turvy current world) win an increased majority, but the point is she can't, or certainly can't easily in the manner in which PMs used to simply call an early general election.
-
I disagree that it is true in many cases, I would however agree that it is true in a very small minority of cases - certainly in the UK.
I note that you have failed to answer my question, so I will ask it again:
JK - do you actually personally know any politicians, e.g. MPs, MEPs, local councillors?
That is a non sequitur. I have heard politicians talk for many, many years hearing them say things they know are lies but they have to say them because of the requirement of following the party line.
-
I don't think you understand - a few years ago the coalition government brought in the Fixed Term Parliament Act - this prevents a Prime Minister from 'going to the country' early.
The only away for this to happen is for the government to lose a vote of no confidence, but unless the opposition table one, this would effectively require May to trigger a vote of no confidence in herself and then get her own MPs to vote that they have no confidence in the government.
The only other alternative would be for the FTPA to be repealed, but that would require something to be put in its place, and that won't happen quickly.
I agree that were May to be able to 'go to the country' she'd likely (although who can predict in this topsy turvy current world) win an increased majority, but the point is she can't, or certainly can't easily in the manner in which PMs used to simply call an early general election.
I know all about the FTPA.
You forget about Tim Farron, and the SNP. Just a selection of nutters who could trigger a vote of no confidence out of hubris. The LibDems have much to gain from an early GE as they would hope to gain many seats from a pro-EU stance, considering they would be coming from a low base that has decimate them.
-
I know all about the FTPA.
You forget about Tim Farron, and the SNP. Just a selection of nutters who could trigger a vote of no confidence out of hubris. The LibDems have much to gain from an early GE as they would hope to gain many seats from a pro-EU stance, considering they would be coming from a low base that has decimate them.
Sure the LidDems or SNP could trigger a vote of no confidence, but it couldn't be carried unless the Tories voted in favour of having no confidence in themselves (or at the very least abstained) as they have a majority in parliament.
And don't forget that there are plenty of tories comfortable in their positions until 2020 - are they really going to risk a possibly general election where they might be out of a job 3 years early.
In tactical terms you also need to factor in the proposed reduction in seat numbers and boundary changes - these are massively beneficial to the tories, but a snap general election would be fought on the old boundaries, running the risk that (for a second parliament in a row) the changes to seat numbers etc, that the tories so desperately want, will be kicked into the long grass.
More complicated than I think you appreciate.
-
Sure the LidDems or SNP could trigger a vote of no confidence, but it couldn't be carried unless the Tories voted in favour of having no confidence in themselves (or at the very least abstained) as they have a majority in parliament.
And don't forget that there are plenty of tories comfortable in their positions until 2020 - are they really going to risk a possibly general election where they might be out of a job 3 years early.
In tactical terms you also need to factor in the proposed reduction in seat numbers and boundary changes - these are massively beneficial to the tories, but a snap general election would be fought on the old boundaries, running the risk that (for a second parliament in a row) the changes to seat numbers etc, that the tories so desperately want, will be kicked into the long grass.
More complicated than I think you appreciate.
If May thinks she can't run government with the majority she has then another GE is likely. Its more complicated than it was but still entirely possible.
-
If May thinks she can't run government with the majority she has then another GE is likely. Its more complicated than it was but still entirely possible.
It's more than complicated. Explain please her routes to calling a general election before May 2020, the date decreed by the FTPA. Another 'legacy' from Cameron. The FTPA has no effective way out of parliamentary gridlock.
-
If May thinks she can't run government with the majority she has then another GE is likely. Its more complicated than it was but still entirely possible.
To clarify:
Under the FTPA there are only two ways in which an early general election can be called. Verbatim:
'Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first.
If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".
So in a situation where May wants an early election, but other parties don't (likely the current situation), the only possibility os for the the government to vote no confidence in itself - good luck with that.
-
So in a situation where May wants an early election, but other parties don't (likely the current situation), the only possibility os for the the government to vote no confidence in itself - good luck with that.
Labour are in election footing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37413848
LibDems would jump at the chance.
Tories will be whipped.
As ever you are confusing your opinion with facts. Again, it is my opinion that if May thinks she can't run a government with her current majority she will go for another GE and in my opinion get one.
-
You are not against them when they are rigged? :-\
That's absolutely right. Preventing the free movement of labour is rigging the market. And he's in favour of preventing the free movement of labour.
-
Labour are in election footing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37413848
LibDems would jump at the chance.
Tories will be whipped.
As ever you are confusing your opinion with facts. Again, it is my opinion that if May thinks she can't run a government with her current majority she will go for another GE and in my opinion get one.
How would she do it without breaking the law?
-
Here is some good news:
EU negotiators will offer Brits an individual opt-in to remain EU citizens (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-keep-freedom-of-movement-guy-verhofstadt-chief-negotiator-opt-in-passports-a7465271.html)
It looks like I may not have to lose my rights as a citizen of the EU after all.
-
Sure the LidDems or SNP could trigger a vote of no confidence, but it couldn't be carried unless the Tories voted in favour of having no confidence in themselves (or at the very least abstained) as they have a majority in parliament.
And don't forget that there are plenty of tories comfortable in their positions until 2020 - are they really going to risk a possibly general election where they might be out of a job 3 years early.
In tactical terms you also need to factor in the proposed reduction in seat numbers and boundary changes - these are massively beneficial to the tories, but a snap general election would be fought on the old boundaries, running the risk that (for a second parliament in a row) the changes to seat numbers etc, that the tories so desperately want, will be kicked into the long grass.
More complicated than I think you appreciate.
If the Tories think they are going to win then these changes to MP numbers is besides the point. If they think they are going to get a bigger majority, and at the moment it is a mere 10, then they will surely welcome it.
What you are missing is the log jam this Brexit stuff is going to cause for the government and the vehement opposition that Brexit has with some. Once the government is plainly seen to be stumbling on this the vultures will surely swoop in for the kill. As the LibDems hubris is stupid enough to make them think that their anti-Brexit stance will get them enough votes to bring the Tory government down then we will have a contest on our hands.
-
It's more than complicated. Explain please her routes to calling a general election before May 2020, the date decreed by the FTPA. Another 'legacy' from Cameron. The FTPA has no effective way out of parliamentary gridlock.
As you said the Tories could abstain if they think they are going to increase their majority; with Labour floundering and with potentially 17 million pro Brexit voters.
-
That's absolutely right. Preventing the free movement of labour is rigging the market. And he's in favour of preventing the free movement of labour.
I actually corrected that.
So you are in favour of companies trashing the environment to make a profit and not having legislation to stop this as this would be rigging the market. The fact is all countries of sensible mind and body have immigration controls.
-
As you said the Tories could abstain if they think they are going to increase their majority; with Labour floundering and with potentially 17 million pro Brexit voters.
But the vote of no confidence would only be passed if someone votes in favour - so the tories abstaining isn't enough unless other parties chose to vote for it - and why would they if they felt they'd lose seats.
Also remember that it is individual MPs who would have to vote - those MPs know that they have a job for another 3.5 years. Why would they risk an election when they could be out of a job in weeks.
-
I know all about the FTPA.
You forget about Tim Farron, and the SNP. Just a selection of nutters who could trigger a vote of no confidence out of hubris. The LibDems have much to gain from an early GE as they would hope to gain many seats from a pro-EU stance, considering they would be coming from a low base that has decimate them.
A right leaning brexiteer is a fine one to be giving lectures on hubris Jack.
-
How would she do it without breaking the law?
She says running a govt with this majority is untenable and calls for a vote of no confidence. What law gets broken?
-
She says running a govt with this majority is untenable and calls for a vote of no confidence. What law gets broken?
The government with it's absolute majority would have to lose the vote. It would have to vote against itself.
-
The government with it's absolute majority would have to lose the vote. It would have to vote against itself.
Exactly.
And don't forget that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Any MP who isn't absolutely certainly they'd win won't go near the notion of potentially voting themselves out of a job.
Now any general election held right now would end up de facto as a second referendum on brexit - it would really be the only issue. So any MP whose views on brexit don't align with their constituents is going to be feeling very nervous about a vote. And that includes a mighty lot of Tories. We've already seen Zac Goldsmith licked out, effectively for being anti brexit - that will focus a lot of minds.
So lets take a few example - in my own constituency we have a pro-brexit MP, yet we voted over 70% for remain. The LibDems have always been very high profile. Our MP could easily lose against an overtly pro-remain LibDem so she isn't going to want to go near a general election any time soon. And there are plenty of similar tories, particularly in the home counties in a similar position.
And the reverse is true - lets not forget that the majority of tory MPs are pro-remain - and plenty of them will be representing constituencies that voted leave. They'd be deeply vulnerable to UKIP who'd campaign that they are the only party really to represent the brexiters.
And don't forget too that MPs are people, with mortgages to pay - are they really going to risk losing their jobs in a few weeks rather than be assured of at least 3 and a half years further, and critically they'd think that by 2020 the brexit issue will be settled and people will move on from whether their MP's views on brexit aligned with their own or not.
-
Exactly.
And don't forget that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Any MP who isn't absolutely certainly they'd win won't go near the notion of potentially voting themselves out of a job.
Now any general election held right now would end up de facto as a second referendum on brexit - it would really be the only issue. So any MP whose views on brexit don't align with their constituents is going to be feeling very nervous about a vote. And that includes a mighty lot of Tories. We've already seen Zac Goldsmith licked out, effectively for being anti brexit - that will focus a lot of minds.
So lets take a few example - in my own constituency we have a pro-brexit MP, yet we voted over 70% for remain. The LibDems have always been very high profile. Our MP could easily lose against an overtly pro-remain LibDem so she isn't going to want to go near a general election any time soon. And there are plenty of similar tories, particularly in the home counties in a similar position.
And the reverse is true - lets not forget that the majority of tory MPs are pro-remain - and plenty of them will be representing constituencies that voted leave. They'd be deeply vulnerable to UKIP who'd campaign that they are the only party really to represent the brexiters.
And don't forget too that MPs are people, with mortgages to pay - are they really going to risk losing their jobs in a few weeks rather than be assured of at least 3 and a half years further, and critically they'd think that by 2020 the brexit issue will be settled and people will move on from whether their MP's views on brexit aligned with their own or not.
It's not just the Tories either. Apart from their current showing in the opinion polls, many Labour MPs have constituencies in pro-Remain areas. Given Richmond, any MP in a pro Remain constituency has to be wondering how they will fare against the Lib Dems (in England - in Scotland, the SNP will probably just get the full house).
-
But the vote of no confidence would only be passed if someone votes in favour - so the tories abstaining isn't enough unless other parties chose to vote for it - and why would they if they felt they'd lose seats.
Also remember that it is individual MPs who would have to vote - those MPs know that they have a job for another 3.5 years. Why would they risk an election when they could be out of a job in weeks.
So what would happen then if there was stalemate in parliament? Tories can't get their Brexit version (or repeal of the 1972 act) through and unwilling to budge and the opposition not willing to accept a few lines on their Brexit plan as being good enough and so on. Anyone not taking the challenge to go to the country would be seen as a coward and despicable and the pressure from the public would mount up. Are you saying we would just have to put up with say 3 years of deadlock. What do you think that would do to investment in this country and so on...
-
A right leaning brexiteer is a fine one to be giving lectures on hubris Jack.
I don't follow, please explain. Are you saying Farron and the SNP aren't full of hubris?
-
Exactly.
And don't forget that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Any MP who isn't absolutely certainly they'd win won't go near the notion of potentially voting themselves out of a job.
Now any general election held right now would end up de facto as a second referendum on brexit - it would really be the only issue. So any MP whose views on brexit don't align with their constituents is going to be feeling very nervous about a vote. And that includes a mighty lot of Tories. We've already seen Zac Goldsmith licked out, effectively for being anti brexit - that will focus a lot of minds.
So lets take a few example - in my own constituency we have a pro-brexit MP, yet we voted over 70% for remain. The LibDems have always been very high profile. Our MP could easily lose against an overtly pro-remain LibDem so she isn't going to want to go near a general election any time soon. And there are plenty of similar tories, particularly in the home counties in a similar position.
And the reverse is true - lets not forget that the majority of tory MPs are pro-remain - and plenty of them will be representing constituencies that voted leave. They'd be deeply vulnerable to UKIP who'd campaign that they are the only party really to represent the brexiters.
And don't forget too that MPs are people, with mortgages to pay - are they really going to risk losing their jobs in a few weeks rather than be assured of at least 3 and a half years further, and critically they'd think that by 2020 the brexit issue will be settled and people will move on from whether their MP's views on brexit aligned with their own or not.
But many Remain voters are quite happy to accept the referendum result and to implement the leaving from the EU. Also, the Tories are on 42% which is pretty good so I can't see why the Tories would shy away from a GE by abstaining in order to get a bigger majority. Those MP's who fear for their jobs could be whipped :o - if you see what I mean.
As I said before many of the Labour PLP are scared that they are going to be deselected anyway so why not get in there before that happens and get another 5 years in. And that's true of boundary changes as well.
And as I said in another post pressure from the public if parliament is seen to be stagnate due the two sides not giving ground.
-
So what would happen then if there was stalemate in parliament? Tories can't get their Brexit version (or repeal of the 1972 act) through and unwilling to budge and the opposition not willing to accept a few lines on their Brexit plan as being good enough and so on. Anyone not taking the challenge to go to the country would be seen as a coward and despicable and the pressure from the public would mount up. Are you saying we would just have to put up with say 3 years of deadlock. What do you think that would do to investment in this country and so on...
Clearly the answer is that nothing would happen until somebody found a way to legally trigger a general election.
Have you thought about this: a general election could make it worse for the Brexiteers. The majority of MPs are Remainers but would vote for Brexit at the moment to respect the referendum result. However, a Remainer MP that got re-elected in the next General Election standing on a platform of opposition to Brexit or a platform of "if we must have Brexit, let it be soft Brexit" will have a mandate to oppose the government's plans that supersedes the referendum.
-
Clearly the answer is that nothing would happen until somebody found a way to legally trigger a general election.
Have you thought about this: a general election could make it worse for the Brexiteers. The majority of MPs are Remainers but would vote for Brexit at the moment to respect the referendum result. However, a Remainer MP that got re-elected in the next General Election standing on a platform of opposition to Brexit or a platform of "if we must have Brexit, let it be soft Brexit" will have a mandate to oppose the government's plans that supersedes the referendum.
You might even get all major parties bar one standing on a Remain manifesto, since I get the impression that the majority of MPs - who of course have a say into any mandate - want to go that way.
-
Those MP's who fear for their jobs could be whipped :o - if you see what I mean.
Sorry, but the whips don't have that much power - if you are about to be kicked out as an MP (or even think it a serious possibility) you'll feel more worried about that than anything the whips could do if you don't vote the way they wanted.
But you would also need tories to vote in favour of no confidence in their own government - that would be unprecedented, bizarre and deadly on the doorstep.
-
The government with it's absolute majority would have to lose the vote. It would have to vote against itself.
What law does that break?
-
Exactly.
And don't forget that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Any MP who isn't absolutely certainly they'd win won't go near the notion of potentially voting themselves out of a job.
Now any general election held right now would end up de facto as a second referendum on brexit - it would really be the only issue. So any MP whose views on brexit don't align with their constituents is going to be feeling very nervous about a vote. And that includes a mighty lot of Tories. We've already seen Zac Goldsmith licked out, effectively for being anti brexit - that will focus a lot of minds.
So lets take a few example - in my own constituency we have a pro-brexit MP, yet we voted over 70% for remain. The LibDems have always been very high profile. Our MP could easily lose against an overtly pro-remain LibDem so she isn't going to want to go near a general election any time soon. And there are plenty of similar tories, particularly in the home counties in a similar position.
And the reverse is true - lets not forget that the majority of tory MPs are pro-remain - and plenty of them will be representing constituencies that voted leave. They'd be deeply vulnerable to UKIP who'd campaign that they are the only party really to represent the brexiters.
And don't forget too that MPs are people, with mortgages to pay - are they really going to risk losing their jobs in a few weeks rather than be assured of at least 3 and a half years further, and critically they'd think that by 2020 the brexit issue will be settled and people will move on from whether their MP's views on brexit aligned with their own or not.
Paddy Power has 8/11 for 2020 and 6/4 for 2017, top of my head 20% margin for Paddy Power implied probability of c. 75% for 2020, 15% for 2017.
Sounds about right to me therefore I'm not betting, you disagree then go make yourself some money.
-
Betfair have a market in play:-
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125858951
3.2 for 2017 31% implied probability
1.9 for 2020 50% implied probability
Tempted to lay 2020, if it was a little lower I would.
-
What law does that break?
None. But just because it is not illegal doesn't mean the government will be able to do it. Can you imagine the political fallout if the government made its MPs vote that it was incompetent just so it could gain an advantage from an early election.
-
None. But just because it is not illegal doesn't mean the government will be able to do it. Can you imagine the political fallout if the government made its MPs vote that it was incompetent just so it could gain an advantage from an early election.
You brought up the law in post 364.
-
Paddy Power has 8/11 for 2020 and 6/4 for 2017, top of my head 20% margin for Paddy Power implied probability of c. 75% for 2020, 15% for 2017.
Sounds about right to me therefore I'm not betting, you disagree then go make yourself some money.
I never said it was impossible, but difficult, for her to call an early election due to the FTPA, so 15% chance of a 2017 election sounds about right - possible but unlikely.
I was countering the impression some posters here appear to have that it is pretty easy and a bit of a foregone conclusion that May will call a 2017 election, in other words turning the likelihood of its head, say a 75% likelihood.
There is a further consideration that goes beyond the logistics of getting turkeys to vote for christmas (in other words persuading MPs who have 3.5 years to go before they have to face an election to opt for one in months with an uncertain outcome). That is that were May to call an election, which would necessarily be dominated by brexit, she would have no option but to clearly lay out her preferred brexit option in a manifesto - simply going brexit means brexit etc simply isn't going to cut it. If the electorate aren't clear on her strategy and think that she is continuing to obfuscate, while wanting their votes, that isn't going to go down at all well. But she desperately doesn't want to reveal her hand, not due to the stated line on negotiation, rather because as soon as she opt for either soft brexit, or hard brexit all hell breaks loose in her own party, with UKIP once again sniffing on the sidelines.
-
Clearly the answer is that nothing would happen until somebody found a way to legally trigger a general election.
Have you thought about this: a general election could make it worse for the Brexiteers. The majority of MPs are Remainers but would vote for Brexit at the moment to respect the referendum result. However, a Remainer MP that got re-elected in the next General Election standing on a platform of opposition to Brexit or a platform of "if we must have Brexit, let it be soft Brexit" will have a mandate to oppose the government's plans that supersedes the referendum.
That's a big assumption. I don't think the 17 million who voted for Brexit would trust a remoaner to do the right thing in respecting the referendum. That's where UKIP step in.
-
You might even get all major parties bar one standing on a Remain manifesto, since I get the impression that the majority of MPs - who of course have a say into any mandate - want to go that way.
But they need the peoples' votes. I would have thought even you could have worked that one out to. ::)
-
Sorry, but the whips don't have that much power - if you are about to be kicked out as an MP (or even think it a serious possibility) you'll feel more worried about that than anything the whips could do if you don't vote the way they wanted.
But you would also need tories to vote in favour of no confidence in their own government - that would be unprecedented, bizarre and deadly on the doorstep.
I was being humorous, hence the smiley.
-
I was being humorous, hence the smiley.
Fair enough - so you accept that it won't be that straightforward for May to get her backbenchers (who may be nervously looking at their constituents voting record in the referendum) to vote firstly to declare that they have no confidence in their own government, and secondly to have to face the electorate over 3 years early.
-
I never said it was impossible, but difficult, for her to call an early election due to the FTPA, so 15% chance of a 2017 election sounds about right - possible but unlikely.
We were discussing an early election, according to Betfair (will be more accurate) the implied probability is 50% chance. It could happen 2017, 2018, 2019 so 2017 is going to be lower than 50%.
I was countering the impression some posters here appear to have that it is pretty easy and a bit of a foregone conclusion that May will call a 2017 election, in other words turning the likelihood of its head, say a 75% likelihood.
To confirm at no time have I claimed that it is a foregone conclusion, just that it was possible, I'm surprised its 50 - 50, tempted to lay it.
There is a further consideration that goes beyond the logistics of getting turkeys to vote for christmas (in other words persuading MPs who have 3.5 years to go before they have to face an election to opt for one in months with an uncertain outcome). That is that were May to call an election, which would necessarily be dominated by brexit, she would have no option but to clearly lay out her preferred brexit option in a manifesto - simply going brexit means brexit etc simply isn't going to cut it. If the electorate aren't clear on her strategy and think that she is continuing to obfuscate, while wanting their votes, that isn't going to go down at all well. But she desperately doesn't want to reveal her hand, not due to the stated line on negotiation, rather because as soon as she opt for either soft brexit, or hard brexit all hell breaks loose in her own party, with UKIP once again sniffing on the sidelines.
I think it mostly depends on if she can run with a majority as small as it is and of course if May thinks she can win. Dianne Abbot has given Corbyn a year, the centre left of Labour seem softer on Brexit than the hard left, and a centrist politician from Labour isn't likely to be as easy to beat as the hard left.
The LibDems could be dangerous and gain enough support to force Tories into a coalition with another referendum on the deal being the price, a 2020 election this won't even be an issue so pressures both ways.
-
We were discussing an early election, according to Betfair (will be more accurate) the implied probability is 50% chance. It could happen 2017, 2018, 2019 so 2017 is going to be lower than 50%.
To confirm at no time have I claimed that it is a foregone conclusion, just that it was possible, I'm surprised its 50 - 50, tempted to lay it.
I think it mostly depends on if she can run with a majority as small as it is and of course if May thinks she can win. Dianne Abbot has given Corbyn a year, the centre left of Labour seem softer on Brexit than the hard left, and a centrist politician from Labour isn't likely to be as easy to beat as the hard left.
The LibDems could be dangerous and gain enough support to force Tories into a coalition with another referendum on the deal being the price, a 2020 election this won't even be an issue so pressures both ways.
I agree with quite a lot of this but there is no evidence of a huge upsurge in Lib Dem support that would give any such indication (the Richmond by election is essentially worthless due to its special circumstances). The one interesting piece here that seems missed is the possible effect of the boundary changes. Were they passed there are a few Tories, although many more Labour and some SNP mps , who would be forced on a chicken run for a changed seat. This may affect their willingness to vite for the boundary changes, and yet if passed, the changes will be lujkwy heavily beneficial to the Tories overall.
-
I agree with quite a lot of this but there is no evidence of a huge upsurge in Lib Dem support that would give any such indication (the Richmond by election is essentially worthless due to its special circumstances). The one interesting piece here that seems missed is the possible effect of the boundary changes. Were they passed there are a few Tories, although many more Labour and some SNP mps , who would be forced on a chicken run for a changed seat. This may affect their willingness to vite for the boundary changes, and yet if passed, the changes will be lujkwy heavily beneficial to the Tories overall.
No evidence for LibDem surge other than speculation, a proportion of the 48% are passionate remainers and will consider EU membership more important than any other issue. That and the Corbyn effect.
-
No evidence for LibDem surge other than speculation, a proportion of the 48% are passionate remainers and will consider EU membership more important than any other issue. That and the Corbyn effect.
and yet in opinion polls no major move, and remember the surge you would need would be unprecedented in modern UK politics.
-
and yet in opinion polls no major move, and remember the surge you would need would be unprecedented in modern UK politics.
Strangely I think the opinion polls currently are better predictor of a 2020 election than a snap early one - on the basis that were there to be an earlier election it would become pretty well a one issue vote - the nature of brexit. I'm not at all sure that is easily predicted by the standard 'if there were a general election tomorrow which party would you vote for' polling, given that standard general elections (and standard polling questions on general elections) are based on an assessment of a wide range of issues, rather than a de facto single issue referendum, which a snap election would necessarily become.
-
Strangely I think the opinion polls currently are better predictor of a 2020 election than a snap early one - on the basis that were there to be an earlier election it would become pretty well a one issue vote - the nature of brexit. I'm not at all sure that is easily predicted by the standard 'if there were a general election tomorrow which party would you vote for' polling, given that standard general elections (and standard polling questions on general elections) are based on an assessment of a wide range of issues, rather than a de facto single issue referendum, which a snap election would necessarily become.
I wouldn't disagree but that's still no evidence for a massive political surge to the Lib Dems way beyond the scale of anything in UK politics
-
You brought up the law in post 364.
Just for clarification:
The government cannot call an early general election except if it loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote to have a general election that is won by a two thirds majority of all MPs. It would be illegal for Theresa May to call an early general election in any other circumstances. The law she would be breaking is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011).
What would not be illegal (as far as I can tell) is the government telling Conservative MPs to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would merely be ridiculous and possibly political suicide for the PM.
-
Just for clarification:
The government cannot call an early general election except if it loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote to have a general election that is won by a two thirds majority of all MPs. It would be illegal for Theresa May to call an early general election in any other circumstances. The law she would be breaking is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011).
What would not be illegal (as far as I can tell) is the government telling Conservative MPs to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would merely be ridiculous and possibly political suicide for the PM.
I don't think jakswan is ignoring this rather he is suggesting that the 2/3 majority is achievable because Corbyn has put Labour on an 'election footing'
-
That's a big assumption. I don't think the 17 million who voted for Brexit would trust a remoaner to do the right thing in respecting the referendum. That's where UKIP step in.
Believe me, the 16 million Remainers don't trust the Brexiteers to be able to shit in a toilet. Probably not the 13 million people that didn't vote at all, either.
-
I don't think jakswan is ignoring this rather he is suggesting that the 2/3 majority is achievable because Corbyn has put Labour on an 'election footing'
I guess that if there was a vote of no confidence, Labour would have to support it. But who else would? I can't see how May could lose this, unless she wanted to, and suggested that some Tory MPs discreetly miss the vote. But that in itself would cause a stink.
-
We were discussing an early election, according to Betfair (will be more accurate) the implied probability is 50% chance. It could happen 2017, 2018, 2019 so 2017 is going to be lower than 50%.
If we are talking about betting odds, let's not forget that the bookies favourite for the outcome of the referendum was remain. Betting odds are just a reflection of what outcome ordinary people are putting their money on. There's no special insight here.
To confirm at no time have I claimed that it is a foregone conclusion, just that it was possible, I'm surprised its 50 - 50, tempted to lay it.
I think 50-50 is short odds for an early election. Theresa May has to lose 9 MPs and I think, on Brexit, she would probably have support from Labour.
-
Believe me, the 16 million Remainers don't trust the Brexiteers to be able to shit in a toilet. Probably not the 13 million people that didn't vote at all, either.
I love how people are happy to speak for millions of people here, it's like the old Union card votes at Labour conferences. 'I can confidently say that I speak on behalf of the 17 million Brexitits, 16 million Bremoaners when I say.....'
-
I guess that if there was a vote of no confidence, Labour would have to support it. But who else would? I can't see how May could lose this, unless she wanted to, and suggested that some Tory MPs discreetly miss the vote. But that in itself would cause a stink.
No, it doesn't have to be a vote of no confidence, that just needs a majority iirc. A vote for a GE without a no confidence needs 2/3 but that is just a vote for an election
-
I don't think jakswan is ignoring this rather he is suggesting that the 2/3 majority is achievable because Corbyn has put Labour on an 'election footing'
I'd be sceptical because it would be suicide for Labour to trigger a general election now. If their fortunes increase considerably to the point where they have a chance, then it would be suicidal for the Tories to trigger a general election now.
-
I love how people are happy to speak for millions of people here, it's like the old Union card votes at Labour conferences. 'I can confidently say that I speak on behalf of the 17 million Brexitits, 16 million Bremoaners when I say.....'
I was merely responding to Jack Knave in kind. If you are going to have a go at anybody, have a go at him first.
-
I'd be sceptical because it would be suicide for Labour to trigger a general election now. If their fortunes increase considerably to the point where they have a chance, then it would be suicidal for the Tories to trigger a general election now.
I am sceptical too, but it is jakswan's argument. I also think the SNP would happily vote for an election. So maybe the Tories, the Lib Dems who have nothing to lose, the huge force of Douglas Carswell, some NI politicians (possibly all) and a strange mix of pro and anti JC votes could take it to 2/3 - unlikely, I agree but arguably possible.
-
I was merely responding to Jack Knave in kind. If you are going to have a go at anybody, have a go at him first.
it was an equal opportunities jibe
-
Just for clarification:
The government cannot call an early general election except if it loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote to have a general election that is won by a two thirds majority of all MPs. It would be illegal for Theresa May to call an early general election in any other circumstances. The law she would be breaking is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011).
What would not be illegal (as far as I can tell) is the government telling Conservative MPs to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would merely be ridiculous and possibly political suicide for the PM.
So the question you asked has been answered by yourself, well done!
-
If we are talking about betting odds, let's not forget that the bookies favourite for the outcome of the referendum was remain. Betting odds are just a reflection of what outcome ordinary people are putting their money on. There's no special insight here.
Actually technically its not the bookies favorite but the people. Never claimed there was special insight as such there is an implied probability, if you think the actual probability is different you bet that way and make a killing. You sound very certain how much are you putting on?
I think 50-50 is short odds for an early election. Theresa May has to lose 9 MPs and I think, on Brexit, she would probably have support from Labour.
Lay the Betfair market and make a killing!
-
I suppose I ought to apologise for wearing the pedant's hat.
Surely, if one loses a vote of no confidence hasn't the result been "confidence"? :-\
-
Actually technically its not the bookies favorite but the people.
No. The bookies' favourite is the option that most punters are putting their money and that is what this is.
-
I suppose I ought to apologise for wearing the pedant's hat.
Surely, if one loses a vote of no confidence hasn't the result been "confidence"? :-\
Only if one was the entity that proposed the vote of no confidence.
-
I also think the SNP would happily vote for an election. So maybe the Tories, the Lib Dems who have nothing to lose ...
I agree on the LibDems - they really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.
I disagree on the SNP for a variety of reasons. Even if they might outwardly say 'bring it on' I don't think as a party, nor as individual MPs they'd really be in favour.
First, don't forget they currently hold 56 out of a possible 59, so they have very, very little to gain (max 3 seats) and an awful lot potentially to lose. In card playing parlance at that level you would definitely 'stick' rather than 'twist'. Also of the 3 seats they don't hold I think only one would be realistically a target - I don't think they'd be likely to take the final LibDem seat if they didn't take at their high point and the LibDems low point. Likewise on the Dumfries Tory seat (one I know rather well) - don't forget this was an area with a high leave vote and that will pile on the tory. The converse is that a recovery of the LibDems brings some very marginal SNP-held seats easily back into play for the LibDems, likewise the resurgence of the tories will make some other SNP seats vulnerable, particularly if the remain vote is split three ways (SNP, Labour and LibDem) while the leave vote is effectively mopped up by the tories alone.
There is also the personal issue - remember it is individual MPs who have to vote. The SNP have a huge number of brand new MPs, all likely wanting to make a career in politics, and a fair few in seats where a not unrealistic swing-back means they lose their seats. Do you really think they's want to risk ending up as an MP for less than 2 years, almost certainly never likely to get another chance. Nope I think they'll desperately want to hold on for a full 5 years giving them time to build a personal support.
There is a final point, and this actually affects all parties, but most significantly the SNP. Fighting elections costs money and I'm not sure the SNP in particular can afford it given that they have had hugely significant votes for them in 2014 (referendum), 2015 (general election), 2016 (Scottish parliament and referendum).
-
So when we ask these SNP politicians why after calling the Tories everything for years they didn't vote to kick them out will they be saying 'we were scared of losing seats, besides I'm really concerned about my own career, and it will cost a lot of money.'
I don't think that is even up to SNP to be able to spin out of that.
-
So when we ask these SNP politicians why after calling the Tories everything for years they didn't vote to kick them out will they be saying 'we were scared of losing seats, besides I'm really concerned about my own career, and it will cost a lot of money.'
I don't think that is even up to SNP to be able to spin out of that.
Of course they won't say that - but the reality is that were there to be a snap general election (if this was possible to engineer for May) that the Tories wouldn't be kicked out, rather they'd increase their majority. And I would also think it pretty unlikely that the SNP would hang on to the 56 seats they hold, and even if that were a possibility why would you risk it.
So just to put it into context - how many votes of no confidence have their been in the past, how many were won and when in the election cycle were they. I think you'll find they are as rare as hen's teeth and typically only happen when there was an inevitability of a general election pretty soon anyhow (note the last successful one being in 1979 I think).
-
Of course they won't say that - but the reality is that were there to be a snap general election (if this was possible to engineer for May) that the Tories wouldn't be kicked out, rather they'd increase their majority. And I would also think it pretty unlikely that the SNP would hang on to the 56 seats they hold, and even if that were a possibility why would you risk it.
Not so sure about that I think the LibDems would do quite well and could force another coalition. There would be risk for the SNP in that anytime they had a go at the Tories them not voting them out would be thrown in their faces.
So just to put it into context - how many votes of no confidence have their been in the past, how many were won and when in the election cycle were they. I think you'll find they are as rare as hen's teeth and typically only happen when there was an inevitability of a general election pretty soon anyhow (note the last successful one being in 1979 I think).
Labour had a majority of 3 then I think, the next lowest since then is this one, 11.
-
Not so sure about that I think the LibDems would do quite well and could force another coalition. There would be risk for the SNP in that anytime they had a go at the Tories them not voting them out would be thrown in their faces.
Labour had a majority of 3 then I think, the next lowest since then is this one, 11.
They had a majority of three when they won the second 1974 general election. By the time of the first vote of no-confidence, they had lost their majority due to by-elections and they survived by negotiating the Lib-Lab pact. A second vote of no confidence after the end of the pact resulted in the fall of the government.
I think, in the next general election, provided Brexit has not already happened, the Lib-Dems will do very well in all areas where the local vote was for Remain. If I were them, in my manifesto, I would explicitly state that the Lib Dems would fight to keep Britain in the EU or at least in the single market. That would give them a huge boost in Remain voting areas and probably wipe them out in Brexit voting areas, but they start form a position of being almost wiped out already.
The trouble is that, in England, at least, that strategy will bring them MPs at the expense of Labour. They need to take seats off the Tories to get a coalition.
-
Fair enough - so you accept that it won't be that straightforward for May to get her backbenchers (who may be nervously looking at their constituents voting record in the referendum) to vote firstly to declare that they have no confidence in their own government, and secondly to have to face the electorate over 3 years early.
It is all about pressure and circumstances, and I sense that a number of events or situations will eventually force the Commons to go to the country before 2020.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146
"Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador"
People seem to keep forgetting that the "up to 2 years negotiations" following notice of Article 50 are only about the bureaucratic arrangements of disentangling from the EU. Negotiations on trade deals only start after we have left.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146
"Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador"
People seem to keep forgetting that the "up to 2 years negotiations" following notice of Article 50 are only about the bureaucratic arrangements of disentangling from the EU. Negotiations on trade deals only start after we have left.
I know - the polyanna-ish approach being spouted by some on the brexit side is staggering. Effectively it goes along the lines of 'it was all be OK if we wish it to be so, it will all go smoothly if we wish it to be so, it was all happen rapidly if we wish it to be so'. Without, of course recognising that we can wish for things all we want but we are just one of 28 countries involved in the negotiations and that the agenda will be driven almost exclusively by the other 27. So it is perhaps reasonable to say that it will all go OK if the other 27 wish it to be so, but not if we as a lone voice of 28 wish it to be so. And indeed I think the other 27 will wish it will be OK, and therefore it will be ... from their perspective, not from the UK's.
-
I know - the polyanna-ish approach being spouted by some on the brexit side is staggering. Effectively it goes along the lines of 'it was all be OK if we wish it to be so, it will all go smoothly if we wish it to be so, it was all happen rapidly if we wish it to be so'. Without, of course recognising that we can wish for things all we want but we are just one of 28 countries involved in the negotiations and that the agenda will be driven almost exclusively by the other 27. So it is perhaps reasonable to say that it will all go OK if the other 27 wish it to be so, but not if we as a lone voice of 28 wish it to be so. And indeed I think the other 27 will wish it will be OK, and therefore it will be ... from their perspective, not from the UK's.
Its part of the reason for wanting to leave, the UK can only do what is in the interests of the 27 other countries. Never thought it would be "rapid".
-
Its part of the reason for wanting to leave, the UK can only do what is in the interests of the 27 other countries. Never thought it would be "rapid".
Nope - while we are a member decisions are made in the interests of all 28 countries that includes the UK. Now negotiations on the brexit deal will be dictated by the EU on the basis of what is in the interests of the remaining 27 countries, that doesn't include us. And that deal will massively affect the UK for decades to come.
-
Nope - while we are a member decisions are made in the interests of all 28 countries that includes the UK. Now negotiations on the brexit deal will be dictated by the EU on the basis of what is in the interests of the remaining 27 countries, that doesn't include us. And that deal will massively affect the UK for decades to come.
Not sure I follow, while we are in the EU then if it is our interest to do a deal with US then if one of the 27 doesn't think its in their interest then we can't do what is in our interest.
The EU, the 27 will do what it is in their interest and we will do what is ours, somewhere along the line an agreement will be reached. All you still pushing this bigger party dictates terms nonsense?
My employer is "bigger" than me but we negotiate my rate of pay.
-
My employer is "bigger" than me but we negotiate my rate of pay.
So are you saying you are an equal partner in the negotiation of your salary?
If so I find that strange as in my experience that is not how it works for most employees.
-
So are you saying you are an equal partner in the negotiation of your salary?
If so I find that strange as in my experience that is not how it works for most employees.
It depends on the employer / employee, I think Messi has the upper hand in his dealings with Barcelona.
I think each party will act in its own interests, some interests are bigger than others, some overlap, some won't, where that is the case there will need to be compromise.
-
I think Messi has the upper hand in his dealings with Barcelona.
Oh yes I forgot that. He is so representative of your average worker in the UK. ::)
-
I think Messi has the upper hand in his dealings with Barcelona.
Blimey - I trust that isn't used as an analogy for the UK and the EU.
-
Oh yes I forgot that. He is so representative of your average worker in the UK. ::)
Not everyone is working for a company in a role where the company dictates the terms. I'm a middle manager, I know my staff work better if they are better paid and if, the company and I care about them as individuals. If the company I work for said to me they will be freezing my pay for 5 years I'd work for someone else.
-
Blimey - I trust that isn't used as an analogy for the UK and the EU.
Correct.
-
Correct.
Except you were.
-
I don't understand why we are allowing this kind of racist abuse on this forum. People who want to talk like that can go to Stormfront.
You've lost your sense of humour Wiggy. That's the problem with all this PC stuff people become as stifled and joyless as they did in the USSR - too many rules on how to be human; according to our political elites anyway.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146
"Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador"
People seem to keep forgetting that the "up to 2 years negotiations" following notice of Article 50 are only about the bureaucratic arrangements of disentangling from the EU. Negotiations on trade deals only start after we have left.
So what would that include. I thought we were leaving the EU and so would dump it all.
-
Its part of the reason for wanting to leave, the UK can only do what is in the interests of the 27 other countries. Never thought it would be "rapid".
Good point. The EU is like a lumbering dinosaur about to collapse.
-
My employer is "bigger" than me but we negotiate my rate of pay.
And yet there are unions.
-
It depends on the employer / employee, I think Messi has the upper hand in his dealings with Barcelona.
How successful do you think he would be if he said he was going to quit playing for Barcelona?
-
How successful do you think he would be if he said he was going to quit playing for Barcelona?
Or more to the point that he was going to quit playing for Barcelona ... to play on his own.
Hmm - and fantastic as Messi is, if he was playing on his own, my local park team of 11 players would beat him.
And to look at the converse - so were were Barcelona a fantastic team pre-Messi - well yes.
Will Barcelona be a fantastic team post-Messi - very likely.
Draw conclusions as you wish.
-
Or more to the point that he was going to quit playing for Barcelona ... to play on his own.
Hmm - and fantastic as Messi is, if he was playing on his own, my local park team of 11 players would beat him.
And to look at the converse - so were were Barcelona a fantastic team pre-Messi - well yes.
Will Barcelona be a fantastic team post-Messi - very likely.
Draw conclusions as you wish.
Exactly. If Messi quits, Barcelona has a squad of twenty seven other players to choose from.
-
Or more to the point that he was going to quit playing for Barcelona ... to play on his own.
Hmm - and fantastic as Messi is, if he was playing on his own, my local park team of 11 players would beat him.
And to look at the converse - so were were Barcelona a fantastic team pre-Messi - well yes.
Will Barcelona be a fantastic team post-Messi - very likely.
Draw conclusions as you wish.
So you'd tell Messi in negotiations that he was overrated and 11 of your mates could beat him. :)
-
So you'd tell Messi in negotiations that he was overrated and 11 of your mates could beat him. :)
It would depend on what he asked for. If he said "I'm leaving but give me access to the Neucamp on site facilities", it would be a big fuck you no matter how good he was. Even if he were only threatening to leave, there is still a price above which Barcelona would not go, because they do have lots of other really good footballers.
-
Also, if we are really going to claim this is a valid analogy, the UK is not the EU's Lionel Messi, that would be Germany.
-
So you'd tell Messi in negotiations that he was overrated and 11 of your mates could beat him. :)
If Messi were to claim that by going it alone, in other words just him, that he'd beat a team of 11 players then it would be reasonable to tell him that he was mistaken - this is no reflection on his individual abilities, nor a suggestion that he is over-rated, merely stating the fact that a single player, on their own, isn't going to beat a team of 11 players, however good that individual's abilities.
But as Jeremy pointed out comparing Messi to the UK isn't appropriate as Messi is the best or second best player in the world - the UK is not one of the top 2 economies in the world, by whatever measure you use.
-
As the Brexit negotiations start to take shape in peoples' minds we are starting to see a power struggle within the institutions of the EU; each having their own perspective and agendas. It could be we will just stand aside and watch them kick the shit out of each other. ;D ;D ;D
-
Also, if we are really going to claim this is a valid analogy, the UK is not the EU's Lionel Messi, that would be Germany.
Jeez, I said that it isn't always the case that the bigger party dictates terms, this isn't always true, e.g. wages of staff, Messi being one extreme example. I never used it as an analogy of the UK/EU but to demonstrate a point I suspected one of you remaniacs :) were about to make.
-
Jeez, I said that it isn't always the case that the bigger party dictates terms,
Yes, but why would it be the smaller party that dictates terms in this case?
this isn't always true, e.g. wages of staff, Messi being one extreme example. I never used it as an analogy of the UK/EU but to demonstrate a point I suspected one of you remaniacs :) were about to make.
But if it is not an analogy for the UK/EU situation, what was the point of bringing it up?
I said the EU will dictate the terms and I gave a couple of reasons. Instead of just saying "sometimes it is different", you'd do better by countering my argument.
So tell me: what leverage has the UK got that will allow us to get a favourable deal? And by "favourable deal" I mean one that is better than WTO terms or Norway rules.
-
Yes, but why would it be the smaller party that dictates terms in this case?
Each party will attempt to secure a deal that they think is in their interests somewhere a compromise will be reached. When negotiating are you always preoccupied with who is the biggest party? Normally negotiations are points A, B, C you know you will comprise on B but not on A but I would suggest you wait to see what the other party offers first then talk through it.
But if it is not an analogy for the UK/EU situation, what was the point of bringing it up?
Explained that to you earlier.
I said the EU will dictate the terms and I gave a couple of reasons. Instead of just saying "sometimes it is different", you'd do better by countering my argument.
I don't think I responded to your posts, is it anything more than opinion?
So tell me: what leverage has the UK got that will allow us to get a favourable deal? And by "favourable deal" I mean one that is better than WTO terms or Norway rules.
You mean one like Canada's? We are a bigger customer of the EU than Canada.
-
Brexit for Scotland, Brexit for Scotland.
At least someone has a plan though I have doubts about it coming together
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38366278
-
Mark Steele on Farage, and the cuntrarian Delingpole
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-brendan-cox-hope-not-hate-thank-god-he-took-a-stand-a7490876.html
-
Mark Steele on Farage, and the cuntrarian Delingpole
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-brendan-cox-hope-not-hate-thank-god-he-took-a-stand-a7490876.html
I disagree with Mark Steele on the general point. I don't see why we need to accord respect to people's public comments if the comments are stupid just because the person has been bereaved recently.
On the particular instance, I think Brendan Cox is right, Farage is obviously wrong and Delingpole just threw an insult but I don't think they needed to concede the point just because Cox's wife was murdered.
-
Tweet from Kez and Scottish Labour. Surely that 'do not have to: is 'do not get to' -
SLAB - beyond parody, beyond satire, beyond hope!
.@kezdugdale: "With Scottish Labour, you do not have to make a decision between a hard Tory Brexit and independence."
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-38723261
Breaking news - parliament gets to vote on Article 50.
-
Yep. Exactly what Brexiters wanted - the sovereign rule of the land is being upheld.
-
Great comment from the Wee Ginger Dug. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/lying-until-theyre-red-white-and-blue-in-the-face/
-
Great comment from the Wee Ginger Dug. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/lying-until-theyre-red-white-and-blue-in-the-face/
He's right too - we need to get out of the UK.
-
Going off topic slightly, but has anyone produced a post-independence budget based on oil prices at 60 dollars/barrel?
-
Going off topic slightly, but has anyone produced a post-independence budget based on oil prices at 60 dollars/barrel?
anyone produced a post non independence case, or a basic Brexit case, or non Brexit case on oil barrel price? How about a pound/euro? Groat/pound? Is Palestine better as a state because of the economic predictions?
-
anyone produced a post non independence case, or a basic Brexit case, or non Brexit case on oil barrel price? How about a pound/euro? Groat/pound? Is Palestine better as a state because of the economic predictions?
Ohh, so England are Scotland's Israel. Ok, interesting perspective.
-
Ohh, so England are Scotland's Israel. Ok, interesting perspective.
no, don't stretch analogies to avoid questions.
-
no, don't stretch analogies to avoid questions.
You brought it up. If you don't see why the 'analogy' is offensive then you are so wedded to your ideals that you've lost all perspective.
Salmond sold independence based on a budget focussed mostly on oil being over 100 dollars/barrel. It was and is the only way that there could be any hope of the promises made at the time for a prosperous Scotland.
Post/Brexit figures were based on Michael Gove talking out of his arse and it's entirely likely we will be in the shit. Clearly many were too thick to see that the figures were crap but those that weren't thought principle more important than economic stability, wages, jobs, food on the table.
So with an oil-based economy worth half what it was before, doesn't it matter that nobody seems to have done some sums here? If not that doesn't bother me personally, the SNP aren't running my country.
-
You brought it up. If you don't see why the 'analogy' is offensive then you are so wedded to your ideals that you've lost all perspective.
Salmond sold independence based on a budget focussed mostly on oil being over 100 dollars/barrel. It was and is the only way that there could be any hope of the promises made at the time for a prosperous Scotland.
Post/Brexit figures were based on Michael Gove talking out of his arse and it's entirely likely we will be in the shit. Clearly many were too thick to see that the figures were crap but those that weren't thought principle more important than economic stability, wages, jobs, food on the table.
So with an oil-based economy worth half what it was before, doesn't it matter that nobody seems to have done some sums here? If not that doesn't bother me personally, the SNP aren't running my country.
What ideals do you think I'm wedded to? Ypuare the one suggesting that economics is the be all about whether a place should be independent. Given yph are 'offended' by that being questioned, even though you obviously actually don't agree with that, hence your offence, get back to me when you want to talk about real issues.
-
No, I didn't say I'd taken offence. I said that your analogy was offensive. It's my choice to take offence from it and really it's not worth the effort.
I'm very much afraid I can't afford for economics not to be one of my priorities when voting. I like my kids to eat and possibly have a job one day.
-
Going off topic slightly, but has anyone produced a post-independence budget based on oil prices at 60 dollars/barrel?
We are where we are is a cliche I suppose: but even so the price of oil is presumably a factor affecting the UK economy currently just as it would have done an independent Scotland: it certainly messed up the financial assumptions then but this must be contrasted against the new financial buggeration factor that is Brexit, where those extolling us to stay in the UK didnt anticipate (inc. the Tories who were stupid enough to allow a referendum to resolve their internal party problems). Had the result in 2014 had been different we wouldn't now face being dragged out of the EU against our wishes.
I certainly feel a sense of nausea after today's events - the 2014 'Vow' was a sham, as was the 'if you want to stay in the EU then you need to stay in the UK' message. We've been stitched up by some areas in England and Wales, I look at the likes of May and her cohorts and don't want to be part of the good ship Tory Brexit which is surely heading for the rocks.
I have no sense of allegiance to the UK and I want out since I don't feel the UK government give a toss about Scotland - they are more worried about UKIP (a joke here) and they know we won't vote for them in sufficient numbers - I just hope that if there is a next time most of my fellow Scots feel as I do and take into account what rUK are now inflicting on us against our wishes.
-
Meant to add, I think the UK is now broken beyond repair: it is no longer 'United'. While Scotland is the obvious example of this it does seem to me that other parts of rUK aren't all that united either and that the polarisation of opinions on Brexit occurs in areas outwith Scotland.
-
Yes, but you'd have most likely been out of the EU post independence too and would have needed to apply for membership as a new nation state and adopt the Euro - not a feature of the Indyref campaign.
Indyref fractured our country and so has Brexit but we are seeing it stateside too and elsewhere. Unfortunately there is a huge amount of hate and nationalism fuelse it, whether it's the cool Scottish kind or the embarrassing Ukip variety. The betrayal is by every single politician that seeks to rule by division, and we are overrun with them right now.
-
The thirst for more authority and powers in the devolved Parliament began, not with Salmond, but with Donald Dewar. Holyrood did gain more power - un-noticed - because Labour was in government in both nations. Whenever there is a difference in administration - regardless of what that administration is - there will be a divergance in legislation and policy - and probably resentment and acrimony, jealousy and envy. As Holyrood gains more power - and over the years they will, devolved or not, that acrimony will only grow. Is that how we want the next ten, twenty or thirty years to be? Continuing carping, resentment, acrimony over a slight, or a grievence, real or otherwise? Because that's what will happen, whether SNP, Labour or whatever party is in power in Scotland. Were we a region, with a regional assembly or council. then there would be fewer issues. We are not, and never have been. We are a nation, with national aspirations, national ambition, and all the baggage tradition and history of a nation. We can either live as friendly nations together in these islands, responsible for our own destinies and mistakes - or thirled together in a loveless marriage eating ourselves up daily.
-
I don't think it can be denied that the English nationalism that led to Brexit has been massively fuelled by Scottish nationalism. Ukip used exactly the same kind of language as the SNP in the Indyref campaign. Is there any difference between my English friends being told by Scots to fuck off back home and the disgraceful racism shown to Poles? Had Indyref not happened I think it highly debatable that Brexit would be a reality. But emotion, division and hate are the order of the day.
-
The thirst for more authority and powers in the devolved Parliament began, not with Salmond, but with Donald Dewar. Holyrood did gain more power - un-noticed - because Labour was in government in both nations. Whenever there is a difference in administration - regardless of what that administration is - there will be a divergance in legislation and policy - and probably resentment and acrimony, jealousy and envy.
I don't think rUk has any jealousy or envy with regard to Scotland just sick of the whinging SNP. I think they intend to play badly in rUK, old divide and rule trick. I concede they have won their case as far as I'm concerned, happy to see the back of them.
Were we a region, with a regional assembly or council. then there would be fewer issues. We are not, and never have been. We are a nation, with national aspirations, national ambition, and all the baggage tradition and history of a nation. We can either live as friendly nations together in these islands, responsible for our own destinies and mistakes - or thirled together in a loveless marriage eating ourselves up daily.
You had a vote to be a nation, the people of Scotland bottled it and decided to remain on the teat.
-
Scotland was sensible!
-
I don't think it can be denied that the English nationalism that led to Brexit has been massively fuelled by Scottish nationalism. Ukip used exactly the same kind of language as the SNP in the Indyref campaign. Is there any difference between my English friends being told by Scots to fuck off back home and the disgraceful racism shown to Poles? Had Indyref not happened I think it highly debatable that Brexit would be a reality. But emotion, division and hate are the order of the day.
-
SSNP has never been a parochial party.
We have members born and bred in England - We have never - nor will we ecer - tell anyone to ---- off. Anyone so doing is immediately suspended from membership, and rightly so.
The present branch secretary of my local SNP is a born and bred Londoner, and proud of it.
-
And? If I lived in Scotland I'd be active in the SNP if I thought it the best chance my kids had of getting an affordable university education instead of facing decades of debt.
And Ukip fielded a higher propertionnof BEM candidates at the last election than the Green Party. It still atttacts bigoted racists as its supporters. Nationalism has that effect.
-
Scotland was sensible!
How would you know that? ;)
-
SNP bloke on Radio Four 30 mins ago telling the presenter how easy it was for Scotland to remain in the single market and keep freedom of movement while still a part of the UK without having a border with England. When asked "what about the English" he replied "we don't care about the English"
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38836906
*********
The White Paper's publication comes after pressure from MPs across the House of Commons.
It sets out the themes of the government's goals for its negotiations with the EU, as announced by Prime Minister Theresa May last month.
These include:
Trade: The UK will withdraw from the single market and seek a new customs arrangement and a free trade agreement with the EU.
Immigration: A new system to control EU migration will be introduced, and could be phased in to give businesses time to prepare. The new system will be designed to help fill skills shortages and welcome "genuine" students.
Expats: The government wants to secure an agreement with European countries "at the earliest opportunity" on the rights of EU nationals in the UK and Britons living in Europe.
Sovereignty: Britain will leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice but seek to set up separate resolution mechanisms for things like trade disputes.
Aiming for "as seamless and frictionless a border as possible between Northern Ireland and Ireland."
Devolving more powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as decision-making is brought back to the UK.
The document says the government will "keep our positions closely held and will need at times to be careful about the commentary we make public", with MPs offered a vote on the final deal.
**********
Just to take the thread forward...
-
It all seems rather vague. I suppose it has to be. I'm puzzled how we leave the customs union, and also maintain free movement of goods with the EU - presumably, we duplicate the regulations of the customs union? Hence, you can still move goods from Manchester to Budapest with little checks at borders? If there are disputes, which there always are, they have to be taken to an independent court, but not the ECJ, which we will leave. I predict a big fudge.
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38996179
Tony Blair on a mission to persuade people to rise up against Brexit! Rather late in the day perhaps ...but nevertheless!
-
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38996179
Tony Blair on a mission to persuade people to rise up against Brexit! Rather late in the day perhaps ...but nevertheless!
oh ffs, that's all that's needed
-
Oh, that I should be reduced to agreeing with Blair......
-
Since the Brexit vote I have spoken to a number of people who voted to leave, but hadn't a clue what they were actually voting for.
-
Since the Brexit vote I have spoken to a number of people who voted to leave, but hadn't a clue what they were actually voting for.
Did you have a clue about what you were voting for, Floo? ;D
-
I have jjust had a phone call from a friend to tell me that on Thursday, BBC 2, Newsnight, Richard Dawkins was expressing his very strong opinions about the way the Brexit decision was taken. I am going to look it up, but I wonder if anyone here saw it and what were your opinions. I shall be particularly interested in Prof Davey's and JeremyP's opinions with which I usually agree!
-
I have jjust had a phone call from a friend to tell me that on Thursday, BBC 2, Newsnight, Richard Dawkins was expressing his very strong opinions about the way the Brexit decision was taken. I am going to look it up, but I wonder if anyone here saw it and what were your opinions. I shall be particularly interested in Prof Davey's and JeremyP's opinions with which I usually agree!
It's all over the Internet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39218108
Apart from his intemperate language, he is completely correct.
-
It's all over the Internet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39218108
Apart from his intemperate language, he is completely correct.
Thank you, Jeremy. One of the things my friend said was that she had not heard it mentioned elsewhere, and I must say neither have I, so I am pleased to hear it is being seen widely. I think a bit of intemporate language is quite usefuloccasionally!
-
That is a good clip. He is right, but it is also valid to question the apparent creep of constitutional changes as members of the EU - without referenda and 2/3rd ratification by both houses.
That the UK constitution is a ragbag of old scraps and a proper EU constitution was abandoned when the proposals were rejected in referenda, prior to Lisbon, does (or did) affect how people feel about membership.
-
It's all over the Internet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39218108
Apart from his intemperate language, he is completely correct.
In that case, if you think that, he's totally wrong.
-
David Davis and the no plan plan
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a44440b6-2864-4e28-9150-518e1ddfa5bc
-
David Davis and the no plan plan
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a44440b6-2864-4e28-9150-518e1ddfa5bc
The possible No Plan Plan is that we demand much and if we don't get it we walk. But the EU needs us for banking and security so who do you think will win?
-
The vellum scandal!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4331544/Brexit-Act-WON-T-printed-posterity-vellum.html
-
The vellum scandal!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4331544/Brexit-Act-WON-T-printed-posterity-vellum.html
You're using the D'mail as a source of information?? :o
-
The vellum scandal!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4331544/Brexit-Act-WON-T-printed-posterity-vellum.html
Won't it be written on the back of a fag packet like all the other documents?
-
The vellum scandal!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4331544/Brexit-Act-WON-T-printed-posterity-vellum.html
Good news for goats.
-
Good news for goats.
They've been bleating about this for years!!!
-
I see that May in parliament is talking about 'free and frictionless access to the single market'. She has no choice, as anything else will be a calamity for some businesses. But is it possible for a country outside the EU?
-
Not without accepting the regulations which is surely not what is being sold.
-
Not without accepting the regulations which is surely not what is being sold.
Yes, the regulations are 'harmonized', which is why my truck at the moment can drive to Bucharest, and sail through borders, as long as I have entered it (and its cargo), on the electronic database. But after Brexit, I can't do that, I will need paper documents, to be checked at every border. I doubt if the EU are going to say, OK, you can have free movement of goods as a special favour. Why would they do that?
-
Yep, we might be exporting the bendy bananas, or the powerful hoover, or lightbulbs that we are 'banned' from having at the moment.
-
Although I still think we should have remained in the EU, I see one small glint of something positive and that is that, since nearly every other country has English as a second language, this country, its people and its language remain central.
-
Not without accepting the regulations which is surely not what is being sold.
The myopic idiotic people keep forgetting we will have the rest of the world to trade with, on our terms not the EUs. The 27 members won't and so will suffer as the EU is diminishing. And that we hold some strong cards which will put pressure on their hand to give us a good deal.
-
Yes, the regulations are 'harmonized', which is why my truck at the moment can drive to Bucharest, and sail through borders, as long as I have entered it (and its cargo), on the electronic database. But after Brexit, I can't do that, I will need paper documents, to be checked at every border. I doubt if the EU are going to say, OK, you can have free movement of goods as a special favour. Why would they do that?
Because our goods are harmonized with theirs already so no need for long negotiations etc. and that they need us as much as we need them so they will be pressurized to capitulate.
You've got a truck?
-
The myopic idiotic people keep forgetting we will have the rest of the world to trade with, on our terms not the EUs. The 27 members won't and so will suffer as the EU is diminishing. And that we hold some strong cards which will put pressure on their hand to give us a good deal.
The rest of the world are going to trade with the UK on the UK's terms?
And the EU magically can't trade with them!
And that's ignoring that in terns of free movement of goods, the above is a non sequitur.
-
Because our goods are harmonized with theirs already so no need for long negotiations etc. and that they need us as much as we need them so they will be pressurized to capitulate.
You've got a truck?
But then because our goods are harmonized with their"s the regulations will continue to apply for those exports. Therefore in business terns, we will continue to apply them here because it keeps the harmonization.
-
The rest of the world are going to trade with the UK on the UK's terms?
And the EU magically can't trade with them!
And that's ignoring that in terns of free movement of goods, the above is a non sequitur.
This is about the EU, Brussels' commission, setting the terms not the 27 members or not what they need especially the weaker members. We would agree the terms not the EU for us. Individual members can't do trade deals with the rest of the world, they are lumped with a compromise from Brussels that suits Germany and France and may be some other stronger members.
-
But then because our goods are harmonized with their"s the regulations will continue to apply for those exports. Therefore in business terns, we will continue to apply them here because it keeps the harmonization.
Well done!!! And your point is, besides backing my argument?
-
This is about the EU, Brussels' commission, setting the terms not the 27 members or not what they need especially the weaker members. We would agree the terms not the EU for us. Individual members can't do trade deals with the rest of the world, they are lumped with a compromise from Brussels that suits Germany and France and may be some other stronger members.
Indeed but your post paints a false picture in presenting the deals as if they would be in UK terms not a compromise, ignores that the EU as a bigger trading bloc will be have more clout, and implied that it wouldn't be in any sense on EU terms. Note given other posts on freedom of movement and harmonization, it may be difficult for the UK to have deals that are not heavily influenced by the EU deals with no input.
-
Well done!!! And your point is, besides backing my argument?
that the idea that we won't be bound by EU regulation that has been touted would be incorrect here. The regulations will continue to change and in order to maintain the access we will follow the regulation with no input.
-
Indeed but your post paints a false picture in presenting the deals as if they would be in UK terms not a compromise, ignores that the EU as a bigger trading bloc will be have more clout, and implied that it wouldn't be in any sense on EU terms. Note given other posts on freedom of movement and harmonization, it may be difficult for the UK to have deals that are not heavily influenced by the EU deals with no input.
As I said the UK would ratify the deals with other countries around the world for the UK, and not the EU as is at present. Yes, the EU has a lot of clout but that is to Germany's and France's advantage not to the weaker members of the EU therefore for them that clout is near to pointless and can be harmful.
Not sure what your last sentence means.
-
that the idea that we won't be bound by EU regulation that has been touted would be incorrect here. The regulations will continue to change and in order to maintain the access we will follow the regulation with no input.
But that is true across the globe. They would have to adhere to our rules (and have no input) and we have to adhere to the US rules (and have no input) and so on. What is your point?
-
As I said the UK would ratify the deals with other countries around the world for the UK, and not the EU as is at present. Yes, the EU has a lot of clout but that is to Germany's and France's advantage not to the weaker members of the EU therefore for them that clout is near to pointless and can be harmful.
Not sure what your last sentence means.
No, you said that the deals would be in UK terms as if it wouldn't be a compromise.
The last sentence us that in maintaining the free movement of goods we will be subject to the regulations that are created and influenced by the EU trade deals with no input to them, which means that the trade deals we would make will be influenced by those decisions with no input from us.
-
But that is true across the globe. They would have to adhere to our rules (and have no input) and we have to adhere to the US rules (and have no input) and so on. What is your point?
This isn't comparing like against like. We don't have freedom if goods movement with the US. You have already stated that we will maintain the EU regs and, that we will have to follow new ones. This means we won't be able to introduce our regs because they will have to stay in line with the EU's as you have agreed.
-
No, you said that the deals would be in UK terms as if it wouldn't be a compromise.
OK, but I thought what I said or meant was implicit in what I said due to the previous exchanges.
The last sentence us that in maintaining the free movement of goods we will be subject to the regulations that are created and influenced by the EU trade deals with no input to them, which means that the trade deals we would make will be influenced by those decisions with no input from us.
Still not totally clear here. We can go and buy elsewhere if need be if things get too costly. Or, the whole point of trade deals is to create bespoke deals that avoid the stricter stuff. It's a two way street you know.
-
This isn't comparing like against like. We don't have freedom if goods movement with the US. You have already stated that we will maintain the EU regs and, that we will have to follow new ones. This means we won't be able to introduce our regs because they will have to stay in line with the EU's as you have agreed.
There's no present tense "we don't have...", this is theory or what could be arranged at a later date - what is possible. Our regs would govern the imports into the UK which the EU would have to abide by if they wanted to trade with us. It's a two way street!!!!
-
There's no present tense "we don't have...", this is theory or what could be arranged at a later date - what is possible. Our regs would govern the imports into the UK which the EU would have to abide by if they wanted to trade with us. It's a two way street!!!!
Then that's not harmonized and isn't the freedom of goods movement you were supporting earlier.
-
OK, but I thought what I said or meant was implicit in what I said due to the previous exchanges.
Still not totally clear here. We can go and buy elsewhere if need be if things get too costly. Or, the whole point of trade deals is to create bespoke deals that avoid the stricter stuff. It's a two way street you know.
Except to maintain the harmonization which you accepted gained us access to the free movement of goods, we will continue to follow those regs. Now yes, we could set up alternative production but given economies of scale, that us unlikely to be feasible.
-
Simple formula for Brexit fairness.
Should Brexit fail Brexit voting areas get a cut in public funding.
Should Brexit bring untold riches or even break even (FAT CHANCE) then Brexit voting areas would receive more public funding than remain areas.
This should have been on the ballot paper IMHO.
Rich Brexiteers, say the southern self made, being honourable and charitable people would then support Brexit areas for instance sending money up north.....
everybody will burst into song and know the lyrics.......and pigs will fly happily in a cloudless sky.
-
I suspect that May will do a big smoke and mirrors job. To satisfy the headbangers, there will be much talk of making our own rules, etc., but in trade terms, EU trade regs will be accepted, so that trade is 'frictionless', and various sectors can send goods to the EU without paper documentation, avoiding long queues at borders. Whether or not this will work, who knows. The headbangers may become restive, and demand greater separation, and some EU politicians will see it as caving in.
-
Plenty of talk of threats on security in the letter. Basically, unless UK gets a good deal, we don't tell the French that IS are planning a big attack in Paris. Pally, eh?
-
I notice that May had a dig at the scots by calling them the Scottish Nationalist Party.
Perhaps a fitting response might be to refer to ''The Conservatits''.
Where will it end? Watch out for May referring to the ''Scotch''.
-
My timeline elsewhere is filled with people bremoaning or in brextasy, I am reminded I haven't read A Tale of Two Cities in a while.
-
It looks as if the government is shifting from the hard Brexit position. There is now talk of 'regulatory alignment', passporting for financial firms, and high immigration. I suppose at first, May was protecting her back against the headbangers, who are talking of Empire 2.0, but now reality is setting in.
The irony is, that it's probably not our choice, whether soft or hard Brexit. I don't see how the EU can say, OK, you can still have all these benefits of the club, while leaving it. No club can survive like that. Still, Dacre and Murdoch can then blame the EU for their 'intransigence'.
-
Dear Wigs,
Plenty of talk of threats on security in the letter. Basically, unless UK gets a good deal, we don't tell the French that IS are planning a big attack in Paris. Pally, eh?
Well at the risk of repeating myself, that Corbyn bloke only needs to sit on his hands and watch the Tory party implode, how long will it be before the Tory party starts to alienate all those wonderful Brexiters.
It will only take one terrorist attack here or on mainland Europe and one prick to say, Interpol knew or MI5 knew and the shit will really hit the fan.
Intelligence should never have been mentioned, May really is a silly Moo!!
Gonnagle.
-
that the idea that we won't be bound by EU regulation that has been touted would be incorrect here. The regulations will continue to change and in order to maintain the access we will follow the regulation with no input.
Nor that 'red tape' would decrease.
The reality is that the levels of red tape will either stay the same or increase. It will stay the same if we simply adopt all of the EU regulations into our own UK regulations. It will increase if we apply different rule to the EU, on the basis that companies will have to abide by EU rules when exporting to the EU and a further set of different rules for the UK market.
-
The newsthump on the 'letter'
http://newsthump.com/2017/03/30/nice-continent-you-have-there-shame-if-anything-were-to-happen-to-it-britain-tells-eu/
And a view from Germany
http://m.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-1141119.html
-
Then that's not harmonized and isn't the freedom of goods movement you were supporting earlier.
Depends how one reads harmonized.
-
Except to maintain the harmonization which you accepted gained us access to the free movement of goods, we will continue to follow those regs. Now yes, we could set up alternative production but given economies of scale, that us unlikely to be feasible.
Companies do that all the time. We do trade with other parts of the world you know!
-
Plenty of talk of threats on security in the letter. Basically, unless UK gets a good deal, we don't tell the French that IS are planning a big attack in Paris. Pally, eh?
What? The EU lot are nice people? Come on, all you have to do is look at Greece and the tariffs that have kept Africa etc. out of trading with the EU. They are a load of self centred prats.
-
Depends how one reads harmonized.
Following the regulations was what was specifically agreed by your posts earlier, do you have a new meaning?
-
Companies do that all the time. We do trade with other parts of the world you know!
Yes, we do. And what we send in all but the most exceptional cases is stuff we already produce to fit in with EU regulations.
-
Yes, we do. And what we send in all but the most exceptional cases is stuff we already produce to fit in with EU regulations.
So waste then. You could save money by doing less for some markets.
-
Except to maintain the harmonization which you accepted gained us access to the free movement of goods, we will continue to follow those regs. Now yes, we could set up alternative production but given economies of scale, that us unlikely to be feasible.
I've now worked out what you are going on about and you're wrong.
We will have done a trade deal with the EU which freezes the relationship between us the and them. Any new regs they come up for their members won't apply to us. As we are harmonised with them already now it won't be too hard to come up with that trade deal, unless they are nasty buggers.
-
You can't freeze regulations. As and when they are changed, those countries which are in convergence, will also adopt the new regulations. In fact, I think this applies to many international bodies, if you are an associate member or whatever name it's given. Otherwise, there's no point in being connected to such a body, if you are going to diverge increasingly.
-
We're talking trade deals here. They are ratified by both sides and that is that. One side can't just change the rules on a whim without the other side agreeing to it as well. If they don't agree to the changes the original arrangement holds sway. It's like the EU treaties they can't be changed by one member because they now don't suit them.
-
We're talking trade deals here. They are ratified by both sides and that is that. One side can't just change the rules on a whim without the other side agreeing to it as well. If they don't agree to the changes the original arrangement holds sway. It's like the EU treaties they can't be changed by one member because they now don't suit them.
The trade deal will have a process for what to do if one side changes its regulations. After all, this sort of thing happens all the time. What it won't do is freeze the regulations for the trading partner. For example, if the EU decides you can only have a vacuum cleaner that blows (literally or figuratively), Britain will have to abide by that regulation when exporting to the EU whether we have a trade deal or not.
-
Oh, and Brexit is not just about trade deals.
Oh and we seem to have got off to a storming start.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39465631
We are going to end up with nothing.
-
The trade deal will have a process for what to do if one side changes its regulations. After all, this sort of thing happens all the time. What it won't do is freeze the regulations for the trading partner. For example, if the EU decides you can only have a vacuum cleaner that blows (literally or figuratively), Britain will have to abide by that regulation when exporting to the EU whether we have a trade deal or not.
I'm not saying one side or the other can not try to alter things but the other side doesn't have to abide by it. A contract is a contract!!!
-
Oh, and Brexit is not just about trade deals.
Oh and we seem to have got off to a storming start.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39465631
We are going to end up with nothing.
The fault here is not with us it is with the Spanish. But read my thread as to why we will never reach the end of the deal.
-
I'm not saying one side or the other can not try to alter things but the other side doesn't have to abide by it. A contract is a contract!!!
in which case the freedom of movement of goods will stop.
-
The fault here is not with us it is with the Spanish. But read my thread as to why we will never reach the end of the deal.
Perhaps you could threaten the Spanish by suggesting that if they try to take Gibraltar we will seize Heathrow Airport ...
-
The fault here is not with us it is with the Spanish. But read my thread as to why we will never reach the end of the deal.
Sounds to me that we should have had a plan for Brexit which is after all what weve said all along.
Brexit was conceived by the ''Moonlight flit'' end of society hoping that the ''spiv fraternity'' would make good.....Bish, Bash, Bosh, Job done...... down the local in time for a Strongbow.
-
Don't know why people might whinge when the important thing is getting our blue passports, and imperial measures back! Woo-hoo!!!!!
-
Perhaps you could threaten the Spanish by suggesting that if they try to take Gibraltar we will seize Heathrow Airport ...
Michael Howard - 'another small British island facing a threat from another Spanish speaking country'
-
Don't know why people might whinge when the important thing is getting our blue passports, and imperial measures back! Woo-hoo!!!!!
They might change the colour on the cover of the passport but we can't go back to the old hard backed version. Passports have to be a pretty standard shape now to go through all the electronic readers we now have.
If we have to go back to imperial measures, I'm going to personally visit every single Brexit voter and give them a slap.
-
Had to laugh over the double standards with bargaining chips. Spanish use of Gibraltar - a heinous and dastardly foreign trick. British use of EU citizens and cooperation over terrorism - entirely sagacious and strategic vision. I wondered if anyone is fooled by this garbage, but yes, probably.
-
They might change the colour on the cover of the passport but we can't go back to the old hard backed version. Passports have to be a pretty standard shape now to go through all the electronic readers we now have.
If we have to go back to imperial measures, I'm going to personally visit every single Brexit voter and give them a slap.
... and one for me, too!
I heard something yesterday about the fact that if all the other EU countries have failed to agree on Britain's exit conditions, then the date passes and we have nothing. I wasn't listening properly, so I may well have mis-heard, but do you know whether, if such agreement is not in place, we can call off the exit?
I also heard during the week a younger woman say, when asked who will do the hospitality jobs, the fruit and veg picking, etc, 'Our people will do the work.' I do not know if another person challenged her on this woolly idea or pointed out that they weren't doing it now, which is why migrants are employed.
-
in which case the freedom of movement of goods will stop.
Once again, NS, you have posted a meaningless post.
-
Perhaps you could threaten the Spanish by suggesting that if they try to take Gibraltar we will seize Heathrow Airport ...
That's a non sequitur.
-
That's a non sequitur.
Woosh!
-
Once again, NS, you have posted a meaningless post.
It was very simple. You cannot have freedom of movement if goods if the goods do not align to the regulations. There isn't going to be a deal where the UK can avoid regulations that apply to the other 27 nations.
-
Had to laugh over the double standards with bargaining chips. Spanish use of Gibraltar - a heinous and dastardly foreign trick. British use of EU citizens and cooperation over terrorism - entirely sagacious and strategic vision. I wondered if anyone is fooled by this garbage, but yes, probably.
It seems you have been fooled. They have used EU citizens when they refused May's offer some months back to deal with it before Art 50.
Security is part of the exit/divorce negotiations, Gibraltar isn't.
-
The obvious example in relation to regulations, is diesel engines and cars. The EU frequently publish directives on diesel, I think we are up to directive 6 by now. I don't see how you can export engines and cars unless you conform to such directives. They would be unsellable in the EU, and possibly illegal. Do the headbangers really think that we can just export what we want? Are these people for real?
-
Security is part of the exit/divorce negotiations, Gibraltar isn't.
Yes it is. Haven't you been following the news recently?
-
It was very simple. You cannot have freedom of movement if goods if the goods do not align to the regulations. There isn't going to be a deal where the UK can avoid regulations that apply to the other 27 nations.
And it is very simple, my simpleton, a trade deal is a trade deal. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed on a whim by only one side.
-
The obvious example in relation to regulations, is diesel engines and cars. The EU frequently publish directives on diesel, I think we are up to directive 6 by now. I don't see how you can export engines and cars unless you conform to such directives. They would be unsellable in the EU, and possibly illegal. Do the headbangers really think that we can just export what we want? Are these people for real?
A contract is a contract. If you agree to something you can't go back on it without some quid pro quo.
-
Yes it is. Haven't you been following the news recently?
By definition it isn't.
-
And it is very simple, my simpleton, a trade deal is a trade deal. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed on a whim by only one side.
Actually you have frequently argued the the EU does just that. But you have missed the point, they won't agree to a deal which would disadvantage the 27, and affect the basis of the free movement of goods.
-
And it is very simple, my simpleton, a trade deal is a trade deal. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed on a whim by only one side.
You clearly don't understand how contracts work. Any good contract has clauses in it that set out mechanisms to vary the terms in a change of circumstances.
Any trade deal with the EU will include a mechanism that allows the partners to change the regulations around products and services. That's one reason why they take an average of seven years to negotiate.
-
"Currently, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), total hydrocarbon (THC), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) are regulated for most vehicle types, including cars, trucks (lorries), locomotives, tractors and similar machinery, barges, but excluding seagoing ships and aeroplanes. For each vehicle type, different standards apply. Compliance is determined by running the engine at a standardised test cycle. Non-compliant vehicles cannot be sold in the EU, but new standards do not apply to vehicles already on the roads." (Wiki).
I suppose the headbangers will say, oh but the UK is special, and we can sell stuff that is non-compliant - dream on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards
-
By definition it isn't.
And yet, the EU has done it.
-
And yet, the EU has done it.
That doesn't mean it is intrinsic to the divorce.
-
By definition it isn't.
What definition? The border between Gibraltar and Spain in terms of movement is part of the negotiations, just as the NI/Eire border is.
-
Actually you have frequently argued the the EU does just that. But you have missed the point, they won't agree to a deal which would disadvantage the 27, and affect the basis of the free movement of goods.
Then we (especially the EU) have a problem...
-
That doesn't mean it is intrinsic to the divorce.
It is now.
-
You clearly don't understand how contracts work. Any good contract has clauses in it that set out mechanisms to vary the terms in a change of circumstances.
Any trade deal with the EU will include a mechanism that allows the partners to change the regulations around products and services. That's one reason why they take an average of seven years to negotiate.
But you lot are implying we will just roll over and play their game even if it kills us. We can insist on things as well and so restrict what they can change.
-
Then we have a problem...
Yep, the one that had been being pointed out for some time in this thread. The idea that the deal will favour the UK above everyone of the 27 when they all have a veto is naive. Further I would suspect that it won't be a case of one set of regulations on hoovers, for example, will mean no hoovers, it will he looked on as a breach of the entire agreement.
I see you added particularly the EU. And no that wouldn't be the case since it is 44% of our exports against 8% of theirs.
-
But you lot are implying we will just roll over and play their game even if it kills us. We can insist on things as well and so restrict what they can change.
Not really, this is where size is important!
-
It is now.
Simples. We say no to them and tell them to fuck off and go on to WTO rules which will hurt them. Basically call their bluff.
-
Simples. We say no to them and tell them to fuck off and go on to WTO rules which will hurt them. Basically call their bluff.
and hurts us more, that s is the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face. 44% of our exports, 8% of theirs
-
What definition? The border between Gibraltar and Spain in terms of movement is part of the negotiations, just as the NI/Eire border is.
That's not what this is about, you need to follow the news.
-
Yep, the one that had been being pointed out for some time in this thread. The idea that the deal will favour the UK above everyone of the 27 when they all have a veto is naive. Further I would suspect that it won't be a case of one set of regulations on hoovers, for example, will mean no hoovers, it will he looked on as a breach of the entire agreement.
I see you added particularly the EU. And no that wouldn't be the case since it is 44% of our exports against 8% of theirs.
But that 8% is mostly high end goods like cars etc. and they won't like that.
Our 44% is for exports but for total trade its about 15-20%.
-
That's not what this is about, you need to follow the news.
essentially from what Spain have said it is. Of course Michael Howard wants to go to war, but Michael Fallon, for once, got the point.
-
Not really, this is where size is important!
They aren't as big as they seem! ;D
-
But that 8% is mostly high end goods like cars etc. and they won't like that.
Our 44% is for exports but for total trade its about 15-20%.
And you would then logically have to apply the same analysis to the 8% for them which would take it down to less than 2%
-
There are probably legitimate concerns about Gibraltar actually. 1. It is practically a tax haven, and has privileges because of London financial markets; 2. it uses outside labour, implying an open border; 3. it has an international airport, again, involves issues to do with freedom of movement.
It you combine that with the, shall we say, Ruritanian tendency amongst UK politicians, you can see why EU is raising Gibraltar.
-
Petition, below, in favour of the proposal for individual opt-in for EU citizenship after Brexit. Unlikely to be agreed during the negotiations I suppose, but we have a third of a million signatures so far.
https://www.change.org/p/eu-offer-european-citizenship-to-uk-citizens?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink (https://www.change.org/p/eu-offer-european-citizenship-to-uk-citizens?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink)
-
But that 8% is mostly high end goods like cars etc. and they won't like that.
Indeed. Cars like Rolls Royce (German owned) Bentley (German owned) Nissan (French controlled) Vauxhall (Imminently: French owned) Mini (German owned).
Get real.
And by the way - Heathrow Airport (Spanish owned)
-
And you would then logically have to apply the same analysis to the 8% for them which would take it down to less than 2%
Where have you got this 8% from, I've heard it is 17%. And you gave that figure as the exports to the UK from the EU so you can't do that.
Secondly, as these are high end goods they only come from a few members of the EU so for them individually it is much higher, if not their biggest market. Most EU members have relatively very little trade with us. So in the end the BMW's of this world will be nagging Merkel or who ever to give use a tariff free deal.
We buy more from the EU than they from us by about £60 billion and as it is mostly from Germany etc. they will be the ones who will suffer, and they are the ones with the biggest clout in the EU and so will press gang the rest to do as they are told. Win, win. ;D
-
and hurts us more, that s is the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face. 44% of our exports, 8% of theirs
Why don't these arguments work for Scotland/UK?
-
Why don't these arguments work for Scotland/UK?
because I don't think that Scotland could maintain a free movement of goods with the rest of the UK without complying with any regulatory changes, which JK thinks could apply in the case of the UK and the EU.
I wasn't arguing that you couldn't maintain the exports but that any deal will be predicated on that. And I don't think that following the regulations would be necessarily problematic. JK seems to think there would be some benefit in making goods not regulated by the EU.
ETA
I think both Scotland, if independent, and rUK will maintain the regs that the EU develops on goods going forward so there isn't a conflict and that if an independent Scotland were in the EU it would at least have some input. But the overall idea that you could refuse to follow the future regs and still maintain freedom of movement of goods as JK was punting is nonsense. The % illustrate who would be hurt in such a stand off
-
because I don't think that Scotland could maintain a free movement of goods with the rest of the UK without complying with any regulatory changes, which JK thinks could apply in the case of the UK and the EU.
I wasn't arguing that you couldn't maintain the exports but that any deal will be predicated on that. And I don't think that following the regulations would be necessarily problematic. JK seems to think there would be some benefit in making goods not regulated by the EU.
ETA
I think both Scotland, if independent, and rUK will maintain the regs that the EU develops on goods going forward so there isn't a conflict and that if an independent Scotland were in the EU it would at least have some input. But the overall idea that you could refuse to follow the future regs and still maintain freedom of movement of goods as JK was punting is nonsense. The % illustrate who would be hurt in such a stand off
Not sure I follow. If you export goods to a market then the goods have to meet the regs of that market.
So the UK could post-brexit could have different regs.
A free trade deal doesn't necessarily mean regs have to match.
Scotland leaving the EU or UK single market but staying in one will have regs set elsewhere.
-
Not sure I follow. If you export goods to a market then the goods have to meet the regs of that market.
So the UK could post-brexit could have different regs.
A free trade deal doesn't necessarily mean regs have to match.
Scotland leaving the EU or UK single market but staying in one will have regs set elsewhere.
Free movement of goods needs following the regulations of the market. Rather than me go and write the whole discussion that has been covered with JK, you might want to have a quick read of it. As covered above the quick summary was JK was arguing that you could have freedom of movement on the basis of the current harmonization and that of would continue even if the zuK didn't follow any new regs. This is patently incorrect as the goods will only have free movement if they follow the regulations. There will not be an agreement that gives an exception to the UK going forward. That's the context of the use of the % figures. It isn't saying that the UK cannot survive and trade with the EU after Brexit, but that if there was a dispute it would affect the UK much more.
-
Free movement of goods needs following the regulations of the market. Rather than me go and write the whole discussion that has been covered with JK, you might want to have a quick read of it. As covered above the quick summary was JK was arguing that you could have freedom of movement on the basis of the current harmonization and that of would continue even if the zuK didn't follow any new regs. This is patently incorrect as the goods will only have free movement if they follow the regulations. There will not be an agreement that gives an exception to the UK going forward. That's the context of the use of the % figures. It isn't saying that the UK cannot survive and trade with the EU after Brexit, but that if there was a dispute it would affect the UK much more.
Absolutely - if UK companies wants to sell into the EU after it leaves they will have to abide by the EU rules.
So this give two alternatives. First simply to embed the EU rules and regulations as the UK ones making it easy for companies as they will only have one set of rules to abide by. Alternatively to set up a separate set of rules and standards in the UK, which aren't the same as the EU in which case companies will have double the amount of red tape - one set for their UK customers and a separate set for their EU customers.
Customers aren't going to be impressed if the UK government imposes a second set of red tape merely to demonstrate it is 'taking control'.
-
Absolutely - if UK companies wants to sell into the EU after it leaves they will have to abide by the EU rules.
So this give two alternatives. First simply to embed the EU rules and regulations as the UK ones making it easy for companies as they will only have one set of rules to abide by. Alternatively to set up a separate set of rules and standards in the UK, which aren't the same as the EU in which case companies will have double the amount of red tape - one set for their UK customers and a separate set for their EU customers.
Customers aren't going to be impressed if the UK government imposes a second set of red tape merely to demonstrate it is 'taking control'.
But a trade deal is a contract and sets things in stone, and we are aiming at a trade deal with the EU.
-
But a trade deal is a contract and sets things in stone, and we are aiming at a trade deal with the EU.
Sure - and any trade deal with the EU will have, as an absolute requirement, that all goods and services traded into the EU accord with EU regulations (which we will no longer have a say over).
So we have to adopt the EU regulations, and actually cede control to the EU, as unlike now we won't have a say. We can chose to add a whole additional tier of red tape of 'UK-only regulation' for products and services traded in the UK only, but that would go down like a lead balloon with businesses who would have to comply with different rules for the same product or service traded in the UK or the EU, with associated increase in costs.
Not sure you really understand the reality here.
-
Sure - and any trade deal with the EU will have, as an absolute requirement, that all goods and services traded into the EU accord with EU regulations (which we will no longer have a say over).
So we have to adopt the EU regulations, and actually cede control to the EU, as unlike now we won't have a say. We can chose to add a whole additional tier of red tape of 'UK-only regulation' for products and services traded in the UK only, but that would go down like a lead balloon with businesses who would have to comply with different rules for the same product or service traded in the UK or the EU, with associated increase in costs.
Not sure you really understand the reality here.
What part of 'set in stone' didn't you understand. They can't just change things on a whim!!!
-
But you lot are implying we will just roll over and play their game even if it kills us.
None of it would be necessary we weren't leaving the EU
We can insist on things as well and so restrict what they can change.
Of course we can but we can't tell them not to change their regulations ever. Nor would we want to, partly because it's unreasonable and impractical and partly because we will want to be able to do the same thing.
-
Simples. We say no to them and tell them to fuck off and go on to WTO rules which will hurt them. Basically call their bluff.
It won't hurt them as much as it hurts us.
-
None of it would be necessary we weren't leaving the EU
Of course we can but we can't tell them not to change their regulations ever. Nor would we want to, partly because it's unreasonable and impractical and partly because we will want to be able to do the same thing.
I'm going mad having to repeat myself. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed just because of some prats in Brussels have a fit.
-
It won't hurt them as much as it hurts us.
Yes it will.
-
I'm going mad having to repeat myself. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed just because of some prats in Brussels have a fit.
You wouldn't have to keep repeating things that are wrong if you listened to and understood what other people are saying.
If we do a trade deal with the EU there will be clauses in it that say how changes in regulations will be handled. Good contracts always have mechanisms in them that allow you to change things that you can foresee will need changing.
Concrete example: the EU introduces new safety regulations for cars that make them more expensive to make. Britain's alleged forthcoming trade deal will not stop them from doing this and it will not make it legal for British car manufacturers to sell cars in the EU that do not comply with the new regulations.
-
Yes it will.
No it won't. Each company in the EU will still have nearly 500 million people to sell to and each company in the UK will have 65 million people to sell to.
You live in a fantasy World, Jack. Wake up.
-
Yes it will.
No it won'r because it affects just 8% of the foreign trade of EU member states, while it affects about 50% of ours.
-
You wouldn't have to keep repeating things that are wrong if you listened to and understood what other people are saying.
If we do a trade deal with the EU there will be clauses in it that say how changes in regulations will be handled. Good contracts always have mechanisms in them that allow you to change things that you can foresee will need changing.
Concrete example: the EU introduces new safety regulations for cars that make them more expensive to make. Britain's alleged forthcoming trade deal will not stop them from doing this and it will not make it legal for British car manufacturers to sell cars in the EU that do not comply with the new regulations.
Whether they are in there or not would have to be agreed by us.
-
No it won't. Each company in the EU will still have nearly 500 million people to sell to and each company in the UK will have 65 million people to sell to.
You live in a fantasy World, Jack. Wake up.
No point having buyers who have no money!!! ::)
-
No point having buyers who have no money!!! ::)
you think the Germans have no money. Or the French. Or the Italians. Or the Polish. etc.
You really need to get out more.
In fact if you look at the countries in the OECD where incomes have shrunk between 2007 - 2015. Oh let's think who could be on that list. Greece, Portugal & the UK. All other countries have shown a growth in incomes.
When are you going to learn that our problems are largely homegrown and have little or nothing to do with the EU. It's down to the stupid choices we make as a country and that is largely to do with the fact that, for some reason that I cannot comprehend, Ms May and her team are somehow seen by the great British public as competent.
I've seen more competence from a class of 5 year olds.
-
you think the Germans have no money. Or the French. Or the Italians. Or the Polish. etc.
You really need to get out more.
In fact if you look at the countries in the OECD where incomes have shrunk between 2007 - 2015. Oh let's think who could be on that list. Greece, Portugal & the UK. All other countries have shown a growth in incomes.
When are you going to learn that our problems are largely homegrown and have little or nothing to do with the EU. It's down to the stupid choices we make as a country and that is largely to do with the fact that, for some reason that I cannot comprehend, Ms May and her team are somehow seen by the great British public as competent.
I've seen more competence from a class of 5 year olds.
Germans don't spend but save hence the country's current account value. And the others you mention relatively not so hot. But people mention that the EU is 500 million people but many of those are not likely to be buying high end goods, which is what we sell and the likes of Germany etc. Therefore, it is pretty moribund.
As for incomes and employment, you think France, Spain, Italy and Ireland etc. are doing well? The French NF are preaching to the youths in France, for their votes, because 25% of them are unemployed. No point in wages going up if you haven't got a job!
Your next bit is a nice assertion, perhaps you would like to elaborate on this...? And I don't mean the 5 year olds.
-
The official EU poll for anyone concerned about losing their EU citizenship rights. Vote here to register your interest in an EU passport post-Brexit :
http://www.choosefreedom.eu/ (http://www.choosefreedom.eu/)
-
Guy Verhofstadt demolishes Nigel Farage :
https://youtu.be/0M4hExU-tfg (https://youtu.be/0M4hExU-tfg)
Enjoy ;)
-
Data from Google Trends indicates a surge in interest in 'Stop Brexit' following the anouncement of the general election. Maybe there is still hope at the end of the tunnel.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&geo=GB&q=stop%20brexit,support%20brexit (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&geo=GB&q=stop%20brexit,support%20brexit)
-
Whether they are in there or not would have to be agreed by us.
There's no way that the EU governments would allow EU car safety regulations to be dictated by the British.
-
No point having buyers who have no money!!! ::)
Who says the 500 million citizens in the EU have no money?
-
Germans don't spend but save hence the country's current account value.
Rubbish.
And the others you mention relatively not so hot. But people mention that the EU is 500 million people but many of those are not likely to be buying high end goods,
Many British people are not likely to be buying high end goods
As for incomes and employment, you think France, Spain, Italy and Ireland etc. are doing well? The French NF are preaching to the youths in France, for their votes, because 25% of them are unemployed. No point in wages going up if you haven't got a job!
France has its own problems not caused by the EU.
However, if unemployment across the EU was 50% there would still be 250 million people to sell to.
-
There's no way that the EU governments would allow EU car safety regulations to be dictated by the British.
That still doesn't negate my comment which still stands.
-
Who says the 500 million citizens in the EU have no money?
The facts of life says so!!! Well, nothing to talk about.
-
Rubbish.
It's not. What I said is true.
Many British people are not likely to be buying high end goods
And how many is many? More than some of the poorer regions of the EU.
France has its own problems not caused by the EU.
It's in the Euro!....? ::)...........say no more!!!!
However, if unemployment across the EU was 50% there would still be 250 million people to sell to.
You mean work pays? ::) ::) ::)......you are laugh and a joke Jeremy.
You mean like in Britain where some people who have what is called work have to use foodbanks.....?
-
And how many is many? More than some of the poorer regions of the EU.
And less than the richer regions of the EU - what's your point?
-
You mean like in Britain where some people who have what is called work have to use foodbanks.....?
so you claimed that the EU is not a great market because some people in it have no money. Now you are admitting the same situation pertains to the UK.
You really are completely clueless. Didn't it occur to you while you were writing those words out that you were setting yourself up?
-
And less than the richer regions of the EU - what's your point?
We are one of the richer regions, in fact the second one. As I said with regards to high end goods many (a good affair chunk) of the EU regions wouldn't have the spare cash for these goods.
-
so you claimed that the EU is not a great market because some people in it have no money. Now you are admitting the same situation pertains to the UK.
You really are completely clueless. Didn't it occur to you while you were writing those words out that you were setting yourself up?
I was making a point, using a homeland issue, which is not prevalent here, to say that even if people have jobs (in the EU member states) they can't indulge in the goods that we sell here.
-
I was making a point,
The point being that you hold an incoherent position. It was well made.
-
The point being that you hold an incoherent position. It was well made.
No it was not incoherent. All societies have their relative poor, we just have a lower level than others. But I was using them as an example of such types to make my point.
-
This made me smile:
United Ireland plan to be included in Brexit talk guidelines.
European leaders are to acknowledge the potential for a united Ireland in a move that will allow the province back into the EU automatically if reunification occurs.
The recognition of a special status for Northern Ireland will be based on the situation which followed the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1990.
Sources say the guarantee of membership will be tied in with an acknowledgement that the terms of the Good Friday Agreement must be factored into any Brexit deal.
Wording on the commitment is still being finalised but it is expected to be in documents accompanying the formal EU negotiating guidelines tomorrow.....
..... However, the idea of Irish unity remains very sensitive for Westminster, which is also facing the prospect of a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Under the terms of the 1998 Agreement, Northern Ireland can join the Republic if such a move is supported in a vote both north and south of the border.
European leaders will discuss the parameters of the forthcoming Brexit negotiations with the UK tomorrow. The formal guidelines will acknowledge the "unique circumstances on the island of Ireland" and the fact "flexible and imaginative solutions will be required" around the Border.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/united-ireland-plan-to-be-included-in-brexit-talk-guidelines-35661446.html
-
No it was not incoherent. All societies have their relative poor, we just have a lower level than others.
You were saying that even employed people need to use food banks. That doesn't sound like low levels to me.
So there are poor people in the EU and poor people in the UK. The only difference is that there are500 million of EIU citizens and only 60 millions of us.
Sounds like we are the ones in trouble, not the EU.
-
You were saying that even employed people need to use food banks. That doesn't sound like low levels to me.
So there are poor people in the EU and poor people in the UK. The only difference is that there are500 million of EIU citizens and only 60 millions of us.
Sounds like we are the ones in trouble, not the EU.
It's relative. We have % wise less poor. And the fact is we buy more from the rich members of the EU than they do from us so they will lose out. Trade with the poorer EU lot is negligible.
-
It's relative. We have % wise less poor.
What? Than Germany?
And the fact is we buy more from the rich members of the EU than they do from us so they will lose out. Trade with the poorer EU lot is negligible.
No, we lose out because our fancy German goods will cost us more. Yes, the Germans also lose a little bit but they have 500 million other people they can sell their stuff to. The EU would have to be 90% abject poverty before they had fewer people to sell to.
Meanwhile I guess more of us can use the food banks.
-
We are one of the richer regions, in fact the second one.
No we aren't.
We are actually 9th of EU countries in terms of GDP per person.
And when we look at our Northern European country neighbours (whether in the EU or not) we are pretty well bottom of the list.
So we are less rich than:
Luxembourg
Norway
Ireland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Iceland
Germany
Austria
Denmark and
Belgium
And we are pretty well identical to France (sometimes they are above on GDP per person, sometime we are).
So making the most sensible comparisons - with countries most like us in Europe, we are pretty well the poorest.
-
What? Than Germany?
Or
Luxembourg
Norway
Ireland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Iceland
Austria
Denmark and
Belgium
All of whom are richer than us on a per person basis.
-
What? Than Germany?
Now you're just being stupid. Read what I write. I was referring to many of the EU member states.
No, we lose out because our fancy German goods will cost us more. Yes, the Germans also lose a little bit but they have 500 million other people they can sell their stuff to. The EU would have to be 90% abject poverty before they had fewer people to sell to.
Read what I say. Many of those are too poor to be contenders in the high goods market purchasers. So it is a straight comparison between the rich nations.
-
No we aren't.
We are actually 9th of EU countries in terms of GDP per person.
And when we look at our Northern European country neighbours (whether in the EU or not) we are pretty well bottom of the list.
So we are less rich than:
Luxembourg
Norway
Ireland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Sweden
Iceland
Germany
Austria
Denmark and
Belgium
And we are pretty well identical to France (sometimes they are above on GDP per person, sometime we are).
So making the most sensible comparisons - with countries most like us in Europe, we are pretty well the poorest.
Oh Davey you are so sad!!! We are the 5th or 6th richest nation in the world. And the second in the EU because we pay the second most highest membership contribution.
-
Oh Davey you are so sad!!! We are the 5th or 6th richest nation in the world. And the second in the EU because we pay the second most highest membership contribution.
You are confusing biggest with richest - they aren't the same thing.
The way you assess richest is per person. Otherwise you might conclude that Sudan is somehow richer than Luxembourg.
We are the 9th richest in the EU, and pretty well bottom of the list of comparable northern european countries.
-
Oh Davey you are so sad!!! We are the 5th or 6th richest nation in the world. And the second in the EU because we pay the second most highest membership contribution.
When you are selling stuff to people what matters is how rich those people are. GDP per head is a reasonable measure of that.
PD's post is absolutely fine in that context. You lose. As usual.
-
Strange how the Turkish customs union with the EU is being ignored in the media. I suppose for the headbangers it's too close to the EU, since some EU regulations are incorporated into Turkish law. Also, Mme May has to fake a hard Brexit, so as to keep the nutters quiet? Or maybe she is not faking. Well, we can't complain about being overloaded with information.
-
Hilarious. What the powerhouse of the EU really thinks about Mayhem:
EU Commission fears failure of negotiations.
In Brussels, a failure of the talks is more likely to be a success. The British PM May, at a meeting with Commissioner Juncker, expressed completely exaggerated demands from the EU perspective.
The EU Commission is very sceptical about the successful conclusion of the Brexit negotiations with the United Kingdom. The reason for this is the meeting between Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and British Prime Minister Theresa May last Wednesday in London.
As reported by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, Juncker, after two hours of talk, said, "I leave Downing Street ten times more sceptical than I was before." After the presentation in Commission circles, May had made no compromise at the meeting and unrealistic ideas about The course of the negotiations, the FAS writes. The probability of a failure of the negotiations was estimated in the circles to "over fifty percent".
May should, therefore, have insisted that from the beginning a free trade agreement is discussed - the EU is only ready for it when the separation modalities are clarified. The Prime Minister also expressed the view that, according to the European treaties, she did not owe any money to the other states, which, on the other hand, accounted for between 60 and 65 billion euro. She reiterated her view that the Brexit should be a success, but the conviction in Brussels is that this is not possible because Britain as a third country will be worse off than it is now.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/brexit/eu-kommission-skeptisch-vor-brexit-verhandlungen-14993673.html
The Indy summarise the meeting quite succinctly in an article titled "Show this to anyone who thinks Theresa May's offering 'strong and stable leadership' on Brexit" Well worth a read: https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-theresa-may-eu-referendun-juncker-dinner-shambles-trade-faz-report-7711161
This stood out head and shoulders above the rest for me:
"— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 201713)
13) She cited her own JHA opt-out negotiations as home sec as a model: a mutually useful agreement meaning lots on paper, little in reality.
— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
14) May's reference to the JHA (justice and home affairs) opt-outs set off alarm signals for the EU side. This was what they had feared.
— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
15) ie as home sec May opted out of EU measures (playing to UK audience) then opted back in, and wrongly thinks she can do same with Brexit"
-
I can't decide if May is cleverly faking a hard Brexit, in order to keep the Ultras quiet, but she will accept a kind of modified customs union, with 'frictionless' trade across EU borders. Or alternatively, she really believes that she can cherry-pick various goodies, and not pay anything back. Probably the second one, and no doubt, the Tories will be ready to blame everybody - the EU, Germany, France, Corbyn, if it goes pear-shaped. But the pear will be strong and stable.
-
I can't decide if May is cleverly faking a hard Brexit, in order to keep the Ultras quiet, but she will accept a kind of modified customs union, with 'frictionless' trade across EU borders. Or alternatively, she really believes that she can cherry-pick various goodies, and not pay anything back. Probably the second one, and no doubt, the Tories will be ready to blame everybody - the EU, Germany, France, Corbyn, if it goes pear-shaped. But the pear will be strong and stable.
Given the goals of the Conservative party are an army of unemployed and cheap labour... to achieve that in one fell swoop i.e. an inevitably shit Brexit must be mouthwatering.
-
Given the goals of the Conservative party are an army of unemployed and cheap labour... to achieve that in one fell swoop i.e. an inevitably shit Brexit must be mouthwatering.
Possibly, but then a hard Brexit could be catastrophic for the City and other financial firms. However, a friend just said to me, have you considered that May isn't very bright, and isn't very competent. Well, there is that possibility. I am sure that being dim is very important in the grand scheme of things.
-
Possibly, but then a hard Brexit could be catastrophic for the City and other financial firms. However, a friend just said to me, have you considered that May isn't very bright, and isn't very competent. Well, there is that possibility. I am sure that being dim is very important in the grand scheme of things.
But it's May's threat of sucking assets back on shore by cheap labour and deregulation that is the giveaway.
-
But it's May's threat of sucking assets back on shore by cheap labour and deregulation that is the giveaway.
Yes, but she realizes also that walking away will negate our ability to trade with the EU. Every truckload will have to be documented and checked at frontiers, I think it's 12, 000 trucks a day go through Dover. They'd better cone off the M3 as a permanent lorry park.
-
Yes, but she realizes also that walking away will negate our ability to trade with the EU. Every truckload will have to be documented and checked at frontiers, I think it's 12, 000 trucks a day go through Dover. They'd better cone off the M3 as a permanent lorry park.
Yep. Heavy traffic and congestion will obviously affect Tory heartlands in Kent, Surrey, Essex and maybe Berks as well.
I think the ability to fuck off it's own heartlands will be tested in Kent, threatened with operation Stack and relief lorry parks planned, at the local and general elections. If they can allow misery to happen there and still hang on to the vote nothing'll stop them.
-
"— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
17) May then insisted to Juncker et al that UK owes EU no money because there is nothing to that effect in the treaties.
— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
19) Davis then objected that EU could not force a post-Brexit, post-ECJ UK to pay the bill. OK, said Juncker, then no trade deal.
— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
25) Juncker's team now think it more likely than not that Brexit talks will collapse & hope Brits wake up to harsh realities in time.
— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
27) The report points to major communications/briefing problems. Important messages from Berlin & Brussels seem not to be getting through.
— Jeremy Cliffe (@JeremyCliffe) April 30, 2017
28) Presumably, as a result, May seems to be labouring under some really rather fundamental misconceptions about Brexit & the EU27."
Says it all really!!
-
It's possible that May is being very clever, and bluffing like mad, partly to fool her Ultras, who want a complete divorce. On the other hand, she may just be rather dim and fairly ignorant about the EU. Place your bets!
-
I can't decide if May is cleverly faking a hard Brexit, in order to keep the Ultras quiet, but she will accept a kind of modified customs union, with 'frictionless' trade across EU borders. Or alternatively, she really believes that she can cherry-pick various goodies, and not pay anything back. Probably the second one, and no doubt, the Tories will be ready to blame everybody - the EU, Germany, France, Corbyn, if it goes pear-shaped. But the pear will be strong and stable.
She's faking hard Brexit. It's also the best explanation for the election. If she has a big majority, she can say "fuck you" to the hardliners.
-
Given the goals of the Conservative party are an army of unemployed and cheap labour... to achieve that in one fell swoop i.e. an inevitably shit Brexit must be mouthwatering.
I don't see how that follows. An easy way to get access to cheap labour is to stay in the EU. A hard way to get access to cheap labour is to drive the economy (and therefore employment) into the pit of despair and to revoke all our labour laws.
-
I don't see how that follows. An easy way to get access to cheap labour is to stay in the EU. A hard way to get access to cheap labour is to drive the economy (and therefore employment) into the pit of despair and to revoke all our labour laws.
We will still have loads of cheap labour - simply because all those farms that rely on immigrant labour to pick their crops, all those care homes that rely on immigrant labour to look after your elderly mother or grandmother, all those hotels that rely on immigrant labour to clean the rooms and serve in the bar will demand it. And no government will go against them.
And before anyone suggest that these could all be done by brits - do you really think that a company will go to the massive effort of recruiting from abroad if there were local people willing to do the job.
-
We will still have loads of cheap labour - simply because all those farms that rely on immigrant labour to pick their crops, all those care homes that rely on immigrant labour to look after your elderly mother or grandmother, all those hotels that rely on immigrant labour to clean the rooms and serve in the bar will demand it. And no government will go against them.
And before anyone suggest that these could all be done by brits - do you really think that a company will go to the massive effort of recruiting from abroad if there were local people willing to do the job.
Of course it's true. Of our net immigration of around 300,000, only about half comes fro the EU. If there was really a concern about immigration, the government could halve it tomorrow without breaching EU rules. They don't do it because immigration is good for the country on balance.
-
Of course it's true. Of our net immigration of around 300,000, only about half comes fro the EU. If there was really a concern about immigration, the government could halve it tomorrow without breaching EU rules. They don't do it because immigration is good for the country on balance.
Absolutely - were there to have been any appetite to curb net migration successive governments would have clamped down on non-EU migration, which they have always had complete control over - but they didn't. And the government won't clamp down on EU migration post-brexit in anything other than a nominal fashion. Why - because the country needs these people to do all sorts of jobs that UK citizens won't do.
-
String theory; Boris Johnston and a cat: Star Wars........ Well, it makes as much sense as Theresa May's conversation over dinner....... https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/05/01/in-a-galaxy-far-far-away/
-
What is the best possible brexit deal?
How can you promise it if you've said you would walk away with no deal?
-
Didn't May talk up our special relationship with the US. They were going to keep us at the front of the queue and then Trump forgot about that at his inauguration.
I think we need to know what Brexit hopes to achieve and how the tories will ensure it's as good as what's gone on before.
-
In spite of Brexit....people are still calmly making billions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39830087
***********
The UK's richest 1,000 people "kept calm and carried on making billions" amid the Brexit vote of 2016, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.
Their wealth rose by 14% over the past year to a record £658bn, it shows.
Brothers Sri and Gopi Hinduja, who invest in property, healthcare and oil and gas, top this year's list with £16.2bn - up £3.2bn on 2016.
The list includes a record number of British billionaires - 134 - with 14 new ones emerging over the last year.
"We expected to see a chilling effect in the run-up to the EU referendum, but that simply did not materialise," Mr Watts said.
"A buoyant stock market usually drives the wealth of rich-listers higher, and since last June equities have soared."
Mr Watts said: "We're seeing more and more diversity in the composition of the Rich List.
"More women, more people from ethnic backgrounds, and more from surprising walks of life, with egg farmers and pet food makers lining up with hedge fund managers and private equity barons."
It now takes assets of £110m to break into the ranks of the richest 1,000 people in the UK. The figure in 2016 was £103m.
The top 20 in the list alone are worth a total of £191.77bn, increasing their wealth by £35.18bn over the past 12 months.
************
So...all is well apparently...!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
So...all is well apparently...!
Yes, if you consider the obscenely rich getting even richer an indicator of wellness.
-
In spite of Brexit....people are still calmly making billions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39830087
***********
The UK's richest 1,000 people "kept calm and carried on making billions" amid the Brexit vote of 2016, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.
Their wealth rose by 14% over the past year to a record £658bn, it shows.
Brothers Sri and Gopi Hinduja, who invest in property, healthcare and oil and gas, top this year's list with £16.2bn - up £3.2bn on 2016.
The list includes a record number of British billionaires - 134 - with 14 new ones emerging over the last year.
"We expected to see a chilling effect in the run-up to the EU referendum, but that simply did not materialise," Mr Watts said.
"A buoyant stock market usually drives the wealth of rich-listers higher, and since last June equities have soared."
Mr Watts said: "We're seeing more and more diversity in the composition of the Rich List.
"More women, more people from ethnic backgrounds, and more from surprising walks of life, with egg farmers and pet food makers lining up with hedge fund managers and private equity barons."
It now takes assets of £110m to break into the ranks of the richest 1,000 people in the UK. The figure in 2016 was £103m.
The top 20 in the list alone are worth a total of £191.77bn, increasing their wealth by £35.18bn over the past 12 months.
************
So...all is well apparently...!
Cheers.
Sriram
That's not what the brexiteers voted for though. Everything was going to be right and 350 million going to the NHS each week.
let's DEFEAT INEQUALITY BY BRINGING ECONOMIC RUIN ON OURSELVES YEAHHH!!
-
Some interesting rumours about the leak of the Juncker dinner - for example, that it was a deliberate plant, designed to wind up May and the tabloids, hence 'Hands off our election', 'EU helping Labour', and so on, not with the idea of helping May win the election, but the aim of making Brexit impossible. This is probably too clever, and I'm not sure who would want to sabotage Brexit in the EU.
-
Yep. Heavy traffic and congestion will obviously affect Tory heartlands in Kent, Surrey, Essex and maybe Berks as well.
I think the ability to fuck off it's own heartlands will be tested in Kent, threatened with operation Stack and relief lorry parks planned, at the local and general elections. If they can allow misery to happen there and still hang on to the vote nothing'll stop them.
It's a worry.
http://southendnewsnetwork.com/snn-breaking/dartford-tunnel-closed-after-thousands-of-kent-residents-attempt-to-enter-essex-illegally-2/
-
Southend News Network was originally started in October 2015 with no real aims or objectives in mind other than to add a satirical/spoof-like touch to issues that people are passionate about in Southend On Sea. Above all else, SNN is all about having the occasional ‘dig’ at the powers that be, as well a slightly bigger and more frequent ‘dig’ at certain elements of local media!
-
Bloody hell, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
-
Some interesting rumours about the leak of the Juncker dinner - for example, that it was a deliberate plant, designed to wind up May and the tabloids, hence 'Hands off our election', 'EU helping Labour', and so on, not with the idea of helping May win the election, but the aim of making Brexit impossible. This is probably too clever, and I'm not sure who would want to sabotage Brexit in the EU.
Yeah. I was reading an article in Der Spiegel over the weekend that Merkel was ripping into Junker for the leak:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/angela-merkel-veraergert-ueber-jean-claude-juncker-nach-brexit-dinner-a-1146299.html
The full article is in the subscription version, but this one gives you the gist!
But what the hell, Here's the original Frankfurter Allgemeine article on the said dinner: http://tinyurl.com/ljd43s7
:D
-
Laugh... it is one of my favourite spoof news sites... :)
-
See its previous success
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13790.msg670966#msg670966
-
Laugh... it is one of my favourite spoof news sites... :)
Mine too. :)
-
Yeah. I was reading an article in Der Spiegel over the weekend that Merkel was ripping into Junker for the leak:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/angela-merkel-veraergert-ueber-jean-claude-juncker-nach-brexit-dinner-a-1146299.html
The full article is in the subscription version, but this one gives you the gist!
But what the hell, Here's the original Frankfurter Allgemeine article on the said dinner: http://tinyurl.com/ljd43s7
:D
Come on, Ricky, I know that you know who the saboteur is on the EU side. Frau Merkel poses as nice kind Mutti, but as soon as the Brexit vote was announced, she saw her chance. She told her favourite minion, Axel Von Klaus Axelmörder (an ancient German name), to spy out his chance. Juncker's after-dinner tirade was the chance, and he casually leaked it in German, knowing full well that the brilliant linguists in the English press would soon be perusing it. How did he know how to wind up Frau May? Ah, you may ask, but the world is not ready for this information, or everybody will be doing it.
Mutti was tired of hearing English football fans sing 'Two World Wars and One World Cup', and resolved that German fans would soon be singing 'Knacksel, Backsel, Brexit, Bollocks, England, Kaput'.
-
I'll take that under advisement Wiggs!! :)
I await with bated breath to hear if Macron has reviewed his feelings on Brexit:
March 2017
Let’s talk about Brexit. What is the best response to the UK when it comes to negotiations?
Macron: I am a hard Brexiter. I think that Europe has made a mistake negotiating the inter-governmental accord [the “special status” deal David Cameron struck with the EU in February last year]. It created a precedent, which is that a single state can twist the European debate to its own interests. Cameron was toying with Europe and we agreed to go along with it, which was a big mistake.
Britain must understand that our interest in the medium to long term is to have clear rules. So if Britain wants to trade with Europe it has to choose a model, such as the Swiss, Norwegian or Canadian. We have to accept that there are losses. But it’s the British who will lose the most. You cannot enjoy rights in Europe if you are not a member – otherwise, it will fall apart. Europe is what has enabled us since 1945, in an unprecedented way, to preserve peace, security, freedom and prosperity in our continent. The British are making a serious mistake over the long term. [Foreign secretary] Boris Johnson enjoys giving flamboyant speeches but has no strategic vision; the turmoil he created the day after Brexit proves it. [Former leader of Ukip] Nigel Farage and Mr Johnson are responsible for this crime: they sailed the ship into battle and jumped overboard at the moment of crisis. Theresa May has handled it but what has been happening since then? On the geopolitical level as well as on the financial, realignment and submission to the US. What is going to happen is not “taking back control”: it’s servitude.
http://www.euronews.com/2017/05/08/what-emmanuel-macron-has-said-about-brexit
-
Dear Jack, Jakswan, Sass and T8, ( there may be others lurking in the undergrowth ::) )
given the decision of the high court do you think this is a good decision, is Brexit a small decision or a massive decision, should parliament debate every step/negotiating strategy we make before we trigger article 50.
Should it be left to the government to make every decision on how we leave the EU.
Given that the people who voted for Brexit came from all different walks of political life should it not be in their interests that all parties debate our exit from Europe.
Gonnagle.
Pass Tense Gonnagle,
Would it really make any difference to the actually exit?
If, you believe now that the involvement of Theresa May was anything less than a political move and future thinking for the
Conservative Party I would love to hear why.
Is it any wonder or co-incident that she having said " Brexit is going to happen" was anything less about winning back people?
Or even the fact a General election is now looming having triggering article 50 in March?
Wake up! Gonnagle, it has all been about the Conservative being a people pleaser and keeping power. Even I would be tempted to vote for the woman I like her. But unfortunately, I do not subscribe to a party who oppress the poor our needy in our society and leave the poorer children of families to go without food and the basic needs.
God knows best, and in this case we have to see behind the scenes to the reasoning for what is happening.
-
Good.
She'd only fuck-it-up anyways...LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May will be blocked from negotiating Brexit with fellow European leaders once talks officially get underway, senior figures from the European Union warned on Wednesday.
May will not be invited to meetings of the heads of government of other member states and will only be allowed to discuss the terms of Brexit with Michel Barnier, European Commission’s chief negotiator, the Times newspaper reported.
This latest development is yet another blow to May's Brexit plan.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-threatens-to-ban-theresa-may-from-taking-part-in-brexit-talks-2017-5
-
If only all the Tory voters would sit down and think...
She was a terrible Home Secretary with an appalling record of failure in every policy area. However, I accept that she was the inevitable choice for the leader when both Boris and Michael Gove bottled out. Also, as I’ve written before, we needed someone stubborn, obstinate, pig-headed, intransigent and incapable of listening to get Article 50 triggered in the face of the anti-democratic Remaniacs. She did a good job of that but now we need a real leader, someone who can actually implement her empty words about a “country that works for everyone” – which Ms May neither really means nor is she even capable of achieving.
https://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/theresa-may-isnt-strong-shes-cowardly-evasive-and-weak-and-im-a-tory/
-
Under the wishy washy Corbyn Labour looks pathetic. I am not in favour of Brexit, but think Theresa May is the person to strike a reasonable deal, unlike Corbyn.
-
This is an incredibly long read (took me 15 minutes - be warned) but so very, very important in illuminating the huge mistake we are currently, as a nation, making:
http://www.brexitshambles.com/long-read-what-are-the-economic-effects-of-britain-leaving-the-eu/
-
Under the wishy washy Corbyn Labour looks pathetic. I am not in favour of Brexit, but think Theresa May is the person to strike a reasonable deal, unlike Corbyn.
You are deluded Floo if you think May is able to strike anything with any certainty. She is actually the complete opposite of her current 'Strong and Stable' claim.
She's a weak, lily-livered shyster. That people can't see it in her every speech and her every movement completely astonishes me.
It's a con. You are being played and you can't even see it.
-
You are deluded Floo if you think May is able to strike anything with any certainty. She is actually the complete opposite of her current 'Strong and Stable' claim.
She's a weak, lily-livered shyster. That people can't see it in her every speech and her every movement completely astonishes me.
It's a con. You are being played and you can't even see it.
Well do you think Corbyn would do a better job, I don't?
-
Well do you think Corbyn would do a better job, I don't?
Why?
Because he puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few?
Is what you really want a country in debt to the USA - with no market in the EU. Because make no mistake the way the Tories are talking that is exactly what we are headed for.
Do you really want an underfunded and increasingly privatized NHS and Schools service.
Look up how many Tories have interests in private medical firms. Look it up and ask if they are working in the best interests of the country.
Do you want the current dreadful infrastructure to endure - because a vote for The tories is exactly that.
Sometimes your appalling complacency is really to much to bear.
-
Why?
Because he puts the needs of the many above the needs of the few?
Is what you really want a country in debt to the USA - with no market in the EU. Because make no mistake the way the Tories are talking that is exactly what we are headed for.
Do you really want an underfunded and increasingly privatized NHS and Schools service.
Look up how many Tories have interests in private medical firms. Look it up and ask if they are working in the best interests of the country.
Do you want the current appalling infrastructure to endure - because a vote for The tories is exactly that.
Sometimes your appalling complacency is really to much to bear.
Corbyn couldn't remove the skin from a rice pudding, imo! He makes pledges which he isn't likely to keep if he became PM because he wouldn't be able to afford them. He was all for scrapping Trident too, but has gone a bit quiet on that now, possibly beginning to realise we do need it as a deterrent One needs a PM who is realistic, which I think May is, even if I don't see everything her way.
-
May is realistic????????
This is a woman who has stated repeatedly that she will get as good a deal from the EU as we currently enjoy.
HELLO - you really think that is going to happen. Are you completely nuts?
Also why not take a look at the amount of money that the Duke of Westminster has managed to avoid paying and then tell me that if that revenue had been captured we couldn't go quite some way to realising Labours' spending commitments.
I repeat you are being played by the press - remind me who are they owned by? Oh yes mainly overseas millinonaires who pay no tax here. Wake up.
Oh yes and don't forget the impartial BBC - Kuenssberg, Dimbleby, Robinson et al.
-
I can see why affluent people are going to vote for May, but it's baffling that many poorer people apparently will. Seven years of austerity, a bizarre EU referendum, and now a PM who looks very shaky to me. She has to be kept away from ordinary people, as she is so hopeless. You can bet that the poor and the disabled will continue to be punished - I suppose that the English like it, as long as it's someone else, preferably lower down the scale - the undeserving poor, (think Dickens).
Still, who said politics was rational.
-
May is realistic????????
This is a woman who has stated repeatedly that she will get as good a deal from the EU as we currently enjoy.
HELLO - you really think that is going to happen. Are you completely nuts?
Also why not take a look at the amount of money that the Duke of Westminster has managed to avoid paying and then tell me that if that revenue had been captured we couldn't go quite some way to realising Labours' spending commitments.
I repeat you are being played by the press - remind me who are they owned by? Oh yes mainly overseas millinonaires who pay no tax here. Wake up.
Oh yes and don't forget the impartial BBC - Kuenssberg, Dimbleby, Robinson et al.
I am not influenced by anyone but me, never have been, which didn't exactly make me popular with my parents as a child! I think May will do a better job than Corbyn, but I can't say I am thrilled about either party.
-
I am not influenced by anyone but me, never have been, which didn't exactly make me popular with my parents as a child! I think May will do a better job than Corbyn, but I can't say I am thrilled about either party.
Why will she do a better job?
Because she's told you she's strong and stable?
Because she has policies that help the less well off in society?
Because she will vote for a return to fox hunting?
Because she will allow the continuation of the disgusting fit for work programme.
Because she will allow the continuation of the privatization of the NHS?
Why?
What reasons other than 'she'll do a better job' ?
-
The English like the odour of matron that May give off, stern, efficient, carbolic soap. But it's a fantasy, but then most of politics is.
-
Why will she do a better job?
Because she's told you she's strong and stable?
Because she has policies that help the less well off in society?
Because she will vote for a return to fox hunting?
Because she will allow the continuation of the disgusting fit for work programme.
Because she will allow the continuation of the privatization of the NHS?
Why?
What reasons other than 'she'll do a better job' ?
I think May is better able to sort Brexit mess than Corbyn.
The Government has to be realistic about what can be afforded, it is the tax payer's money after all which is funding everything.
I have no problem with fox hunting it is a good way of keeping them down, better than shooting them.
Of course people should be checked regularly to see if they are fit for work, it would be WRONG not to do so. Our Down's Syndrome son works a few days a week, even though he is quite severely mentally disabled, and so he should. It doesn't do him any harm and he seems to enjoy it.
-
Ironically, the Brexit mess has been created by the Tories, who didn't understand what it might mean, and as far as one can tell, still don't. We get whiffs of hard Brexit, but then something else, frictionless trade, as Mrs May puts it. I think Boris called it having your cake and eating it, well, yes. It's their mess.
-
I think May is better able to sort Brexit mess than Corbyn.
How is she? By insisting she is Strong and stable. I think when she meets Frau Merkel she will only then fully realize what the definition of strong and stable is.
Yes it does - so let's stop the super rich getting away with taking us for mugs. Lets get the appropriate amount of money from them.
So in your opinion it is less painful to be torn apart by dogs than by being shot. Its also more effective to have groups of horses ridden by men trampling over the countryside after solitary foxes. OK if you see it that way. It shows your very humane, caring nature. Not to mention your understanding of the word 'effective'.
So you are in favour of the terminally ill being checked to see if they are fit for work. Nice to know.
-
Ironically, the Brexit mess has been created by the Tories, who didn't understand what it might mean, and as far as one can tell, still don't. We get whiffs of hard Brexit, but then something else, frictionless trade, as Mrs May puts it. I think Boris called it having your cake and eating it, well, yes. It's their mess.
And it is a mess they have to put right, as I believe Corbyn just hasn't got the clout to be able to do so. I suspect many in the Labour party will feel the same.
I hope the Tories get in, although with not too huge a majority, I don't think that is good for any party. However, at the election I will be voting for our local MP (Labour) whom I have met in person when he came round to our home several years ago at our invitation. I liked him and thought he was doing a good job for his constituents.
-
How is she? By insisting she is Strong and stable. I think when she meets Frau Merkel she will only then fully realize what the definition of strong and stable is.
Yes it does - so let's stop the super rich getting away with taking us for mugs. Lets get the appropriate amount of money from them.
So in your opinion it is less painful to be torn apart by dogs than by being shot. Its also more effective to have groups of horses ridden by men trampling over the countryside after solitary foxes. OK if you see it that way. It shows your very humane, caring nature. Not to mention your understanding of the word 'effective'.
So you are in favour of the terminally ill being checked to see if they are fit for work. Nice to know.
I make no apology for my POV.
-
I make no apology for my POV.
Yes I realize that. The thing is that you really should.
-
Checking the terminally ill to see if they're fit for work, surely helps the NHS, as some of them inevitably die in the process, so that's one less bed in the hospital, I call that win/win. <sarcasm smiley>
-
Yes I realize that. The thing is that you really should.
Why? My POV is as valid as yours.
-
Why? My POV is as valid as yours.
Is it? What on earth makes you think that?
I do not mean to belittle you here - but you are just saying that every viewpoint is as valid as any other. It means nothing.
-
Is it? What on earth makes you think that?
I do not mean to belittle you here - but you are just saying that every viewpoint is as valid as any other. It means nothing.
So you think your POV is more valid than mine? Never mind we will have to agree to differ.
-
So you think your POV is more valid than mine? Never mind we will have to agree to differ.
So, if I say I want to have sex with four year old children, is my POV just as valid as your's?
-
So you think your POV is more valid than mine? Never mind we will have to agree to differ.
You are missing the point. It's not whether mine is more valid than yours (although it is ;D)
you are saying that Donald Trump's POV is as valid as yours. Or Stalin. Or Pol Pot. Need I commit a Godwinism to make my point?
You are saying that everybody's POV is valid. Really. How does that work then?
-
So, if I say I want to have sex with four year old children, is my POV just as valid as your's?
We are talking about politics, not paedophilia! ::)
-
We are talking about politics, not paedophilia! ::)
what difference does that make as to whether a POV is valid?
-
Ok as a politician Theresa May wants to lower the age of consent to 3. Is that a valid viewpoint?
-
what difference does that make as to whether a POV is valid?
Because this thread is about a political situation and on which people are expressing their POV.
-
Because this thread is about a political situation and on which people are expressing their POV.
OK so if Nigel Farage came on here to express his viewpoints are his views as valid as yours?
-
Because this thread is about a political situation and on which people are expressing their POV.
But why does that make any difference as to whether a POV is valui?
-
OK so if Nigel Farage came on here to express his viewpoints are his views as valid as yours?
To him they are no doubt as valid, even though I totally disagree with him.
-
To him they are no doubt as valid, even though I totally disagree with him.
And my desire to have sex with four year old children is just as value to me.
-
And my desire to have sex with four year old children is just as value to me.
What has that to do with POLITICS?
-
What has that to do with POLITICS?
why does it being about politics make any difference about whether a POV is valid? If I was campaigning for the legalise sex with four year old children party, does that mean that it would be just as valid?
-
To him they are no doubt as valid, even though I totally disagree with him.
Definition of valid
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:
"a valid criticism"
synonyms: well founded · sound · well grounded · reasonable · rational · logical · justifiable · defensible · defendable · supportable · sustainable · maintainable ·
So Farage's pov fit the criteria above do they? Or Stalin's. Or Trump's.
You are in fact telling me that Trump (or at least the philosophy, if you can call it a philosophy, he espouses)is well grounded, reasonable and rational. Who'd have thunk it.
-
Definition of valid
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:
"a valid criticism"
synonyms: well founded · sound · well grounded · reasonable · rational · logical · justifiable · defensible · defendable · supportable · sustainable · maintainable ·
So Farage's pov fit the criteria above do they? Or Stalin's. Or Trump's.
You are in fact telling me that Trump (or at least the philosophy, if you can call it a philosophy, he espouses)is well grounded, reasonable and rational. Who'd have thunk it.
I think Trump is crazy, but no doubt he thinks his POV is valid! Look we are going round and round in circles, let's get back to the topic concerned on this thread.
-
I think Trump is crazy, but no doubt he thinks his POV is valid!
Yes he may think his POV is valid - but objectively is it?
-
I think Trump is crazy, but no doubt he thinks his POV is valid! Look we are going round and round in circles, let's get back to the topic concerned on this thread.
it is related to the thread, since your claim is that your POV is valid, simply because it is your POV.
-
Look we are going round and round in circles, let's get back to the topic concerned on this thread.
Don't include me in that. You are the one that is refusing to see that not every point of view has the same validity.
It is one of the defining things about this nation that it has so conspired against the idea that intelligence has value for a society.
The viewpoint that my views are as good as yours feeds directly into that.
This is why we get anti-vaxers and deniers of climate change.
Experts what do they know? My Dad smoked 80 a day until he died at 90. Cigarettes aren't harmful. VALID.
More like valid as a really stupid comment.
-
Every point of view has validity to the person expressing it, one presumes!
-
Every point of view has validity to the person expressing it, one presumes!
Still missing the point.
There's no wonder BREXIT happened.
-
Every point of view has validity to the person expressing it, one presumes!
Which doesn't mean that any POV is as valid as any other in an external sense. So that you regard your POV as valid is entirely useless as to whether it actually is.
-
I don't think it makes the argument conclusive but there are things to discuss
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/opinion/britain-brexit-economy.html?_r=1
-
Strange how this has been labelled the Brexit election, since it has not really been discussed, except in the most general terms. For example, May's mantra 'no deal is better than a bad deal' has not been examined. What does no deal really mean? It might mean that British aircraft cannot fly through European airspace, I think. But everyone is keeping quiet, maybe because nobody has a clue. I can see that the govt don't want to give away their position, so they are asking for a blank cheque. For the second time!
-
Quite. In fact there is nothing to discuss about Brexit as the UK is now committed to some form of it - depending on negotiations.
No-one knows or can plan for how these turn out, only claim to be better negotiator - with no evidence to back them up.
-
Quite. In fact there is nothing to discuss about Brexit as the UK is now committed to some form of it - depending on negotiations.
No-one knows or can plan for how these turn out, only claim to be better negotiator - with no evidence to back them up.
Disagree. For example the no deal is better than a bad deal mantra assumes WTO rules ...Except those need to be agreed with 164 countries else you don't get in and Russia is already salivating
-
So the others are to campaign for a "any deal" rather than "no deal"? Won't go down well. Everyone says they will get the "best deal".
-
So the others are to campaign for a "any deal" rather than "no deal"? Won't go down well. Everyone says they will get the "best deal".
So an even worse deal is better by your logic?
-
The best deal is best and they are all going for it, so where is the debate that makes this election about Brexit? It is clearly not.
-
Quite. In fact there is nothing to discuss about Brexit as the UK is now committed to some form of it - depending on negotiations.
No-one knows or can plan for how these turn out, only claim to be better negotiator - with no evidence to back them up.
Well, May has been flirting with hard Brexit, but she is not really saying what that means. In theory, it could mean that the UK does not follow customs regulations; however, this means that your cargo of whatsits bound for Prague, is going to be checked at every border, as it is not entered on any electronic database. Is that what they mean? I don't think there will be an answer to that. It's more exciting to vote for a blank cheque.
-
Actually, no deal sounds impossible. How are you going to export anything or import anything from Europe, if you are not following customs regulations? How are you going to fly an aircraft out of British airspace? How are people in N. Ireland going to transport horses to race meetings? There are many areas like this, where trade depends on agreements, which are then expressed via electronic communications.
-
Soft Brexit - Free trade deal
Hard Brexit - No trade deal
No Brexit - Stay in EU market
-
Soft Brexit - Free trade deal
Hard Brexit - No trade deal
No Brexit - Stay in EU market
Purely for clarification - is this the same as:
Good deal - Free trade deal
Bad deal - No trade deal
No deal - Stay in EU?
Thus - No deal is better than a bad deal?
-
Purely for clarification - is this the same as:
Good deal - Free trade deal
Bad deal - No trade deal
No deal - Stay in EU?
Thus - No deal is better than a bad deal?
If that is how you are defining "no deal", it's the best option.
-
Soft Brexit - Free trade deal
Hard Brexit - No trade deal
No Brexit - Stay in EU market
You are redefining things.
At the time of the referendum the clearly established definitions were:
Soft Brexit: Leave the EU but remain a member of the single market/customs union
Hard Brexit: Leave the EU and the single market/customs union
To suggest that leaving the single market and customs union could be 'soft brexit' is mission creep of the highest order. If we leave the single market and customs union that is hard brexit.
-
Checking the terminally ill to see if they're fit for work, surely helps the NHS, as some of them inevitably die in the process, so that's one less bed in the hospital, I call that win/win. <sarcasm smiley>
It was never about check to see if fit for work.. It was about depriving them of a means to live before they died so they died living on next to nothing.
Does life become less than economy?
-
Is right or wrong really about a point of view?
-
from an LSE blog :
the general election is a distraction from the danger of the failure of brexit negotiations
...
It is already clear from the Conservative manifesto that Mrs May’s government will seek what has traditionally been called a “hard Brexit.” If it ends up achieving a “hard Brexit” that has not even been negotiated with our partners, then the blow to confidence for financial markets and economic decision-makers would be immense, and might well serve to bring forward the timetable of eventual economic disruption universally predicted by economists as a consequence of Brexit. There is within the financial and business community of the United Kingdom a considerable measure of suppressed anxiety about the course that Brexit is taking. By a mixture of reassurance and threat, the government has managed until now to keep a lid on this rising disquiet. The looming likelihood of an unnegotiated Brexit could well provide the final straw for this disquiet to become generalized and public, with unpredictable consequences for the political economy of the United Kingdom.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/06/01/the-general-election-is-a-distraction-from-the-danger-of-the-failure-of-brexit-negotiations/ (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/06/01/the-general-election-is-a-distraction-from-the-danger-of-the-failure-of-brexit-negotiations/)
-
Purely for clarification - is this the same as:
Good deal - Free trade deal
Bad deal - No trade deal
No deal - Stay in EU?
Thus - No deal is better than a bad deal?
Good deal - Free trade deal
Bad Deal - Pay £200 billion a year for free trade, no rights for ex-pats living in EU, freedom of movement into UK not into EU, EU Customs preventing UK doing deals elsewhere,
No Deal - Be like most of the other countries in the World.
-
You are redefining things.
At the time of the referendum the clearly established definitions were:
Soft Brexit: Leave the EU but remain a member of the single market/customs union
Hard Brexit: Leave the EU and the single market/customs union
To suggest that leaving the single market and customs union could be 'soft brexit' is mission creep of the highest order. If we leave the single market and customs union that is hard brexit.
Cameron, Osbourne, Johnson, Gove all said vote to leave we leave the single market, you are wrong.
-
Cameron, Osbourne, Johnson, Gove all said vote to leave we leave the single market, you are wrong.
That's is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Before the referendum it was accepted that the definition of a soft brexit was one where the UK left the EU but remained in the single market and/or customs union. The definition of hard brexit being where the UK left the EU and the single market and customs union.
You are redefining with a downwards spiral mission creep. I am talking about definitions, not whether those you mention implied we would remain or leave the single market.
Worth reiterating yet again that the official leave campaign's official manifesto pledged that we would still be part of the 'free trade zone extending from Iceland to the Russian border' (i.e. the single market/customs union). They clearly stated we would remain part of the single market - as with so many other things they lied.
-
That's is irrelevant to the point I was making.
Before the referendum it was accepted that the definition of a soft brexit was one where the UK left the EU but remained in the single market and/or customs union. The definition of hard brexit being where the UK left the EU and the single market and customs union.
You are redefining with a downwards spiral mission creep. I am talking about definitions, not whether those you mention implied we would remain or leave the single market.
Worth reiterating yet again that the official leave campaign's official manifesto pledged that we would still be part of the 'free trade zone extending from Iceland to the Russian border' (i.e. the single market/customs union). They clearly stated we would remain part of the single market - as with so many other things they lied.
Sigh again, yes if UK does a free trade deal then a free trade zone will exist yaddah, yaddah, lets not do this again.
-
Sigh again, yes if UK does a free trade deal then a free trade zone will exist yaddah, yaddah, lets not do this again.
Nope - wrong.
If we create a new free trade zone then we cannot still be part of something that were were part of prior to brexit - as it was a new entity. Secondly agreeing a bilateral trade deal does not create a free trade zone - that's non-sense or we would conclude that there is a free trade zone involving the EU and South Korea - that's non-sense, there is a free trade agreement, there isn't a free trade zone.
The official leave campaign's official manifesto was clear - we are part of something now (i.e. it currently exists) and we will still be part of it after we leave the EU (i.e. we will remain part of the thing that currently exists). No other interpretation is possible.
So what therefore is the free trade zone that currently exists (and extends from Iceland to the Russian border), that we will remain part of after brexit. Well the only possibility is the single market/customs union.
-
Nope - wrong.
If we create a new free trade zone then we cannot still be part of something that were were part of prior to brexit - as it was a new entity. Secondly agreeing a bilateral trade deal does not create a free trade zone - that's non-sense or we would conclude that there is a free trade zone involving the EU and South Korea - that's non-sense, there is a free trade agreement, there isn't a free trade zone.
The official leave campaign's official manifesto was clear - we are part of something now (i.e. it currently exists) and we will still be part of it after we leave the EU (i.e. we will remain part of the thing that currently exists). No other interpretation is possible.
So what therefore is the free trade zone that currently exists (and extends from Iceland to the Russian border), that we will remain part of after brexit. Well the only possibility is the single market/customs union.
Disagree but not going to do the same debate over and over.
-
Disagree but not going to do the same debate over and over.
How can you disagree:
How can you 'still be part' of something after some future point unless that thing already exists and your are already part of it. You can't.
-
How can you disagree:
How can you 'still be part' of something after some future point unless that thing already exists and your are already part of it. You can't.
What exactly are you attempting to get out of this? The LibDems won't be winning seats mainly because much of the the UK population see's the issue as settled. Corbyn isn't a fan of the EU, its done, you lost, let it go.
-
Just been reading Richard North's blog - he makes several interesting points. One, that the UK political class don't have the capacity to deal with Brexit; two, that it's therefore better to 'park' somewhere and take time over it; three, that something like EEA is a reasonable parking place. Four, that the Ultras will resist. But surely the election has demolished hard Brexit?
http://eureferendum.com/
-
Interesting article:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/road-to-brexit-is-paved-with-amusement-danish-and-brave-faces-british
'There are small nations and there are countries that have not yet realized they are small nations'
-
Times front page has a story that Hammond favours the customs union. I don't know whether that means the EU one, or a bespoke one, but it seems to show that the impenetrable wall of Brexit silence is beginning to break. It's also said that May can't sack him now. I wonder if she is like the medieval monarch, imprisoned by her barons, in post, but not in power. Surreal. Not giving Times link, as behind a paywall.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-philip-hammond-customs-union-eu-uk-stay-theresa-may-tories-chancellor-a7788786.html
-
Times front page has a story that Hammond favours the customs union. I don't know whether that means the EU one, or a bespoke one, but it seems to show that the impenetrable wall of Brexit silence is beginning to break. It's also said that May can't sack him now. I wonder if she is like the medieval monarch, imprisoned by her barons, in post, but not in power. Surreal. Not giving Times link, as behind a paywall.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-philip-hammond-customs-union-eu-uk-stay-theresa-may-tories-chancellor-a7788786.html
I see this morning that the UK has accepted the EU's position that trade talks can only happen once all other matters are sorted - no parallel discussions.
I suspect this may be a prelude to the government putting forward an 'interim' uber-soft EEA brexit to avoid a cliff edge as we crash out of the EU in less then 2 years, way before any trade deal could possibly be completed.
They will sell this as only 'interim', but I suspect no-one will actually have the appetite to move beyond it and once we are out of the EU the 'will of the people' will have been delivered and most of the public (except the extreme right) will move on.
-
I see this morning that the UK has accepted the EU's position that trade talks can only happen once all other matters are sorted - no parallel discussions.
I suspect this may be a prelude to the government putting forward an 'interim' uber-soft EEA brexit to avoid a cliff edge as we crash out of the EU in less then 2 years, way before any trade deal could possibly be completed.
They will sell this as only 'interim', but I suspect no-one will actually have the appetite to move beyond it and once we are out of the EU the 'will of the people' will have been delivered and most of the public (except the extreme right) will move on.
Looks too that the EU will be going for maximum transparency over the process - in other words putting full details into the public domain to prevent it appearing that secret deals are being struck in the equivalent of smoke filled rooms.
-
And some more mirroring
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/british-prime-minister-may-stumbles-into-brexit-talks-a-1152469.html
-
And some more mirroring
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/british-prime-minister-may-stumbles-into-brexit-talks-a-1152469.html
Excellent, if ultimately very depressing article.
-
Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?
-
Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?
Tixerb?
It has a certain ring to it!
-
We need a referendum on it.
-
Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?
I'm hoping it will, the whole idea is barking mad if you ask me.
Maybe it will be an undeliverable, in practice. British governments have a track record of incompetence in delivery and this is a bigger project than anything in the last 60 years; trying to get it through our parliamentary system is going to be chaotic and many political careers are going to burn in the attempt. This will unfold over time during which public opinion will start to change as the realities of the situation become more evident.
-
George Soros certainly thinks Brexit will be reversed. With May being so weak now and Hammond making conciliatory noises perhaps it will. I hope so. I don't regard the first referendum as a genuinely democratic decision because of the outright lies that were told.
-
George Soros certainly thinks Brexit will be reversed. With May being so weak now and Hammond making conciliatory noises perhaps it will. I hope so. I don't regard the first referendum as a genuinely democratic decision because of the outright lies that were told.
I regard the referendum result as a narrow victory for ideology, prejudice and fantasy over reason, fair mindedness and pragmatism. A momentary aberration in modern British political history, a moment of national shame and embarrassment. I hope we come to our senses sooner rather than later.
-
I think it comes from years of neglecting to understand the lives of ordinary people by all sides of the political divide. I also think that nationalism in Scotland awoke an English nationalism that had to be expressed somehow. I've heard so many people say that they voted without understanding the implications of what they were voting for and now many who voted leave are saying that they felt lied to, which they were. I'm not ashamed that ordinary Britons voted Leave. I'm ashamed that our politicians - left as well as right - couldn't do a decent job of explaining exactly what was at stake. I'm ashamed that we didn't have a strong leader to fight for the Remain side - Corbyn was so obviously lukewarm, and Cameron's Project Fear was the opposite of what was needed. Above all else I'm ashamed that the architects of the lies that were sold to us are still anywhere near our politics and our press.
And I'm sad beyond measure that nationalism has divided us from each other and from the EU and I hate the division that I see. And I really really hope that the Eastern Europeans around where I live stay, because they are great.
Eta and what I really hate is feeling so bloody helpless about the mess this is going to cause.
-
Another factor I think was the migrant crisis engulfing Europe with the tabloids headlining almost daily on thousands of desperate Africans risking death by drowning just to get into Europe. I think it got into our national psyche, this fear of being swamped by hordes of the desperate poor. Britain, compared to many other countries like Sweden or Germany, has never been very welcoming to refugees and people in need.
-
Another factor I think was the migrant crisis engulfing Europe with the tabloids headlining almost daily on thousands of desperate Africans risking death by drowning just to get into Europe. I think it got into our national psyche, this fear of being swamped by hordes of the desperate poor. Britain, compared to many other countries like Sweden or Germany, has never been very welcoming to refugees and people in need.
I think what happened there was the ease with which migrants were linked to terror attacks and also attacks on women. I'm not sure that we are so bad at welcoming people in times of need, but the world feels frightening right now and that is when anyone 'other' can appear to be a threat. Maybe that has something to do with it, a kind of belief that we can somehow fling up our walls, shut out everyone else's shit and still have honey for tea.
-
Another factor I think was the migrant crisis engulfing Europe with the tabloids headlining almost daily on thousands of desperate Africans risking death by drowning just to get into Europe. I think it got into our national psyche, this fear of being swamped by hordes of the desperate poor. Britain, compared to many other countries like Sweden or Germany, has never been very welcoming to refugees and people in need.
Sorry, that just seems a hugely simplistic idea. I don't see any real evidence that the UK is less welcoming to immigrants consistently as Sweden or Germany. I think in terms of the attitudes of politicians we are obviously in a period of down with immigration but as a whole, historically, your point doesn't seem valid to me. After all which country in the last hundred years carried out a systematic murder of those perceived as 'other'?
-
I think what happened there was the ease with which migrants were linked to terror attacks and also attacks on women. I'm not sure that we are so bad at welcoming people in times of need, but the world feels frightening right now and that is when anyone 'other' can appear to be a threat. Maybe that has something to do with it, a kind of belief that we can somehow fling up our walls, shut out everyone else's shit and still have honey for tea.
I agree with a lot of this but would suggest that as with anything where 17million people agree in one thing there are 17m+ different reasons for them doing so. I think there is a substantial band of people who think that instead of throwing up walls this allows us to move to freer trade and that they saw the EU as restrictive. I think there us an element who see the EY as representing faster change and they want to stop change. I think there is a group who see the EU as slowing change and want to move faster. I think some dislike it because it is too left wing, and some dislike it because it is too right wing.
There is a common narrative that people spun about Clinton's and Remain's defeats that it happened because they tried to pull together a coalition of interests rather than a genuine movement, which you ignores that that is true of Trump and Leave. It's behind this whole idea that 'The people have spoken' which argues that the 52% leave and the 49% Trump voters are somehow more legitimate than their opposition.
-
Why is nobody challenging May and others - including Hammond - when they say that result of the referendum showed "overwhelming support" for Brexit? To me, this indicates that the main agenda is still the Conservative Party and not the well-being of the nation/union.
I presume that May is doing whatever she can to hang on in spite of her stupidity in calling an election. Perhaps in a moment of genuine political perception he sees it as her mission to keep Boris Johnson out of Downing Street.
My hope is that as the consequences become more apparent and disastrous that the Brexit "dream" will turn into a nightmare. Perhaps this may lead to the proper examination of the British constitution which should have been Cameron's response to the Scottish indyref.
-
I thought the 'overwhelming support' line was being trotted out in relation to the election where over 85%voted for parties with Brexit in their manifestoes?
I am not sure I understand why you ate hoping for catastrophe so that people suffer. Seems an odd approach to me.
-
Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?
It would be fantastic if it is, it is doing the UK no good at all. :(
-
I am not sure I understand why you ate hoping for catastrophe so that people suffer. Seems an odd approach to me.
What I said was "as the consequences become more apparent and disastrous". Perhaps I should have written "potentially disastrous". I am not hoping for catastrophe but the avoidance of catastrophe. Catastrophe will accompany Brexit.
-
I think more people are realizing that no deal could be a catastrophe, if trade physically stops across the Channel, planes can't take off, and so on. So there seems to be some edging towards a 'transition', which can mean anything you like. For someone like Hammond, it sounds like a kind of Norway/Swiss/Turkey deal, which replicates the customs union. Whether the EU will accept this, dunno.
The idea of a transition also seems to mean anything from 2 more years, to forever.
-
I thought the 'overwhelming support' line was being trotted out in relation to the election where over 85%voted for parties with Brexit in their manifestoes?
Completely irrelevant.
You could just as easily claim that in 2015 approximately 87% of the electorate voted for parties that had staying in the EU in their manifesto, indicating 'overwhelming support' for the EU and therefore no need for a referendum.
You cannot make those crude assumptions from a general election where voters vote on a whole variety of issues.
A couple of interesting things from today's yougov poll.
Firstly they continue to ask their question about whether the UK was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU (they've been asking this regularly for the past year) - still no major change - I think there was a 2% majority for 'wrong' but effectively the country remains completely split down the middle on this question.
Secondly that we are seeing a consistent shift toward favouring soft brexit and remaining in the single market, even if that means no restrictions on freedom of movement.
So from the poll, the results were:
'It is more important for Britain to have control over EU
immigration into Britain than to keep free trade': 42%.
'It is more important to ensure Britain can trade freely with
the EU without tariff barriers than it is to control EU
immigration': 58%.
This aligns pretty well with Survation who found the following:
'A "hard" Brexit, involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 35%
'A "soft" Brexit, not involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 55%
And before people have a go at polling organisations claiming they got it wrong at the general election - Survation and YouGov were far and away the most accurate, with the YouGov model being almost spot on.
-
Completely irrelevant.
You could just as easily claim that in 2015 approximately 87% of the electorate voted for parties that had staying in the EU in their manifesto, indicating 'overwhelming support' for the EU and therefore no need for a referendum.
You cannot make those crude assumptions from a general election where voters vote on a whole variety of issues.
A couple of interesting things from today's yougov poll.
Firstly they continue to ask their question about whether the UK was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU (they've been asking this regularly for the past year) - still no major change - I think there was a 2% majority for 'wrong' but effectively the country remains completely split down the middle on this question.
Secondly that we are seeing a consistent shift toward favouring soft brexit and remaining in the single market, even if that means no restrictions on freedom of movement.
So from the poll, the results were:
'It is more important for Britain to have control over EU
immigration into Britain than to keep free trade': 42%.
'It is more important to ensure Britain can trade freely with
the EU without tariff barriers than it is to control EU
immigration': 58%.
This aligns pretty well with Survation who found the following:
'A "hard" Brexit, involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 35%
'A "soft" Brexit, not involving leaving the EU single market and customs union': 55%
And before people have a go at polling organisations claiming they got it wrong at the general election - Survation and YouGov were far and away the most accurate, with the YouGov model being almost spot on.
Just to note I wasn't making a case but questioning what the use of overwhelming support referred to. And since I have seen you use the 87% argument from 2015, it seems a bit odd to me that you then object about others (not me) using the reverse.
-
Just to note I wasn't making a case but questioning what the use of overwhelming support referred to. And since I have seen you use the 87% argument from 2015, it seems a bit odd to me that you then object about others (not me) using the reverse.
Sorry NS - wasn't having a go at you at all.
And no I don't believe I ever claimed that the 'fact' of 87% of the electorate voting for parties that supported staying in the EU in the 2015 general election meant there was overwhelming support for the EU - simply because people vote in general elections on a range of issues, not just one. From memory (no doubt you will pull out the posts) the point I was making was about mandate in parliament - and of course the result of the 2017 election (unlike 2015) is that no party won an overall majority, so no party can claim a mandate for their manifesto.
-
Sorry NS - wasn't having a go at you at all.
And no I don't believe I ever claimed that the 'fact' of 87% of the electorate voting for parties that supported staying in the EU in the 2015 general election meant there was overwhelming support for the EU - simply because people vote in general elections on a range of issues, not just one. From memory (no doubt you will pull out the posts) the point I was making was about mandate in parliament - and of course the result of the 2017 election (unlike 2015) is that no party won an overall majority, so no party can claim a mandate for their manifesto.
No problem. I think though, surely, saying a majority of seats in FPTP is a majority is surely flawed? This seems to say that in getting 36% of the vote Cameron had a more legitimate mandate than getting 42%?.
-
No problem. I think though, surely, saying a majority of seats in FPTP is a majority is surely flawed? This seems to say that in getting 36% of the vote Cameron had a more legitimate mandate than getting 42%?.
I don't like the FPTP system, but if that is the system you have, you need to acknowledge what winning means under that system. And winning mean that you gain a majority of the seats in parliament, i.e. 326 (sure you can argue about the non appearance of the Sinn Fein MPs, but that is tinkering). If you don't win 326 MPs you haven't won - you may be the best loser, but winning in FPTP means an overall majority, because only then can you guarantee that you can proceed with your mandate because you have enough MPs that you can whip to vote in favour of the proposals.
So under FPTP Cameron's 330 seats is better that May's 318 - critically better as the former is above the critical 326 while the latter is below.
It is easy to claim vote share as indicating legitimacy, but it doesn't really work in a multi-party FPTP system as we don't have a single national vote, we have 650 separate and individual votes.
Now, to reiterate, I don't like FPTP as a system, but that is what it means. For what it is worth neither 36% or 42% would come close to providing a majority mandate under a pure proportional system, as that would require over 50%. That said, you cannot readily assume that how people voted in a FPTP system would be the same as under a different, more proportional system.
-
Surely though the question is that the very fact that FPTP gives such anomalous results mean that talking about a mandate is ludicrous. That something 'wins' in an illogical system doesn't address whether it is logically valid.
-
Surely though the question is that the very fact that FPTP gives such anomalous results mean that talking about a mandate is ludicrous. That something 'wins' in an illogical system doesn't address whether it is logically valid.
I'm not sure that the results of 2015 and 2017 are anomalous.
The key under FPTP isn't necessarily the individual party vote share, but the lead. In 2015 the Tories had a national lead over Labour of 6.4%, in 2017 that had shrunk to just 2.3%, in other words a swing from Tory to Labour. As such is seems completely expected that there would be a shift in seats from Tory to Labour, as indeed we saw.
-
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/06/23/10/26809-xelocq.jpg
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/as-the-brexit-vote-turns-one-leaving-has-never-been-more-uncertain
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/23/as-the-brexit-vote-turns-one-leaving-has-never-been-more-uncertain
Gisela Stuart - one of the leaders of the Leave campaign (and one of the very few Labour figures to campaign to leave) - is now saying that the referendum was a mistake and should never have taken place.
Who was it that said:
"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."
Oh, yes - that would be David Davis - the Minister for Brexit.
-
Gisela Stuart - one of the leaders of the Leave campaign (and one of the very few Labour figures to campaign to leave) - is now saying that the referendum was a mistake and should never have taken place.
Who was it that said:
"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."
Oh, yes - that would be David Davis - the Minister for Brexit.
I think your post isn't a true representation of Stuarts's position as she still thinks leaving is right just that the question was badly done and that the lack of planning for leave by the govt was wrong
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-vacuous-gisela-stuart-leading-leave-campaigner-abuse-democratic-process-comments-a7803631.html
-
I think your post isn't a true representation of Stuarts's position as she still thinks leaving is right just that the question was badly done and that the lack of planning for leave by the govt was wrong
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-vacuous-gisela-stuart-leading-leave-campaigner-abuse-democratic-process-comments-a7803631.html
I said that she had said the referendum shouldn't have happened, which seems a perfect interpretation of what she has said (see your article link).
I never said, nor indeed implied, that she had changed her personal view on whether the UK should leave the EU.
-
Stop the news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-andrea-leadsom-says-broadcasters-need-to-be-patriotic
-
George Soros certainly thinks Brexit will be reversed.
.....
Lol! Wishful thinking on his behalf. Soros stands to lose billions on Brexit.
-
Stop the news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-andrea-leadsom-says-broadcasters-need-to-be-patriotic
Who knew Samuel Johnson would still be getting it right after all these years.
-
Patriotism has no place in broadcasting, they should tell it how it is, even if it isn't to a country's credit.
-
Apart from when England win the World Cup. So not often really.
-
Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?
I think it's an option. It depends on the GBP and business.
Brexit was always going to be popular as a quick route to a low wage, desperation economy but appears more and more damaging to the Conservative Party. If it looks politically fatal then maybe.
-
Stop the news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40386788/brexit-andrea-leadsom-says-broadcasters-need-to-be-patriotic
Will that mean announcing that James Corden's ''out at the front''?
-
David Davis sounds like a man begging for a lifeline in a sort of casual round about way.
-
Does anyone think Brexit will be reversed?
I am beginning to get hopeful.
-
I am beginning to get hopeful.
I think that if the leadership of the Conservative Party can skip a generation then Brexit may be dead in the water.
-
Monbiot suggests that the referendum result is the result of external influences.
Most brexiteers I move voted with no conception of a possible win and a huge belief that things would ''get sorted'' so their vote would have no consequences except perhaps stick one on the establishment.
There........ Brexit explained and never used the word Stupid once.
-
Monbiot suggests that the referendum result is the result of external influences.
Most brexiteers I move voted with no conception of a possible win and a huge belief that things would ''get sorted'' so their vote would have no consequences except perhaps stick one on the establishment.
There........ Brexit explained and never used the word Stupid once.
The best argument in favour of Brexit is the behaviour of some of those who voted Remain
-
The best argument in favour of Brexit is the behaviour of some of those who voted Remain
I envy those who can 'reach out' to opponents. I expect you do too eh, Sane?
-
Chuka's new leadership bid?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40451301
-
I don't know if it's that, but if so: didn't he drop out of the race last time citing intrusion into his private life and the effect on his family?
What makes him think it'll be any different second time around?
-
Dave has a dream, mebbe, mebbes not , mebbe he like the Laughing Cow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40461496
-
Chuka's new leadership bid?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40451301
A year ago I thought that the shutters had come down on labour after brexit and that Cameron had built in a fatal booby trap for labour particularly after the petulant opportunism of the Blairites.
Brexit is a convoluted Tory mess the denouement of which will be another gift of an election and a possibility then of ameliorating the effects. That will be three shots at labour resurrection.....and yet Umunna wants to party like it's july 2016.
-
I'm coming to the sad belief that Brexit was a weapon in a new kind of civil war.
The leaders of Brexit used Brexit to spite a whole range of people and follower brexiteers saw it as a chance to damage other people but in time honoured fashion of they sailed in without thought of the consequences to themselves.
-
I see that Vlad has been watching Doctor Who again.
-
I see that Vlad has been watching Doctor Who again.
Great isn't it?
My latest Brexit referendum analogy is thus:
The referendum was like wanting to get out of a tall building. Instead of planning the route and using the lift or stairs. Brexiteers have chosen to jump out of the window.
-
Latest Brexit thoughts.
Did Cameron plan a lacklustre approach to getting concessions from Europe so that Brexit would scrape through and look like an 'accident'?
I think the possible and emergent economic results look to fulfil how he and Osborne planned to rebalance the economy along classic class divisions and low wage levels and the limited job opportunities of the twenties and thirties and before that.
Cameron himself is someone who seems to have been advantaged by Brexit.
-
Latest Brexit thoughts.
Did Cameron plan a lacklustre approach to getting concessions from Europe so that Brexit would scrape through and look like an 'accident'?
I think the possible and emergent economic results look to fulfil how he and Osborne planned to rebalance the economy along classic class divisions and low wage levels and the limited job opportunities of the twenties and thirties and before that.
Cameron himself is someone who seems to have been advantaged by Brexit.
Bollocks. Fo homself out of job as PM?
He is not that clever. Nope it was just a fuck up. His fuck up. Nothing more to it than that.
I'll give you this though your ability to generate conspiracy theories remains at an impressive level..
-
Bollocks. Fo homself out of job as PM?
He is not that clever. Nope it was just a fuck up. His fuck up. Nothing more to it than that.
I'll give you this though your ability to generate conspiracy theories remains at an impressive level..
He had given up though and had announced his retirement hadn't he?
Are the Tories not a conspiracy to heavily reintroduce a stratified hierarchical society, slums, limited social mobility?
-
Industry, which is now concerned should have intervened in Cameron's plan sooner, in fact before the referendum.
That they did not mount a huge pro EC membership campaign for the UK looks like a huge oversight.
-
Very nasty stories going around that there could be food shortages after Brexit, not because of tariffs, but non-tariff barriers. I suppose this means checks at borders, where at the moment goods are entered electronically on various data-bases. The checks could lead to massive truck stacks at every border.
You have to hope that these are fantasies, as also the idea that the headbangers want it, so as to trigger heavy austerity, and the collapse of the welfare state. Hard to believe really.
-
and this is on the same side
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-thick-as-mince-lazy-as-a-toad-dominic-cummings-a7845911.html
-
Thick as mince is not an insult I've heard before. And yet it seemscso apt in this instance.
-
You might think that the govt would be reassuring people that there will not be food insecurity or rationing, or truck stacks. I suppose doing this might raise alarm! Alternatively, they haven't a clue what is going on.
-
Thick as mince is not an insult I've heard before. And yet it seemscso apt in this instance.
We use it here. Its interchangeable with;
Yur hied's fu o' mince.
-
We use it here. Its interchangeable with;
Yur hied's fu o' mince.
Or even that someone is talking pure mince
-
Very nasty stories going around that there could be food shortages after Brexit, not because of tariffs, but non-tariff barriers. I suppose this means checks at borders, where at the moment goods are entered electronically on various data-bases. The checks could lead to massive truck stacks at every border.
You have to hope that these are fantasies, as also the idea that the headbangers want it, so as to trigger heavy austerity, and the collapse of the welfare state. Hard to believe really.
There would have to be rationing and utility and that is where welfare comes back in.
-
More absurd tales from the front
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-negotiator-europe-euratom-airline-safety-negotiations-theresa-may-worse-anyone-guessed-a7858586.html
-
What's it going to take for people to realise this whole thing is going to be a complete disaster? It would be bad enough if our negotiators were competent.
-
Jay Rayner on Michael Gove
https://www.indy100.com/article/michael-gove-jay-rayner-sarah-vine-7856676
-
What's it going to take for people to realise this whole thing is going to be a complete disaster? It would be bad enough if our negotiators were competent.
Getting to autumn 2019 with no workable agreements?
-
The discussion about chlorinated chickens from the US is interesting, as at first, it seemed to focus on whether such food is safer or less safe than UK chickens or European ones. It's not so much about the safety of chlorine, as what it is covering up, possible poor hygiene in raising them.
However, some bright spark in the EU observed that if the UK starts to import food which has less of a safety factor than EU regs would permit, the EU would be very concerned to have a near neighbour doing this, and crucially, might start to vet UK exports of food and animals, with greater severity. This might involve veterinary inspections, borders checks, special inspection posts, and so on. The situation in Ireland could be a logistical quicksand.
An example of unintended consequences maybe. What a nightmare it all is.
-
Getting to autumn 2019 with no workable agreements?
That will just be the Eurofarts being slow and ponderous and obstructive like they always are, and it will be bitterness at the freedom we will have the sunlit uplands of Great Brexiton. Agreements! Schmagreements! Agreements are for bevvied up bureaucrats boozing away the Euro gravy train while the Soros backed bankers revel in the swill of our money. The great white Anglo Saxon race doesn't need to be tied down with rules which will try to turn us all into mocha coloured muzzies maundering about Mecca. We built an empire on the back of a stiff upper lip, and keen sense of smelling a rat. Once freed from the mephitic miasmic mediocracy of the EU whore of Babylon, we will soar, soar, I tell you, like the eagles we are. Far above the petty worlds of agreements, compromises, and trade tariffs.
If we want to eat chicken washed in chlorine, or cocaine, or carbolic acid, we shall, and it will taste of freedom!
-
Chicken curry with a dash of chlorine, quite palatable.
-
If you enjoy pessimism, here is Richard North:
"There is thus a very simple equation here. If we want a trade deal that opens our market to the US, we can kiss goodbye to our poultry industry. The same goes for the egg industry, red meat and dairy products. Fruit and some vegetable growers would also be hit. And we also lose much of our export trade.
But it doesn't stop there. Not only do the ancillary, supporting industries go, the feed industry is badly damaged. Only about a third of the 15 million ton annual wheat harvest is used for milling (bread and biscuit-making). The bulk of the rest is soft wheat, sold for animal feed. There are few alternative uses, if you take away this arable production, you've made a sizeable dent in UK farming. In short, a US trade deal which opened up our industry to transatlantic competition would mean the end of UK farming as we know it. "
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86551
-
Chicken curry with a dash of chlorine, quite palatable.
As noted elsewhere, chlorination chicken.
-
That will just be the Eurofarts being slow and ponderous and obstructive like they always are, and it will be bitterness at the freedom we will have the sunlit uplands of Great Brexiton. Agreements! Schmagreements! Agreements are for bevvied up bureaucrats boozing away the Euro gravy train while the Soros backed bankers revel in the swill of our money. The great white Anglo Saxon race doesn't need to be tied down with rules which will try to turn us all into mocha coloured muzzies maundering about Mecca. We built an empire on the back of a stiff upper lip, and keen sense of smelling a rat. Once freed from the mephitic miasmic mediocracy of the EU whore of Babylon, we will soar, soar, I tell you, like the eagles we are. Far above the petty worlds of agreements, compromises, and trade tariffs.
If we want to eat chicken washed in chlorine, or cocaine, or carbolic acid, we shall, and it will taste of freedom!
Jack Knave might be ecstatic at such a call but I suspect the UK electorate will have had enough by then and long for the golden days of Euro-bureaucracy.
-
Look on the bright side, if English agriculture is decimated by trade deals with countries that can produce cheaper produce, the English countryside will see a renaissance, as fields turn to wilderness, and wildlife will thrive. But hang on, maybe we could build on most of it - that would solve it!
-
If you enjoy pessimism, here is Richard North:
"There is thus a very simple equation here. If we want a trade deal that opens our market to the US, we can kiss goodbye to our poultry industry. The same goes for the egg industry, red meat and dairy products. Fruit and some vegetable growers would also be hit. And we also lose much of our export trade.
But it doesn't stop there. Not only do the ancillary, supporting industries go, the feed industry is badly damaged. Only about a third of the 15 million ton annual wheat harvest is used for milling (bread and biscuit-making). The bulk of the rest is soft wheat, sold for animal feed. There are few alternative uses, if you take away this arable production, you've made a sizeable dent in UK farming. In short, a US trade deal which opened up our industry to transatlantic competition would mean the end of UK farming as we know it. "
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86551
Quite. If we wanted free trade with the USA we would have been a lot better off in TTIP.
-
Seems a bit late?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/27/amber-rudd-asks-for-analysis-of-eu-migration-a-year-after-referendum?CMP=fb_gu
-
The whole question boils down to "How much are people prepared to pay to reduce immigration from Europe?". So, it's about time they started working on some actual figures.
-
How poor are we prepared to be, in order to support Rees-Mogg's weird ideas. What am I bid?
-
No indication here of any plan. No negotiations done, just a random date.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40747747
-
No indication here of any plan. No negotiations done, just a random date.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40747747
And what people often fail to mention is that when we leave the EU we will not only lose the fantastic trade deal with the other EU countries, but we will also crash out of all the trade deals that the EU has negotiated with countries world-wide. I gather there are something like 60 in place, plus plenty of others well advanced in negotiation. This map starkly illustrates what we will lose - once we leave the EU everything will turn white:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-trade-map/
The EU already has deals with most of the world
-
This map starkly illustrates what we will lose - once we leave the EU everything will turn white:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-trade-map/
The EU already has deals with most of the world.
I am constantly puzzled by the stance taken by the present government. Even the most hard-bitten Brexiteer must be aware of facts like this. It is as though sensible, practical government, government in the best interests of the nation, is sacrificed in favour of some impossible dream. In consequence of an ill-defined, poorly prepared referendum with an ambiguous result, Theresa May appears to be a latter-day Don Quixote engaged in a hairy chest competition with the shade of Margaret Thatcher.
The potential disaster for the United Kingdom is such that May - together with Davies, Johnson, Gove, Fox and company look like supplanting poor Guy Fawkes (who was merely the hired hand) on top of bonfires.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors but ...
-
The Maltese president of the European Council starting to think Brexit is not going to happen :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/malta-prime-minister-brexit-not-happen-uk-leave-eu-joseph-muscat-european-council-a7864591.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/malta-prime-minister-brexit-not-happen-uk-leave-eu-joseph-muscat-european-council-a7864591.html)
-
At some point, it will be clear that it is unworkable - but will we have a government that admits this, backs down and agrees to remain in the single market?
-
At some point, it will be clear that it is unworkable - but will we have a government that admits this, backs down and agrees to remain in the single market?
A transitional arrangement involving remaining in the single market that never progresses beyond that stage?
-
Yes - but even a transitional agreement needs to be made and it looks like an upfront payment covering existing commitments to EU institutions and projects will be required.
With three year transitional agreement in place maybe the electorate can confirm/reject a final deal in a general election.
-
Ooft!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-conservatives-are-criminally-incompetent-zbnppmx92
-
I hope to fuck we pull out and ask to stay. The rest of the EU can tell us to take a jump even if we do that of course.
-
Article in the Times by Parris, called 'Criminal incompetence of the Tories'. Private grief I suppose, but not really private. Painful reading really. Are we really led by a bunch of clowns? Better plough up the garden and grown spuds, or something.
https://behindthepaywallblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/the-conservatives-are-criminally-incompetent/
-
New Statesman article explaining why Remainers won't and shouldn't shut up:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/eurosceptics-whined-41-years-so-why-does-everyone-expect-remain-just
-
New Statesman article explaining why Remainers won't and shouldn't shut up:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/eurosceptics-whined-41-years-so-why-does-everyone-expect-remain-just
The people have spoken, their word must be final. We are all Brexiteers now.
Well – to coin a phrase – fuck that.
Incredible how much naked contempt for democracy Brexit has brought out from under a stone.
-
Well, yes. Starting with naked lying and deceit that some of the electorate believed.
-
Well, yes. Starting with naked lying and deceit that some of the electorate believed.
... and ending with: "The people have spoken [...] fuck that."
-
... and ending with: "The people have spoken [...] fuck that."
Well no, that's not the end.
Aside from that, I'd argue that the people can't speak if the decision over the vote that they cast was founded on lie after lie after lie, peddled by politicians who weren't interested in the welfare of the UK or the EU so much as in their own political ambitions.
Fuck that indeed.
-
Well no, that's not the end.
Elledgedly it is.
-
Elledgedly it is.
It can't be. We don't know what the deal is yet. It can't end with a vote for something that the majority won't accept.
There's no more billions for the NHS. We know that. Sterling's tanked. Supposing the deal is we pay billions, we can't travel to Europe without visas, the security and intelligence sharing ends, EU members here can stay, the EU regeneration money for the north goes, environmental protection flies out the window, animal welfare is dictated by US agribusiness.
Is that what Brexiterrs voted for?
-
It can't be. We don't know what the deal is yet. It can't end with a vote for something that the majority won't accept.
There's no more billions for the NHS. We know that. Sterling's tanked. Supposing the deal is we pay billions, we can't travel to Europe without visas, the security and intelligence sharing ends, EU members here can stay, the EU regeneration money for the north goes, environmental protection flies out the window, animal welfare is dictated by US agribusiness.
Is that what Brexiterrs voted for?
If we've learnt anything at all from Brexit it's that people had a multiplicity of reasons for voting as they did (Leave and Remain alike), but there was only one question on the ballot paper so it has to come down to that.
-
If we've learnt anything at all from Brexit it's that people had a multiplicity of reasons for voting as they did (Leave and Remain alike), but there was only one question on the ballot paper so it has to come down to that.
So have a referendum on the deal offered. It can't hurt.
I've heard a lot of people say that they regret voting leave. Put that one to the test.
-
So have a referendum on the deal offered. It can't hurt.
I've heard a lot of people say that they regret voting leave. Put that one to the test.
... and then you stack more faggots on the flames of the argument that on the exceedingly rare occasions that populace engage in direct as opposed to representative democracy, if they come up with a result considered wrong the question will be asked again and again and again and again until they answer differently.
To people who already argue this (in relation to Ireland, for example) it's not exactly going to convince them of the blandishments of EU membership.
-
... and then you stack more faggots on the flames of the argument that on the exceedingly rare occasions that populace engage in direct as opposed to representative democracy, if they come up with a result considered wrong the question will be asked again and again and again and again until they answer differently.
To people who already argue this (in relation to Ireland, for example) it's not exactly going to convince them of the blandishments of EU membership.
The other aspect is I don't really get what the choice would be. Take this deal here, or what! Stay in as we were before? Surely that won't be achievable unless it's agreed up front before the referendum with all 27 other states? Or go back for a negotiation to stay? Followed by another referendum? Or fall out into WTO rules?
-
The other aspect is I don't really get what the choice would be. Take this deal here, or what! Stay in as we were before? Surely that won't be achievable unless it's agreed up front before the referendum with all 27 other states? Or go back for a negotiation to stay? Followed by another referendum? Or fall out into WTO rules?
Fair point, but what do we do? Accept we are fucked?
-
I think there is a chance of the negotiations collapsing, or indeed the Tory party going full Game of Thrones again. I think currently all that can be done is lobby MPs etc who are at least willing to speak out for a better deal, or rather the least worst deal possible.
-
I think there is a chance of the negotiations collapsing, or indeed the Tory party going full Game of Thrones again. I think currently all that can be done is lobby MPs etc who are at least willing to speak out for a better deal, or rather the least worst deal possible.
Right.
It's accept we're fucked really, isn't it?
-
Right.
It's accept we're fucked really, isn't it?
in the short term, yep. I am not convinced the longer term will be much different, if we get a sensible deal, and we get some leadership beyond imporing chlorinated chicken and exporting some nice jams, but as ever in the long run we are all dead.
-
in the short term, yep. I am not convinced the longer term will be much different, if we get a sensible deal, and we get some leadership beyond imporing chlorinated chicken and exporting some nice jams, but as ever in the long run we are all dead.
"If we get some leadership..."
You aren't helping, you know.
-
"If we get some leadership..."
You aren't helping, you know.
Then permit me to make it worse. Leadership would need some form of decision that people could at least work under with some form of clarity. The current govt conspicuously lack that, and the Labour Party would split if it tried to provide some form of unofficial national unity support. The rest are stuck in opposition,or disarray, of disarrayed opposition. And the white walkers are coming
-
Incredible how much naked contempt for democracy Brexit has brought out from under a stone.
[\quote]
Not really the case. We are able to throw out govts after 4 or 5 years. Govts change policies all the time. So why should this one particular change be for all time? Thats why there is naked comtempt. The vote squeezed through on am electoral whisker on a 70 % turnout...probably less. And it was won based on lies. A chsnge of this magnitude should have had a higher threshold to be sure we could all be convinced it was woryh it. As it is we are as Rhi rihhtly says fucked. We have a disunited govt who couldn t fart thir way out of a colander and they are representing US by negotiating with the EU. Well I know who my money is on. Clue it isnr May or Davis orBoris. As Rhi correctly says we are fucked.
-
Not really the case.
Very much the case given the passage quoted in #809.
The people have spoken. Their word must be final.
Well yes ... that's how it's supposed to work. Liking or agreeing with the result has never been part of the deal.
-
Very much the case given the passage quoted in #809.
Well yes ... that's how it's supposed to work. Liking or agreeing with the result has never been part of the deal.
SO I'm just supposed to sit back and accept it?
Because that would really have worked for gay rights now wouldn't it.
-
SO I'm just supposed to sit back and accept it?
Yes, in a word - just like I have to sit back and accept it every time the Tories are in power. It was a referendum - direct as opposed to representative democracy; that doesn't happen often - and the result is in. Whining about the turnout avails you nothing; a 100% turnout is an impossibility and governments come to power on far less. The decision to join what was then known as the Common Market was also decided by referendum; I assume that this was acceptable? (Back in 1975 Tony Benn said: "When the British people speak everyone, including members of Parliament, should tremble before their decision and that's certainly the spirit with which I accept the result of the referendum").
Because that would really have worked for gay rights now wouldn't it.
Not coincidentally it was gay rights I was thinking of when you wrote: "Govts change policies all the time. So why should this one particular change be for all time?" Homosexuality was decriminalised, the age of consent equalised and marriage equality introduced, but since governments change policies all the time, why should these particular changes be for all time? A very large segment of the Conservative Party plus their partners in slime the DUP would certainly reverse these things if it was in their gift. We could put them to a referendum, and keep repeating the process. Why ever not?
-
SO if a government were to introduce draconian anti-gay laws backed by a referendum you think I should shut up and accept it?
I think you know me better than that.
-
SO if a government were to introduce draconian anti-gay laws backed by a referendum you think I should shut up and accept it?
I think you know me better than that.
Missing the point entirely.
A government didn't introduce or vote for Brexit; the people did. That was the deal. Whether a referendum was a good idea or a bad idea is another argument altogether; good or bad, it happened. Because you don't like the result, you (and many others, equally worrying) seemingly think it's perfectly acceptable to keep going back to the scab and picking at it until you get the result that suits you - that thing which is exactly what we don't do every time the public votes in a government we happen not to like.
A lot has been made of the apparent rise in racism (at any rate overt racist incidents) after Brexit. While racism is always and everywhere obnoxious I'm not especially surprised by this, predominantly because I don't believe (because there's no evidence for it) that Brexit made a racist out of anyone who wasn't one already. It may well have exposed racism; I see no evidence that it created it. On June 24th last year I don't think anyone woke up thinking: "Aha - now I can tell the Polish cleaner to fuck off" or "I can tell the Romanian van driver that his aunt smells of wee" who didn't already think that way. Objectionable it may be but I'm not surprised by racism - it doesn't shock me.
The contempt for a democratic vote that Brexit has exposed does shock me, though; along with the pouting, dummy-spitting petulance on display, the idea that a rare exercise in direct democracy (the number of which in the last fifty years can be counted on one hand) can be ignored, or rather repeated until a noisy and petulant minority get their way. That sort of thng was supposed to be funny when Harry Enfield did Kevin the Teenager because it was so obviously ridicuous; I don't expect any better from the like of the absurd Damon Albarn on the Glastonbury stage (this is Damon "Democracy has failed us!" Albarn. Well, no it hasn't, you wretched has-been - a single question was put to a public vote and you didn't get your way. That's democracy working just fine, you juvenile prat) but I think we're entitled to expect better of supposedly serious-minded people - political commentators and some senior politicians included.
-
SO I'm just supposed to sit back and accept it?
No absolutely not, let your voice ring clear. This is a symptom of a healthy democracy that we tolerate multiplicity of views and people are allowed to campaign for change when they think something is wrong and there is no rule of nature that says referendum results are necessarily right. It is just a snapshot of public opinion on a particular moment in time and we only need to recall the last election to see how fickle public opinion is. The referendum result seems to have locked us onto a course which irrespective of the rights and wrongs is going to be hugely expensive for the nation and I don't see that we should be sanctioning such fundamental change on a slim margin vote which could easily go the other way the following week. Fundamental change such be mandated by much clearer margins.
Apart from all which, the whole exercise was really about party management and the outcome has delivered us a shambolic behemoth of a problem that no British politician has the nous or standing to deal with. It might have been democracy on paper but it was not democracy in spirit, it has set the interests of the young in diametric opposition to the interests of the old, it has set the educated in conflict with the less educated, set the ambitious against the stay-at-homes, set the English against the Scots and threatens to rekindle the troubles in Northern Ireland. March 2019 will see the largest ever destruction of civil liberties inflicted by a western government on its people as 65 million are summarily robbed of their European rights, freedoms and citizenships overnight. Responsible governments should be in the business of empowering their peoples, not curtailing them. The minority of the population who have come to identify as Europeans and take full advantage of those freedoms building international lives, families and businesses need to be respected in the same way as all minorities are respected. We would not introduce a referendum on whether to ban people going to mosques for that reason, a good democracy protects the particular interests of its minorities. Brexit is not democracy it is an insult against the spirit of democratic pluralist values and I am ashamed that our politicians have led us into this incompetent mess.
-
it has set the interests of the young in diametric opposition to the interests of the old, it has set the educated in conflict with the less educated
Do I win a prize for guessing who you consider to be the educated and the less educated?
-
The decision to join what was then known as the Common Market was also decided by referendum;
If you can't even get this right, why should we bother with anything else you say?
-
Do I win a prize for guessing who you consider to be the educated and the less educated?
This is not my opinion, it was revealed by statistical analysis of the voting patterns
-
If you can't even get this right, why should we bother with anything else you say?
Then I should have said to remain, since the decision to join wasn't put to the public. It usually isn't, possibly because when it is there's a distinct possibility that people may actually have the brazen temerity to say "No" (as did Norway ... twice).
As for 'bothering' - bother, don't bother, it's not as though I fucking care, is it?
-
This is not my opinion, it was revealed by statistical analysis of the voting patterns
Also interestingly, revealed by statistical analysis recently Brexit supporters are much less likely to support equality for gay people.
Anyway on the advice of Shaker all future decisions that are made by government, or by the people directly via referendum (oh almost forgot 'advisory referendum') that I disagree with I will just 'suck it up' as the disagreeable phrase has it.
Or not. ;)
-
It ain"t the economy, stupid!
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/08/01/britain-nation-brexit-extremists/
-
Apparently the Daily Mail thinks these delays are bad!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40791058
-
http://newsthump.com/2017/08/02/schengen-officials-happy-to-provide-brits-with-exactly-the-kind-of-border-controls-they-asked-for/
-
Not sure this is what my friend in Grimsby expected when he voted Leave.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/03/eu-fishing-boats-can-still-operate-in-uk-waters-after-brexit-says-gove
-
I haven't seen this on the thread yet. Apologies if it has already gone up.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/10/experts-strike-back-how-economists-proved-right-on-brexit?CMP=fb_gu
The economy is tanking just like the experts we had enough of said it would.
-
The only sane course in the current situation is to stop the Brexit process now while we have an open national debate about what we want from it or if, indeed, we do still want it.
That is what democracy is about, not a single yes/no vote that is set in stone for all time - or at least 40 years.
-
The only sane course in the current situation is to stop the Brexit process now while we have an open national debate about what we want from it or if, indeed, we do still want it.
That is what democracy is about, not a single yes/no vote that is set in stone for all time - or at least 40 years.
Surely though since stopping the process is an action that many do not want, that could certainly be seen as anti democratic?
-
Alex Massie on where we are now.
https://capx.co/british-politics-has-become-a-beckett-play-without-the-humour/
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article about jobs after Brexit. Too many jobs not enough workers! Not a bad situation if people are willing to re-skill.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/news/economy/brexit-hiring-staff-shortage-workers/index.html
**********
Employers have plenty of jobs to fill but potential hires are in short supply, according to a new report by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC).
The number of open permanent jobs grew at the fastest rate in 27 months in July. Meanwhile, the availability of both permanent and temporary workers fell sharply.
It's a trend that could accelerate ahead of Britain's departure from the European Union.
"The parts of the economy most reliant on European workers are under even more pressure as many EU workers return home," said REC chief executive Kevin Green. "Employers are not just struggling to hire the brightest and the best but also people to fill roles such as chefs, drivers and warehouse workers."
Green said that London was being hit particularly hard. Hiring is still on the upswing in the capital city, but growth is slower than in any other region.
"We can't ignore the importance of our relationship with the EU to employers," said Green. "If we want to keep our jobs market successful and vibrant, we must make it easier, not harder, for employers to access the people they need."
EU citizens living in the U.K. are stuck in a legal limbo, because the British government and the EU have not yet reached an agreement on their post-Brexit rights.
Many are not waiting for negotiations to conclude. The number of EU citizens leaving the U.K. jumped 36% in 2016, according to official government data.
**********
One of the ideas of Brexit was to make more jobs available to the local Brits. Its working.
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Surely though since stopping the process is an action that many do not want, that could certainly be seen as anti democratic?
Not if there is a promise that once we've sorted out the basics of what we really want we carry on (or not, depending on the outcome). Think of it as more of a pause. Whether you voted for or against Brexit, you have to agree that things a re a complete shambles right now.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is an article about jobs after Brexit. Too many jobs not enough workers! Not a bad situation if people are willing to re-skill.
It is a bad situation because the jobs will go to the EU citizens that had them in the first place. They'll just be based elsewhere.
-
Is this Brexit means Hokey-Cokey?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40922177
-
With the news yesterday and today about the Irish border, I do wonder how many people who voted Brexit actually considered carefully this point.
-
Good piece on the non customs customs union
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/08/15/the-government-s-customs-union-plan-is-an-absolute-dog-s-bre
-
With the news yesterday and today about the Irish border, I do wonder how many people who voted Brexit actually considered carefully this point.
I don't think quite a number did understand for what they were voting.
I have spoken to a few people who voted to leave the EU, who didn't understand what they were actually voting for, and now regret it. One person said they voted that way because their neighbour was doing so! ::)
-
With the news yesterday and today about the Irish border, I do wonder how many people who voted Brexit actually considered carefully this point.
It doesn't matter Susan. We've taken back control. That's what matters. Don't bother your head about practical matters that affect trade and prosperity.
We've got control. And it's in the hands of the three blind mice. Boris, Fox and Davis.
All will be well. Trust them, Fox is a Doctor after all.
-
It doesn't matter Susan. We've taken back control. That's what matters. Don't bother your head about practical matters that affect trade and prosperity.
We've got control. And it's in the hands of the three blind mice. Boris, Fox and Davis.
All will be well. Trust them, Fox is a Doctor after all.
I'd like to see some brexiteers made to stand up and produce a solution to the Irish border problem, but I don't suppose it would make them agree that they had made a big mistake. Next time I see or write to my MP - a brexiteer - I shall raise the question and see if he can come up with any kind of half-way decent answer. I doubt it.
-
Read something from Owen Jones yesterday talking about the abuse he has received for taking the position that we need to follow the referendum and try land get the best deal, despite having voted to stay. As a journalist he has been the subject of abuse many times but he feels thus has been the worst he has ever received. In part I suspect because it's more from people he feels sympathy with in general.
There is an element in these attacks which dies illustrate that there is often no moral high ground to be taken in terns of behaviour. In one sense the idea that Trump touts about violence on 'many' sides is true. That, however, is only problematic if you subscribe to a black and white world. Sometimrsx the best place to be is the least low moral ground.
-
Irish border solution
http://newsthump.com/2017/08/16/uk-brexit-paper-proposes-magic-irish-border-staffed-by-fairies/
-
Irish border solution
http://newsthump.com/2017/08/16/uk-brexit-paper-proposes-magic-irish-border-staffed-by-fairies/
Surely leprechauns are more appropriate for that task than fairies? ;D
-
Surely leprechauns are more appropriate for that task than fairies? ;D
The inability to ensure that the terminus points of multicoloured illusions celebrating Graham Norton are near the border preclude the use of leprechauns.
-
He's entrusting it to the aos sidhe. Let's face it, it's probably a good as strategy as any other open to him.
-
Our supermarkets post Brexit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/f24ca2c2-a444-4b1f-8bf4-fe20fea22549
-
We need to Brexit completely. Talk about riddling and moving goal posts.
Exit should mean complete removal from the union.
-
We need to Brexit completely. Talk about riddling and moving goal posts.
Exit should mean complete removal from the union.
That ignores the wishes of the half of the population that wants to remain in the EU. A compromise needs to be found.
-
That ignores the wishes of the half of the population that wants to remain in the EU.
Except it wasn't half. One side gained a majority, so - at risk of stating the bleeding obvious - the minority lost.
Not so as you'd know or anything.
That being the case, and since Remainers can't form their own enclave in Britain but still in the EU, then I don't see what kind of compromise you have in mind.
-
People are now realising they were lied to. There is no magic porridge pot for the NHS. There will be a divorce bill. There will be freedom of movement - if anyone is mental enough to want to come here - and a cost to the environment. Fisheries will still be opened up to Eurpean competitors. We still will be subject to the European courts.
I don't see how the vote for Brexit is any more genuinely democratic than the votes in the US that were cast for Trump on the basis of what fake news appeared on their FB feed.
-
I don't see how the vote for Brexit is any more genuinely democratic than the votes in the US that were cast for Trump on the basis of what fake news appeared on their FB feed.
Because the electoral college system - like FPTP here - allows for a minority to take power; by contrast a referendum - a rare exercise in direct democracy - relies on a simple majority, which like it or not was achieved in the case of Leave. It's the classic zero sum game; A's gains always necessarily come at the expense of B's losses. Trump took power with a minority share of the vote; in any reasonable - i.e. genuinely democratic - voting system we would now have a second President Clinton. That can't be compared to the simple majority needed in a referendum.
If you voted Remain you don't have to like the outcome of the referendum - nobody likes losing - but, like Owen Jones said in a good article recently, the mature thing would be to take it on the Jimmy Hill and accept it. Americans on the other hand have far greater reason to be aggrieved.
-
I don't give a flying fuck about losing. I do detest the British people being taken for a bunch of idiotic wankers. I do object to the future security of my kids being fucked over by people who believed in Boris Johnson. And I do object to this country facing everything from food shortages to environmental disaster to economic collapse just because some toothsome flag waving Tory pollock manipulated the system to get a referendum in the first place.
It's not losing. It's being fucked over big time.
-
some toothsome flag waving Tory pollock
Sounds fishy ;)
-
Sounds fishy ;)
😄 autocorrect isn't good at English swearing.
-
It's worse than that, Rhi.
The legal status of the referendum, as established in the appropriate legislation was advisory. For such a major constitutional change, no truly democratic nation would enforce a decision made by only 37% of the electorate - at least 50% (possibly more) would be required.
For a change in the Constitution of the USA requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.
Theresa May is clearly well out of her depth. Her determination to leave the EU is driven by her desire to control her party, she has put the interests of the nation in second place. The progress her "negotiation" team is making is abysmal. If she is lucky, she will be represented in the future history of whatever remains of the United Kingdom as one who transformed her country from First World to Third World. I thought that Cameron was the worst prime minister since Eden (either meaning is appropriate). May is even more catastrophic.
We still have the party conference season to weather. It will depend on whether delegates are responsible or gutless as to what happens - in all parties. I suspect the best to hope for is another general election before the end of the year.
-
HH #868
Agreed. Like Rhiannon who worries about the future for her children, I worry for my granddaughters and their partners and future families.
-
It's worse than that, Rhi.
The legal status of the referendum, as established in the appropriate legislation was advisory. For such a major constitutional change, no truly democratic nation would enforce a decision made by only 37% of the electorate - at least 50% (possibly more) would be required.
The trouble is that this fantasy Jackanory scenario relies upon a 100% turnout of the electorate (everybody who can vote does actually vote), something never in reality seen and only ever entertained in the fevered masturbatory dreams of totalitarian dictators.
Votes are counted on the basis of who has actually turned out to vote, not who might have done, could have done if people were smart like me and not knuckle-dragging Sun-reading thicky thicko oiks like those over there who have a sofa in the front garden and an impressive display of unimpressive body art, who don't have all the facts not like as what I do.
Sorry to mop up your wet dream, but that's how the shit goes down when you're awake, up and about.
P.S. No truly democratic nation would entertain our current FPTP system. Yet here we are, rubbing our groins and slobbering a bit over how democratic we are with our representative "democracy."
P.P.S. "Possibly more" than 50%? "Possibly more"? WTF are you lot smoking?
-
... if people were smart like me and not knuckle-dragging Sun-reading thicky thicko oiks...
Your expressive skills seem to belie your perception of yourself!
P.P.S. "Possibly more" than 50%? "Possibly more"? WTF are you lot smoking?
Now, why don't you just do a little research, look up the word Supermajority and then come back, enriched with enlightenment, and apologise for your unnecessary and infantile language?
-
Your expressive skills seem to belie your perception of yourself
Rough guess - you are American?
-
Votes are counted on the basis of who has actually turned out to vote, not who might have done, could have done if people were smart like me and not knuckle-dragging Sun-reading thicky thicko oiks like those over there who have a sofa in the front garden and an impressive display of unimpressive body art, who don't have all the facts not like as what I do.
Sorry to mop up your wet dream, but that's how the shit goes down when you're awake, up and about.
Tell that to those who dreamt up the 1979 Scottish devolution
Referendum "rules".
-
Because the electoral college system - like FPTP here - allows for a minority to take power; by contrast a referendum - a rare exercise in direct democracy - relies on a simple majority, which like it or not was achieved in the case of Leave.
A narrow majority. A majority that could easily have disappeared by now.
If you voted Remain you don't have to like the outcome of the referendum - nobody likes losing - but, like Owen Jones said in a good article recently, the mature thing would be to take it on the Jimmy Hill and accept it. Americans on the other hand have far greater reason to be aggrieved.
Do you honestly think the leavers would have given up if the difference had been 2% the other way?
In my opinion, the wrong decision was made in the referendum and I don't see why I have to pretend I'm OK with it. We need to find a way to reverse the decision if we are going to avert disaster.
-
A narrow majority. A majority that could easily have disappeared by now.
Narrow doesn't come into it. A majority is a majority. There's no second prize. It's not Bargain Hunt, where now there are no losers but runners-up; one side lost.
Do you honestly think the leavers would have given up if the difference had been 2% the other way?
Honestly? I don't care.
In my opinion, the wrong decision was made in the referendum
Yes, we know.
and I don't see why I have to pretend I'm OK with it.
I would say maturity, which entails being grown up enough to realise that things don't always go your way; to suck it up, swallow it down and get on with it, just as some of us have done with the Tory hegemony since 1979.
-
Rough guess - you are American?
Now you are being insulting! No, I am a civilised, thoughtful, kind, loving and caring grandfather to four.
-
Now you are being insulting! No, I am a civilised, thoughtful, kind, loving and caring grandfather to four.
And that's not remotely insulting at all.
-
Narrow doesn't come into it. A majority is a majority.
Well it does matter actually. Narrow majorities are much more easily reversed than wide ones/.
Honestly? I don't care.
You don't care because the answer is inconvenient for your point. Of course the Leavers would have continued to dissent and good for them.
Yes, we know.I would say maturity, which entails being grown up enough to realise that things don't always go your way; to suck it up, swallow it down and get on with, just as some of us have done with the Tory hegemony since 1979.
So you want to talk about immature? How immature is it not to acknowledge that there was a Labour government between 1997 and 2010?
And actually, no, I don't see Labour supporters "sucking it up". How immature is it that Labour lost the last election and yet, they seem to be claiming it as a triumph? How immature is it that Margaret Thatcher kept getting large majorities and the Labour party of the day didn't just roll over and accept the decision?
The mature thing to do in a democracy, if you believe the wrong decision has been made, is to continue to argue your case in the hope that the decision can be reversed.
-
Well it does matter actually. Narrow majorities are much more easily reversed than wide ones.
Tell me why, in a democratic vote, the majority decision should be reversed, without pissing from a great height all over the concept of democracy itself, without explicitly or implicitly invoking "Waaaaagh I don't like it". I'm all ears.
So you want to talk about immature? How immature is it not to acknowledge that there was a Labour government between 1997 and 2010?
That's news to me. I must have dozed off and missed that.
How immature is it that Labour lost the last election and yet, they seem to be claiming it as a triumph?
Who does?
The mature thing to do in a democracy
... is to accept it and get on with it on those precious few and rare occasions that we're allowed to exercise it, because for the most part we aren't. Generally we appoint people that we think will do our bidding who either never believe in the first place or who quickly forget that they are the servants and we are the masters, not vice versa.
The colonials have an amusing thing about it, I think the youngsters call it a meme: http://tinyurl.com/y9qccjgh
-
Just found out my local Polish store has closed. Sign that Poles are leaving. So sad.
-
Just found out my local Polish store has closed. Sign that Poles are leaving. So sad.
Is that the reason?
-
Is that the reason?
It's known they no longer feel welcome.
-
It's known they no longer feel welcome.
Sad if true.
On the other hand, shitloads of businesses of all kinds everywhere close down constantly. Since the smoking ban years back thousands of pubs have closed and continue to close week after month after year*. I don't think anybody suggests that it's because landlords ought to pack up and piss off back to Landlordalia.
* http://tinyurl.com/5vk2jfg
-
Well I guess if people had voted for me to have no rights of residency and who voted because they wanted me and mine to leave I wouldn't bother running a business here either.
The Leave campaign lied to Brexit voters and the government will lie and lie and lie. If I were from Europe I would head home. Why believe that they will have residency rights or be welcome in our communities any more?
-
Well I guess if people had voted for me to have no rights of residency and who voted because they wanted me and mine to leave
Did they, though?
If I were from Europe
Surely spoken like a little Englander - presumably a true European would say that you already were/are.
-
If you like. Words really don't matter so much as actions and I voted remain in part because I value my European neighbour's and want them to stay. They add life and colour to this place and I am ashamed of what my fucked up 'Little England' has done.
-
Tell me why, in a democratic vote, the majority decision should be reversed,
Because people change their minds.
without pissing from a great height all over the concept of democracy itself
Democracy is not having a vote and then being done with it.
without explicitly or implicitly invoking "Waaaaagh I don't like it".
So when the Tories win elections, the people who oppose them afterwards are invoking "Waaaagh I don't like it" are they?
I'm all ears.That's news to me. I must have dozed off and missed that.
If you are going to debate politics, you really need to be better informed about recent political history. Or is it just that that particular Labour government did things you don't like (and got re-elected twice while doing them) so you are saying "waaaaagh I don't like it".
Who does?
Many many Labour supporters did.
is to accept it and get on with it on those precious few and rare occasions that we're allowed to exercise it, because for the most part we aren't. Generally we appoint people that we think will do our bidding who either never believe in the first place or who quickly forget that they are the servants and we are the masters, not vice versa.
Democracy is not just voting once and then declaring it done. Democracy is - or should be - a continuous process. Nobody who voted in that referendum knew as much as we all know now.
The colonials have an amusing thing about it, I think the youngsters call it a meme: http://tinyurl.com/y9qccjgh
That's pretty immature isn't it - hurling insults at people exercising their democratic rights. People in a democracy who disagree with the majority decision have every right to voice their disagreement. If you don't allow that, you do not have a democracy, you have mob rule.
-
If you like. Words really don't matter so much as actions and I voted remain in part because I value my European neighbour's and want them to stay. They add life and colour to this place and I am ashamed of what my fucked up 'Little England' has done.
Applaud.
We now have 27 new enemies that were friends and allies before. Moreover we have shown ourselves to be insular small minded people who'd rather live in the 1950's than the 2020's.
-
Because people change their minds.
Although the evidence of people having done so re: Brexit is at the very best confused and contradictory.
Democracy is not having a vote and then being done with it.
In this case it is. It's not the fucking hokey cokey.
So when the Tories win elections, the people who oppose them afterwards are invoking "Waaaagh I don't like it" are they?
Pretty much, yes.
If you are going to debate politics, you really need to be better informed about recent political history. Or is it just that that particular Labour government did things you don't like
Exactly. Starting with not being a Labour government worthy of the name.
Democracy is not just voting once and then declaring it done.
Well, yes it is. Otherwise - as happened in Ireland with the Treaty of Lisbon - people tend to form the opinion that the powers-that-be will simply keep re-running a vote until they get the result that they want and not the result that the people deliver. A tactic which isn't likely to inspire confidence if you have even a vague interest in convincing people of your democratic credentials.
That's pretty immature isn't it - hurling insults at people exercising their democratic rights.
Exercising their democratic rights is what people who voted Leave did in the referendum. Thank goodness no one has ever hurled insults at them, as that would have been the rankest hypocrisy.
People in a democracy who disagree with the majority decision have every right to voice their disagreement. If you don't allow that, you do not have a democracy, you have mob rule.
It is allowed. It's just that the right to be heard doesn't include the right to be taken seriously.
-
As the people supposedly arranging the exit from the EU are clueless and have been unable to put forward any proposals that can be taken seriously by the UK population or the other countries, a rethink seems entirely in order.
-
Speaking from a part of the UK that didn't support Brexit I suspect that many, no matter how they voted or where they are, may be looking at the unplanned shambles that is now slowly emerging and wondering how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place.
The answer is of course the Tory party who took the risk of a referendum to appease their internal problems and pull the rug from under both their own euro-sceptic clique and the threat they saw from UKIP: they thought a 'remain' outcome would shut down these problem groups and it backfired on them - so we now have a hopeless PM, and it seems there was no plan made for the result they got and the reports today don't offer much in the way of reassurance.
For me the surprising thing is that I wasn't aware the EU was a major public talking point: it seemed to be mainly a sub-set of the Tories and UKIP, but for some reason the electorate in some parts of the UK jumped on the bandwagon in spite of the lack of clarity about what the exit actually plan was: in my view some fell for what was no more that rhetoric.
Should it be the case that negotiations with the EU don't go well, and it is looking that way, I'd have thought that a savvy government, on seeing which way the wind was blowing, might conclude that although the referendum gave a narrow majority in favour of the principle of Brexit it would be reasonable to place the reality of whatever the negotiated agreement is in front of the electorate: after all if our government are indeed getting the 'best deal' then surely getting an electoral mandate for the negotiated practical elements shouldn't be a problem!
-
Just found out my local Polish store has closed. Sign that Poles are leaving. So sad.
Rhi - I know that you didn't mean to - but did you have to use Trumpian phraseology? ;)
-
In my opinion Britain will rue the day it leaves the EU if that does actually happen.
-
Although the evidence of people having done so re: Brexit is at the very best confused and contradictory.
You asked a generic question about a democratic vote and I answered it in a generic way. I agree the situation with respect to Brexit is very confused.
In this case it is. It's not the fucking hokey cokey.
No it isn't. It is entirely possible that the decision could be revealed to be incontrovertibly disastrous and people will be swayed towards remaining. In that situation, the democratic response would be to find a way of reversing the decision.
Pretty much, yes.
So to avoid misunderstanding, am I correct in assuming your position is that the losing side in a general election should do nothing to oppose the winning side? Because that is what it looks like.
Exactly. Starting with not being a Labour government worthy of the name.
But not a Tory hegemony and also re-elected twice.
Well, yes it is. Otherwise - as happened in Ireland with the Treaty of Lisbon - people tend to form the opinion that the powers-that-be will simply keep re-running a vote until they get the result that they want and not the result that the people deliver. A tactic which isn't likely to inspire confidence if you have even a vague interest in convincing people of your democratic credentials.
You do not understand what democracy really is.
It's just that the right to be heard doesn't include the right to be taken seriously.
Which is irrelevant to the point.
-
You do not understand what democracy really is.
Pretty sure I do, and I'm pretty sure it looks like the result of the Brexit referendum where the majority decision carries the day.
But please, do tell me which bit of democracy I don't understand according to you. I'm sure you will.
-
Pretty sure I do, and I'm pretty sure it looks like the result of the Brexit referendum where the majority decision carries the day.
Scotland 1979 referendum
Results
Yes 1,230,937 51.62%
No 1,153,502 48.38%
Who won?
-
Pretty sure I do
No you don't. It's clear from your posts you think it is just having a vote.
-
No you don't. It's clear from your posts you think it is just having a vote.
And pray tell what your definition is.
-
Scotland 1979 referendum
Results
Yes 1,230,937 51.62%
No 1,153,502 48.38%
Who won?
No, but only because an amendment was introduced to the effect that 40% of the electoral turn out was required to pass any proposal. Actual turnout was 64% making 32.9% of the electorate so it was defeated.
Since there was no such clause or stipulation in the Brexit referendum and a simple majority - not a supermajority - was all that was required (and achieved) I'm not seeing what point you think you're making.
-
...
Well, yes it is. Otherwise - as happened in Ireland with the Treaty of Lisbon - people tend to form the opinion that the powers-that-be will simply keep re-running a vote until they get the result that they want and not the result that the people deliver. A tactic which isn't likely to inspire confidence if you have even a vague interest in convincing people of your democratic credentials.
...
Don't think there was anything wrong with that. Eire rejected the treaty, so the treaty was changed and then accepted on a new vote. Sure, they should/could have held on, along with Denmark and the Netherlands and forced a more significant change - but at least they did have that option.
With the brexit vote, it would still be democratic to have a vote on the proposed final agreement, to ensure that the majority do get what they wanted and voted for. I suspect the vote would still be to leap from the cliff edge.
My current best case option is for the govt to negotiate a long transition period with the softest possible final break, with no further votes on the issue.
-
No, but only because an amendment was introduced to the effect that 40% of the electoral turn out was required to pass any proposal. Actual turnout was 64% making 32.9% of the electorate so it was defeated.
Since there was no such clause or stipulation in the Brexit referendum and a simple majority - not a supermajority - was all that was required (and achieved) I'm not seeing what point you think you're making.
Narrow doesn't come into it. A majority is a majority
The trouble is that this fantasy Jackanory scenario relies upon a 100% turnout of the electorate (everybody who can vote does actually vote), something never in reality seen and only ever entertained in the fevered masturbatory dreams of totalitarian dictators.
Votes are counted on the basis of who has actually turned out to vote, not who might have done, could have done if people were smart like me and not knuckle-dragging Sun-reading thicky thicko oiks
I was wondering what point you were making?
-
I was wondering what point you were making?
That the 1979 Scotlan referendum doesn't seem to have been used as an example with any particular reason in mind, since there's no basis for comparison with the Brexit referendum.
-
That the 1979 Scotlan referendum doesn't seem to have been used as an example with any particular reason in mind, since there's no basis for comparison with the Brexit referendum.
I was pointing out that a majority doesnt always mean that the majority 'wins'.
-
I was pointing out that a majority doesnt always mean that the majority 'wins'.
Not when you set conditions to make this the case, which wasn't the case with the Brexit referendum. Much to the annoyance of some, but that's their problem.
-
Not when you set conditions to make this the case, which wasn't the case with the Brexit referendum. Much to the annoyance of some, but that's their problem.
Your use of 'are counted' as opposed to perhaps 'were counted' had led me to think that you were talking in general about referenda.
-
Interesting that the EU are currently negotiating a free trade deal with Japan. Why Japan but not the UK?
-
They want the exit agreement settled before any trade discussions.
-
They want the exit agreement settled before any trade discussions.
which is only sensible. Note the govt were, or should have been aware, that this was going to be the approach.
-
But the EU have already said there can't be free trade unless the uk remains in the single market, agreeing to free movement of people
-
But the EU have already said there can't be free trade unless the uk remains in the single market, agreeing to free movement of people
Totally at a loss as to your use of 'but' here. Oh, and BTW the deal with Japan is a trade deal not a free trade deal.
-
But the EU have already said there can't be free trade unless the uk remains in the single market, agreeing to free movement of people
If we have free trade with the EU, it will be essential that the UK allows free movement of labour, otherwise we will not be able to compete with the EU on what would be a level playing field.
-
There just seems to be confusion to me. The govt is talking of frictionless trade with the EU, yet there are also signs of a hard Brexit - the two are incompatible, surely. I sense they are out of their depth. A hard Brexit could mean that UK planes could not take off, trucks would be checked at all borders, food and animals would be inspected, and so on. This sounds like economic ruin for some companies, and a shortage of food.
-
There just seems to be confusion to me. The govt is talking of frictionless trade with the EU, yet there are also signs of a hard Brexit - the two are incompatible, surely. I sense they are out of their depth. A hard Brexit could mean that UK planes could not take off, trucks would be checked at all borders, food and animals would be inspected, and so on. This sounds like economic ruin for some companies, and a shortage of food.
Exactly - frictionless trade means no tariffs, no customs checks, exactly the same regulatory framework on both sides of the border so you don't need different products of packaging for different markets. It also mean the ability to access skills in a 'frictionless' manner across that border. There is no frictionless trade if you are unable to access expertise and consultancies from Europe in exactly the same manner as in the UK, then there is no frictionless trade.
-
I still don't see why Japan can have more or less free trade with the EU but the UK can't?
-
I still don't see why Japan can have more or less free trade with the EU but the UK can't?
Who is saying that the UK can't? I suppose the hard Brexit lot want no deal at all, which sounds suicidal. Everybody else seems to want some kind of deal.
-
I still don't see why Japan can have more or less free trade with the EU but the UK can't?
The trade deal between Japan and the EU doesn't come close to the one we currently enjoy with the EU as an EU member.
It doesn't abolish tariffs on all good, and is relatively limited in terms of free trade on services. Were we to end up with a deal with the EU similar to that between the EU and Japan we'd be in big trouble as our economy is hit with signifiant barriers and costs to trade.
What you don't seem to realise is that the EU/Japan deal is better than what came previously, in other words a positive step forward. If we had a similar deal with the EU is would be massively worse than the situation we currently have, on other words a massive step backwards.
-
The trade deal between Japan and the EU doesn't come close to the one we currently enjoy with the EU as an EU member.
It doesn't abolish tariffs on all good, and is relatively limited in terms of free trade on services. Were we to end up with a deal with the EU similar to that between the EU and Japan we'd be in big trouble as our economy is hit with signifiant barriers and costs to trade.
What you don't seem to realise is that the EU/Japan deal is better than what came previously, in other words a positive step forward. If we had a similar deal with the EU is would be massively worse than the situation we currently have, on other words a massive step backwards.
Not only that, but we would also need to do a deal with Japan.
The EU has trade deals with several other countries, to which we will no longer be party. Brexiteers dismiss the impact of loss of trade with the EU saying we only do 40% of our trade with the EU. This is true, but once you add in true with all of the EU's trading partners, it's more than 60%.
-
Not only that, but we would also need to do a deal with Japan.
The EU has trade deals with several other countries, to which we will no longer be party. Brexiteers dismiss the impact of loss of trade with the EU saying we only do 40% of our trade with the EU. This is true, but once you add in true with all of the EU's trading partners, it's more than 60%.
The EU actually has deals in place or currently being negotiated with most of the world. See this map:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.pdf
All this will be lost what we leave and we will need to start from scratch.
-
And will have to agree to what anyone else asks. Lower environmental and welfare standards for example. We'll be in no position to negotiate.
-
So Brexit effectively delayed until 2021.
Makes the need for a referendum on the actual deal even more compelling as by the time we get to that stage it will be 5 years from the first referendum (which had a different question). In the UK democratically we effectively 'time out' a mandate for change after 5 years. That's why we have an election every 5 years.
-
There are rumours that, so displeased is he with the direction that "Brexit" appears to be going, Farage may rise from the undead to ensure the continued purity of his message.
I suspect that "no deal is better than a bad deal" will be interpreted as "no deal" means staying in the EU.
The right to make our own laws appears to be to receive EU legislation and then repackage it as an Parliamentary Bill and take on the ponderous journey which turn it into an Act of Parliament.
-
A surprising lack of detail in May's speech, especially on the 3 outstanding issues, EU citizens, the leaving bill, and Ireland. Some of the more paranoid are saying that this is deliberate, and she intends to stall the negotiations and claim that it's the EU's fault. And then what? The next step would be to walk out.
But it could also be for the Tory conference - May will be presented as the fierce patriot who went to foreign lands and told them what for. Err, yes, please can we have two more years, as we have been busy not preparing for the last 15 months?
-
I'm fairly convinced that Theresa May is fucking this up deliberately so that we can have a good excuse to bury the referendum and stay in.
I've got to go back to Brussels to work for the European Commission at the beginning of October. It's going to be so depressing literally watching people of a number of different nationalities all working together to make a better Europe when we are just running away.
-
Delightful moment in The News Quiz on Radio 4 this weekend ...
Jeremy Hardy talking about Theresa May:
... not only is she incredibly ambitious and scheming and calculating ...
... but she's really bad at it.
-
I wonder if Jeremy's right. Could May turn around and say that the cost to the country would be too great? The referendum isn't binding.
-
I wonder if Jeremy's right. Could May turn around and say that the cost to the country would be too great? The referendum isn't binding.
We can only hope so, since even those pro-Brexit must be worried about both the competence of those involved and that the in-fighting within the Tory party seems to be an increasingly influential factor in how the the UK is approaching these negotiations: seems to me it is becoming more and more about what the Tory Euro-haters will be prepared to accept.
-
Ibthink any idea of a cunning plan beyond the personal ambitions of various Tories here is as likely as Boris Johnson winning the humblest person of the year competition.
It doesn't appear to me that May would have any chance of a complete no to Brexit without the Torurs reenacting the history of Guelphs and Ghibellines.
-
Ibthink any idea of a cunning plan beyond the personal ambitions of various Tories here is as likely as Boris Johnson winning the humblest person of the year competition.
It doesn't appear to me that May would have any chance of a complete no to Brexit without the Torurs reenacting the history of Guelphs and Ghibellines.
I suspect the key issue here is the Northern Ireland border. There now appears to be growing recognisant that you cannot have frictionless border between NI and the Republic and between NI and the rest of the UK if you don't accept freedom of movement. The problem is that the DUP will not accept anything other than a frictionless border between NI and both the Republic and the rest of the UK. If an alternative is put on the table (which it must be if the UK wants to restrict freedom of movement) then surely the DUP/Tory deal is toast and May no longer has a majority.
-
Election time then.
-
I see the Sunday Times is saying that the top Tories are head-butting each other to determine who succeeds May. I'm still baffled by May's lack of contribution on the three hot topics - EU citizens, final payment, and Ireland. This could be because nobody has a clue what to say, or that she is very reluctant to say anything that will upset the Ultras, or that could precipitate Boris to mount a leadership challenge, or that could upset the DUP, as Prof. D. said.
She must know that her Florence speech does not deal with the 3 topics, so why make it? I'm torn between stupidity, ignorance, and Machiavellian plotting, either to crash out or to cancel Brexit. But there is also just the wish to survive as leader, probably the most important idea in her mind.
-
There seems to be a kind of paralysis in that though. I must be leader and then...what? It's meaningless if leadership leads to nothing much at all.
-
There seems to be a kind of paralysis in that though. I must be leader and then...what? It's meaningless if leadership leads to nothing much at all.
She does seem paralyzed. She can't just say to Barnier, OK, we'll pay X amount, we'll give EU citizens permanent status, and something on Ireland, as she will get hammered by the Ultras. So soft Brexit is taboo, but she knows that hard Brexit would ruin the economy. Better to cancel it, but she dare not suggest that. In a way, an election might end the paralysis, but it might produce a new one, if Labour get in the same muddle.
-
Yes, I don't see an election solving anything.
-
Although you do hear that Starmer is persona grata among some EU bods. I don't think Corbyn understands it.
-
Yes, I don't see an election solving anything.
If Diane Abbot on Any Questions was anything to go by, a Labour government would only be marginally better. They seem to be just as wedded to the idea that the referendum is set in stone but only because they are too frightened of the possible consequences of defying the marginal vote.
One thing you can say for the Tory Euro-sceptics, they were always prepared to put their principles ahead of the well being of the party.
-
If Diane Abbot on Any Questions was anything to go by, a Labour government would only be marginally better. They seem to be just as wedded to the idea that the referendum is set in stone but only because they are too frightened of the possible consequences of defying the marginal vote.
I really don't understand the approach of Labour - poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of its current support comes from Remain voters, so there is very little to be lost, and much to be gained by aligning itself with Remain or the very softest of Brexit. Certainly they should be very clearly nailing on a referendum on the final Brexit deal, with remaining as the other option. Particularly now that we aren't going to get that final deal in place until 2021 which will be fully 5 years after the original referendum, which was actually asking a different question.
We don't ban the next general election because the 'people had spoken' five years previously so why should we on such a critical change which will affect us for generations.
-
They have a party leader who is Eurosceptic. That's the line Labour will maintain.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41378928
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41378928
Don't mention Brexit, I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it.
-
I think both Tories and Labour are trying to avoid annoying either Leave voters or Remain voters. Mrs May has the added incentive to avoid a leadership challenge, if she sounds too soft. So the best thing is to not comment on the three outstanding issues to do with leaving. She has probably been warned that her hard Brexit stance ruined the election, as too many people were scared by it.
You get the sense that Starmer hankers for EEA membership, but will the Leave voters hang, draw and quarter him? Some of them also probably think that EEA is in the EU, partly because these things were never discussed before the referendum, and are rarely discussed now, for some bizarre reason. I suppose we are meant to be ignorant.
-
I think both Tories and Labour are trying to avoid annoying either Leave voters or Remain voters. Mrs May has the added incentive to avoid a leadership challenge, if she sounds too soft. So the best thing is to not comment on the three outstanding issues to do with leaving. She has probably been warned that her hard Brexit stance ruined the election, as too many people were scared by it.
You get the sense that Starmer hankers for EEA membership, but will the Leave voters hang, draw and quarter him? Some of them also probably think that EEA is in the EU, partly because these things were never discussed before the referendum, and are rarely discussed now, for some bizarre reason. I suppose we are meant to be ignorant.
In a sense, Labour are much more divided on this than the Tories. The letter arguing for membership of the Single Market is an indication of that - it could happen in the Tories but it would be signed by Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry.
-
I bet lots of politicians are wishing to hell that we had never got into this. At the moment, Labour may be profiting from it, as the Tories own it. But there is a general paralysis which is quite weird, and presumably, cannot continue, as M. Barnier is an impatient suitor.
-
I really don't understand the approach of Labour - poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of its current support comes from Remain voters...
So they need to not alienate the rest if they're to pick up more votes and become electable.
O.
-
So they need to not alienate the rest if they're to pick up more votes and become electable.
O.
But there are richer pickings amongst pro-remainers who could be attracted to Labour if they were more overtly soft brexit/open to referendum on final deal. Don't forget that 48% of the referendum voters (which is probably a greater % still of general election voters) are potentially looking for a political home, given that brexit is the defining issue for the foreseeable future.
Currently they are alienating their core - who are largely remainers.
-
But there are richer pickings amongst pro-remainers who could be attracted to Labour if they were more overtly soft brexit/open to referendum on final deal. Don't forget that 48% of the referendum voters (which is probably a greater % still of general election voters) are potentially looking for a political home, given that brexit is the defining issue for the foreseeable future.
Currently they are alienating their core - who are largely remainers.
I'm not saying that their correctly calculating it, but I think they're deducing that they can pick up more votes from exit-voters who would traditionally have supported labour but have dallied with out-leaning Tories or UKIP than they can from the rest of the remain voters.
O.
-
I'm not saying that their correctly calculating it, but I think they're deducing that they can pick up more votes from exit-voters who would traditionally have supported labour but have dallied with out-leaning Tories or UKIP than they can from the rest of the remain voters.
O.
According to Lord Ashcroft's extensive polling Labour's 2017 GE vote was more than 2:1 remain over leave voters. They aren't going to out-brexit the Tories or UKIP, so why try. The Tories and the LibDems (and UKIP, SNP, Plaid) at least have their strategy right - appealing to their predominant support on the remain/leave axis. Labour, uniquely have it wrong - coming over all wooly brexit while their core support favours remain.
-
According to Lord Ashcroft's extensive polling Labour's 2017 GE vote was more than 2:1 remain over leave voters. They aren't going to out-brexit the Tories or UKIP, so why try. The Tories and the LibDems (and UKIP, SNP, Plaid) at least have their strategy right - appealing to their predominant support on the remain/leave axis. Labour, uniquely have it wrong - coming over all wooly brexit while their core support favours remain.
That's a bit chicken and egg - surely what Labour has to do - more than most parties is appeal to a wider demographic than their core vote? They are aiming to be the govt of the UK and if they are seen as the party of the EU they, by your approach, are appealing to 48% of the vote.
It's also simplistic to think that political parties are simply appealing to the predominant wing. The SNP and Greens in particular are trying to manage the 35 - 40% or so of their support opposed to the EU. Even the Lid Dems struggled at their conference with those members in favour of Brexit.
-
That's a bit chicken and egg - surely what Labour has to do - more than most parties is appeal to a wider demographic than their core vote? They are aiming to be the govt of the UK and if they are seen as the party of the EU they, by your approach, are appealing to 48% of the vote.
Quite, but they aren't going to be successful at appealing to the 48% (including current Labour voters and remainers who might vote for them in the future, and may have voted for them in the past) if they are kind of Tory/UKIP lite on brexit. And they are unlikely to appeal to the 52% either if they are Tory/UKIP lite on brexit, as those parties have largely hoovered up the leave vote.
-
Quite, but they aren't going to be successful at appealing to the 48% (including current Labour voters and remainers who might vote for them in the future, and may have voted for them in the past) if they are kind of Tory/UKIP lite on brexit. And they are unlikely to appeal to the 52% either if they are Tory/UKIP lite on brexit, as those parties have largely hoovered up the leave vote.
Surely they are aiming for the around 45% in the middle, and others for whom other aspects might be important. that they need to win? The struggle for Labour is about the size of vote they need and it affects how they play this. They could try Brexit is bad but if that alienates a third of their own support and 52% of the overall vote trying to form a govt is hard. As already noted, it's not that easy for most parties, and has affected the stance of the SNP. Greens and even had an affect in the Lib Dem conference.
-
I think both Tories and Labour are trying to avoid annoying either Leave voters or Remain voters.
They've both failed as far as this voter is concerned. However, for balance, the Lib Dems have also annoyed me for being absolutely fucking useless.
I still voted for them. I'd have voted Labour at the last GE if they had come out as anti Brexit but then they won my constituency without my help anyway.
-
Given the 2 years added for transitional arrangements, the probability of extension of the period and internal conflicts within the the Tory party the chances that we will have a general election prior to a "final deal" seem high. Doesn't look like anyone will be prepared, with solid policies, to sort the issues even then!
Mind, anything could happen in that period.
-
First in the queue for a very unfree trade deal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41397181
-
This underlines quite how powerless May is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41441444
-
Peston reckons Davis will have to come clean on how big a turd Brexit is/will be if it's no deal.
-
Refusal from Davis to publish studies on the effect of Brexit.
That Brexit is unstoppable is merely policy, not due to any legal reason.
Source The Guardian
-
First it was billions to the DUP now Tories are prepared to waste billions on custom clearance technology if there is no deal.
Waste waste waste. There will be fuck all to show for it.
-
First it was billions to the DUP now Tories are prepared to waste billions on custom clearance technology if there is no deal.
Waste waste waste. There will be fuck all to show for it.
If you are a manufacturer of customs technology, there will be plenty to show for it.
I travelled to Brussels on the Eurostar last week. If you've ever been on Eurostar, you'll be aware that you go through passport control at the start of the journey, so you have to go through French passport control in St Pancras. French passport control at St Pancras consists of a man, a dog and about 10 biometric passport gates for people with "European biometric passports". I wonder if I'll still be able to use them after Brexit, they cut at least 10 minutes off the queue.
It would be a fairly trivial annoyance, but all these trivial annoyances soon add up to a major fuck up.
-
If you are a manufacturer of customs technology, there will be plenty to show for it.
I travelled to Brussels on the Eurostar last week. If you've ever been on Eurostar, you'll be aware that you go through passport control at the start of the journey, so you have to go through French passport control in St Pancras. French passport control at St Pancras consists of a man, a dog and about 10 biometric passport gates for people with "European biometric passports". I wonder if I'll still be able to use them after Brexit, they cut at least 10 minutes off the queue.
It would be a fairly trivial annoyance, but all these trivial annoyances soon add up to a major fuck up.
Is this customs identification technology even British? Or are they European. And surely EU companies will be able to tender under EU rules right up to the moment the technology needs to be used.
Name one major state IT project that wasn't a fuck up.
-
Is this customs identification technology even British? Or are they European. And surely EU companies will be able to tender under EU rules right up to the moment the technology needs to be used.
I've no idea. The hardware is most likely all manufactured in the Far East, but the real money is in the software and the integration. Biometric passport gates are generally really useful, but we already have them. If we leave the EU though, we might have to set up a parallel system, which is, of course, a waste of money.
Name one major state IT project that wasn't a fuck up.
I worked on the first electronic UK passport system. If you had a passport issued any time after 1993 and before 2001, your application went through some of my code. There were some teething troubles with it, but generally, it went pretty well.
-
I've no idea. The hardware is most likely all manufactured in the Far East, but the real money is in the software and the integration. Biometric passport gates are generally really useful, but we already have them. If we leave the EU though, we might have to set up a parallel system, which is, of course, a waste of money.
I worked on the first electronic UK passport system. If you had a passport issued any time after 1993 and before 2001, your application went through some of my code. There were some teething troubles with it, but generally, it went pretty well.
Then you can use the lines William Wallace's Irish lieutenant says in MelGibsons Braveheart.
""Looks like I'm alright but your fucked"
-
BBC fact sheet on what the different Brexits look like ...maybe somewhere between Switzerland and turkey> The so called Swurkish solution?
-
BBC fact sheet on what the different Brexits look like ...maybe somewhere between Switzerland and turkey> The so called Swurkish solution?
I'd have liked a France/Turkey solution if there was one!
-
Swift Brexit audit
As good as membership/no worse than membership Not encouraging.
Free trade deal with Europe not encouraging
Preferential front of queue deals with America not encouraging
£350 million pounds for NHS not encouraging
-
Where are all the forum brexiteers now?
We are still waiting for a plan.
What about that easy deal with the EU?
Hammond didn't have the balls to cope with Dacre or the Barclay's and had to blurtout stuff about 'enemies'.
May in dire straights because she has to reveal the magic money tree to shake for Rees Mogg and the the Hard Brexshitters.
-
One interesting idea I keep coming across is that the headbangers partly want to walk out from the negotiations, because the full ghastliness and wreckage of Brexit is seeping into popular consciousness, and they want to stop this, before there is a mass demand to cancel it. It's an interesting idea, but I don't know how true it is. The Mail/Express/Telegraph faction are certainly beating the drum.
-
So if there are any Brexiteers left reading this thread, did you honestly expect it to be going like this? I'd be interested to know.
-
So if there are any Brexiteers left reading this thread, did you honestly expect it to be going like this? I'd be interested to know.
I am an out-and-out remainer, so I'm not answering your question.
It's "going like this" because Mrs May, like her immediate predecessor, has been more concerned with the condition of the Conservative Party than the condition of the United Kingdom.
-
I am not a Brexiteer but I was amenable to respecting the referendum, even though it didn't need to be as it was advisory, and I wanted Corbyn to offer to work with the govt after the election to get the best deal, and would have liked the govt to seek an all party approach. This was because I feared the Tory govt weren't in a strong position and that infighting might be a problem. I count myself as as sceptic on politics, I have low, often negligible expectations. Even with the Hubble telescope I can't see how far below those low expectations this govt is.
-
I suppose Mrs May and her group are paralyzed by the Ultras, therefore she cannot go for soft Brexit, or EEA, or the Norway solution, as the headbangers will have a tantrum, and Boris will declare that we are a roaring lion, and it's all the fault of the EU.
-
The small majority who voted for this madness did so on the basis of the idea of Brexit, given there was no indication of what it entailed, aside from misinformation, since nobody thought we'd get the result we did get.
The problem is not only are we none the wiser 15 months or so later but it also seems that these much-vaunted negotiations are unsatisfactory - I suspect because it is becoming increasingly obvious to all but the Brexit zealots that perhaps Brexit is a bad idea, and this might have been obvious had some due diligence been done prior to letting people make an uninformed choice.
Captain May is steering the boat towards the rocks and seemingly now thinks it best that she 'accelerates' - this is sheer madness and somebody needs to find a democratic way to reconsider - but that would require a PM who isn't weak and isn't being held hostage by a wing of their own political party.
-
A third party is needed to referee. Dalai Lama or the Pope?
-
A third party is needed to referee. Dalai Lama or the Pope?
Billy Connolly.
And before you try it - he's funny every time he goes on stage!
-
I am not a Brexiteer but I was amenable to respecting the referendum, even though it didn't need to be as it was advisory, and I wanted Corbyn to offer to work with the govt after the election to get the best deal, and would have liked the govt to seek an all party approach. This was because I feared the Tory govt weren't in a strong position and that infighting might be a problem. I count myself as as sceptic on politics, I have low, often negligible expectations. Even with the Hubble telescope I can't see how far below those low expectations this govt is.
The reason I am interested in what the Brexiteers think about the current situation is because I don't think any of us could have foreseen how utterly incompetent our negotiators would turn out to be. Like you, I had low expectations, but what is actually happening goes well beyond missing our expectations - it is a farce.
-
The government can't settle their own differences, or the differences of the Tory party, hence cannot give any direction at all, or present a coherent position. But May seems in hock to the Ultras, who actually want to crash out, with who knows what consequences.
-
So if there are any Brexiteers left reading this thread, did you honestly expect it to be going like this? I'd be interested to know.
I note that Tim Martin, chairman of Wetherspoons and arch-Brexiteer, was recently heard to say that even he was having doubts as to whether the event will actually ever happen. W's autumn mag, though still fiercely defending Brexit, is at least even-handed enough to print four articles (two for and two against) by well-known worthies such as Vince Cable and Matthew Parris.
(I receive no commission from Wetherspoons, and they're lucky to get 10 quid a week in patronage from me) :)
-
I note that Tim Martin, chairman of Wetherspoons and arch-Brexiteer, was recently heard to say that even he was having doubts as to whether the event will actually ever happen. W's autumn mag, though still fiercely defending Brexit, is at least even-handed enough to print four articles (two for and two against) by well-known worthies such as Vince Cable and Matthew Parris.
(I receive no commission from Wetherspoons, and they're lucky to get 10 quid a week in patronage from me) :)
Can I recommend The Big Issue this week, guest edited by Armando Iannucci with a debate between the great giants of Malcolm Tucker and Alan Partridge.
-
Billy Connolly.
And before you try it - he's funny every time he goes on stage!
Too hairy.
-
Billy Connolly.
And before you try it - he's funny every time he goes on stage!
He is very funny. One of my all time favourites of his is the one about the two pupils on the bus. One goes ''it's spelt w.w.o.o.m.b.b''. he other replies ''No it's spelt w.w.w.w.o.o.o.o.m.m.b''. An old lady behind them leans forward and says I think you'll find it's spelt W.O.M.B.......at which one of the pupils turns round and says ''Listen lady, I bet you've never even seen a hippopotamus let alone heard one fart underwater.''
-
With the banks ready to upsticks and Frankfurt it's coming to shit or bust for May. Hard Brexit or No Brexit.
-
Theresa amongst the polyanthus
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/20/theresa-may-brexit-speech-brussels-eu-pot-plants-sketch?CMP=fb_gu
-
Are you now or have you ever been a remoaner?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris#img-2
I think the letter is stupid, but until any action is taken the reaction seems Ott.
-
Are you now or have you ever been a remoaner?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris#img-2
I think the letter is stupid, but until any action is taken the reaction seems Ott.
I hope they just ignore that stupid letter.
-
Are you now or have you ever been a remoaner?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/24/universities-mccarthyism-mp-demands-list-brexit-chris-heaton-harris#img-2
I think the letter is stupid, but until any action is taken the reaction seems Ott.
This is one of the consequences of democracy, sometimes idiots are elected.
-
So apparently it was for a book! In which case it shouldn't have been sent on parliamentary notepaper, and I note he is defended by the odious Philip Davies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41747035?SThisFB
-
So apparently it was for a book! In which case it shouldn't have been sent on parliamentary notepaper, and I note he is defended by the odious Philip Davies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41747035?SThisFB
Hmm - if this is true then it is an abuse of his parliamentary position. Writing a book is a private activity, not part of his role as an MP and therefore he should not have sent the letter using parliamentary headed paper.
And if he was researching for a book, why didn't he say so in his letter. Forgive me for my scepticism, but this guy is 50 and in his career to date the nearest I can see to him writing a book is a 24 page booklet on fighting wind farm proposals with accompanying step by step guide for opposing them. Seems rather too convenient that apparently, despite all evidence to the contrary, he is a budding author.
-
Hmm - if this is true then it is an abuse of his parliamentary position. Writing a book is a private activity, not part of his role as an MP and therefore he should not have sent the letter using parliamentary headed paper.
And if he was researching for a book, why didn't he say so in his letter. Forgive me for my scepticism, but this guy is 50 and in his career to date the nearest I can see to him writing a book is a 24 page booklet on fighting wind farm proposals with accompanying step by step guide for opposing them. Seems rather too convenient that apparently, despite all evidence to the contrary, he is a budding author.
Come now, it will surely be a thriller in the tradition of Dan Brown, The Brexit Code?
Was there a reason in replying to a post saying he shouldn't have used parliamentary notepaper, you said he shouldn't have used parliamentary notepaper?
-
Equally plausible.
http://newsthump.com/2017/10/24/its-for-my-xmas-card-list-insists-tory-mp-demanding-to-know-which-lecturers-are-saying-what-about-brexit/
-
Was there a reason in replying to a post saying he shouldn't have used parliamentary notepaper, you said he shouldn't have used parliamentary notepaper?
I was agreeing with you, reiterating the point and going a little further specifically by indicating the distinction between private activities and the parliamentary role of an MP.
Anyhow I didn't realise there was a rule whereby only one poster was allowed to make a specific point. As you are one of those administrator-type chaps you clearly know the rules better than I do ;)
-
I was agreeing with you, reiterating the point and going a little further specifically by indicating the distinction between private activities and the parliamentary role of an MP.
Anyhow I didn't realise there was a rule whereby only one poster was allowed to make a specific point. As you are one of those administrator-type chaps you clearly know the rules better than I do ;)
It just read a bit like Profsplaining
-
It just read a bit like Profsplaining
Profsplaining - is that even a thing!?!
-
Profsplaining - is that even a thing!?!
It is now, in your honour.
-
It is now, in your honour.
Why do I have the feeling this isn't a complement :-\
-
Why do I have the feeling this isn't a complement :-\
It is, if a bit of a back handed one. Anyway thanks for the stuff on the great author's back catalogue. Already used elsewhere.
-
Why do I have the feeling this isn't a complement :-\
I think you mean "compliment".
(It's always satisfying to correct a professor ....)
-
I think you mean "compliment".
(It's always satisfying to correct a professor ....)
Indeed.
Don't you mean correct a Professor ;)
-
Wonder what it is they don't want us to know: that they sought public approval for this disaster surely implies that the public should be made aware of the consequences of the decision they took as the details of these consequences emerge (given nobody thought to check first).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41749270
-
I have had a number of encounters with Brexiteers who have argued that the EU is politically modelled on the (now defunct) Soviet Union. They usually mention (but without names) academic authorities who have written books on the subject which they found convincing. One theme is common to all of my encounters ... a repeated refrain of "Ever closer union".
My immediate thought when I read Gordon's news item was that the United Kingdom no longer enjoys parliamentary democracy but is now governed by a Politburo.
-
Basically, we are being lied to. Any discussion of EEA is shut off without discussion; there are now references to 'no deal', although in fact, no deal is totally impossible. WTO terms are discussed in terms of tariffs, when in fact, it's non tariff barriers which are a big impediment. I suppose all of this is discussed in private by politicians, but very little filters out. And of course, the media are largely on the side of the right wing, so there is omerta. It's about as democratic as the 'Ndrangheta inner circle.
-
Profsplaining - is that even a thing!?!
On Ship of Fools, there's a whole thread on 'mansplaining'!! (Still not quite sure what they're talking about!)
-
On Ship of Fools, there's a whole thread on 'mansplaining'!! (Still not quite sure what they're talking about!)
Well, dearie. To put it another way, it's a bit like when you are washing the dishes and.............
::)
-
Going off topic but I once had a date where the bloke mansplained what a painting of a tree was.
-
Going off topic but I once had a date where the bloke mansplained what a painting of a tree was.
Sounds like an arse. But then again, don't worry your pretty little head over it, sweetheart.
-
Well, dearie. To put it another way, it's a bit like when you are washing the dishes and.............
::)
:D :D
-
On Ship of Fools, there's a whole thread on 'mansplaining'!! (Still not quite sure what they're talking about!)
Which I why I am somewhat sceptical about NS's so-called compliment - backhanded or otherwise.
-
Dear old Boris, so hard to separate the lies from just talking without thinking
http://www.scientistsforeu.uk/open_letter_boris_johnson_gene_therapy
-
Dear old Boris, so hard to separate the lies from just talking without thinking
http://www.scientistsforeu.uk/open_letter_boris_johnson_gene_therapy
When it comes to science, less international cooperation is always bad. I just assume that Boris Johnson is always lying now. It makes dealing with what he says so much easier.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41829714
Hague thinks that another referendum would be hate filled. Perhaps he should have thought of that before his party organized the first one. That was hate filled enough.
-
I wonder, Trent, whether he may not be just concerning himself with hate within the Conservative Party? I have heard it suggested that we may not be far from the party tearing itself apart, with proportions leaving for UKIP and the SDP.
-
I wonder, Trent, whether he may not be just concerning himself with hate within the Conservative Party? I have heard it suggested that we may not be far from the party tearing itself apart, with proportions leaving for UKIP and the SDP.
SDP? Bit of a timeslip there!!
-
Well, many of the Tories are living in the past .... :-[
But thank you ... LibDems
-
The NYT bureau chief in London throws up his hands
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/sunday-review/britain-identity-crisis.html
-
Another industry leaves the sinking ship.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41875853
-
Another industry leaves the sinking ship.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41875853
Bulletin: 'may' (paragraph 1) and 'could' (paragraph 2) are not 'have', 'is' or 'will'
-
Brexit and the left behind
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/05/brexit-theresa-may-economic-austerity-leave-voting
-
https://tinyurl.com/BexitOnBeermat
-
That ignores the wishes of the half of the population that wants to remain in the EU. A compromise needs to be found.
NO the vote was clear no compromise we exit full-stop.
-
NO the vote was clear no compromise we exit full-stop.
Sassy, the vote was not clear.
In the first place, the Act which enabled the referendum stated that it was only advisory. It is possible (indeed, probable) that some voters may have voted in a particular way merely to send a political message.
Secondly, the information provided for the electors was inadequate for the purpose - neither side presented cases which were adequate or sufficiently appropriate for a vote on a significant constitutional change. Apart from "intention" nobody had any real understanding of the consequences of the referendum nor of the policies and plans that would be needed to implement leaving nor of the consequences of such action.
Thirdly, 63% of the electorate did not support the proposal to leave the EU. The margin between those voting "leave" and those "stay" given the number of people not voting was too small to indicate a clear decision. The referendum is not a normal method of political decision making in the UK - this one was shambolic in its execution.
Fourthly. the primary purpose of the referendum was not to determine the UK's continued membership of the UK. It was being used by a weak prime minister solely for party management purposes.
-
NO the vote was clear no compromise we exit full-stop.
It was fairly clear here in Scotland.
-
And so the clusterfuck continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/12/uk-government-tensions-rise-after-leak-of-letter-to-prime-minister
-
I don’t agree that Cameron called the referendum simply to play to his party. I’ve linked before to how changes to parliamentary procedure were exploited by extreme Eurosceptics and he was forced to a place where he had little room for manoeuvre.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-parliaments-38402140
I’m assuming all Brexit voters will be kissing photos of the lovely Philip Hollobone in gratitude. I don’t think anyone illustrates what Brexit stands for better than he does.
-
NO the vote was clear no compromise we exit full-stop.
51/48 is clear ? I wouldn't characterise that as a clear mandate to leave. 90/10, yes, 80/20, yes, 70/30, yes, but 51/48 was pretty much neck and neck; that kind of slim majority could easily evaporate or go the other way, just remember how the electorate changed in the last election decimating the Conservative majority.
Major change should be mandated by a clear instruction from the electorate, not a wafer thin one that will likely evaporate over time as the predominantly leave voting elderly die and the young who are overwhelmingly remainers attain voting age.
Apart from all of which, a wise ruler should always seek to represent the wishes of the entire population, not just the largest faction, with minorities being ignored. So in Brexit parlance, this might manifest as the softest possible Brexit as opposed to a hard Brexit. Compromise is good, in principle, don't you think ?
-
I don’t agree that Cameron called the referendum simply to play to his party.
I didn't say that Cameron called a referendum to "play to his party".
He called the referendum to shut down the right wing, destabilising anti-EU cabal, to strengthen his hand. I think that it will be some time before a party leader uses a referendum for this purposes again ...
-
Article on Forbes regarding John Redwood
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/british-lawmaker-advises-investors-to-take-their-money-out-of-the-uk/ar-BBETJwG?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp
-
Article on Forbes regarding John Redwood
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/british-lawmaker-advises-investors-to-take-their-money-out-of-the-uk/ar-BBETJwG?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp
One rule for them...
https://www.theguardian.com/discussion/p/6bxqc
-
Slightly baffled at something that surely is part if the constitution of the UK being a concession.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41975277
-
Bored got me posting here.
Just a reminder the EU Referendum Act passed through parliament almost unopposed. Once MPs voted that way the decision to stay in the EU was ceded to the electorate, yes advisory so technically they didn't, but practically they did.
As far as I'm aware only the LibDems support another referendum and the electorate largely ignored them at the last GE.
The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.
Not following politics currently so will take correction happily, appreciate if its not abusive though.
-
Bored got me posting here.
Just a reminder the EU Referendum Act passed through parliament almost unopposed. Once MPs voted that way the decision to stay in the EU was ceded to the electorate, yes advisory so technically they didn't, but practically they did.
Not sure what the size if the vote to hold a referendum in Parliament has on making it something that isn't advisory. It isn't just theoretically advisory, it is legally advisory. Not exactly sure what you mean by 'practically' here.
As far as I'm aware only the LibDems support another referendum and the electorate largely ignored them at the last GE.
Though since elections are multi threaded answers to questions, not always easy to use them as a determinant answer on a single question.
The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.
Not following politics currently so will take correction happily, appreciate if its not abusive though.
so a bit of name calling from you 'Remaniacs' is fine? Implying madness amongst those you disagree with isn't abusive? Mmm.
Leaving that aside surely there is a value question about whether people have to agree with whatever deal is produced and ignore whether that is bad, no matter that the referendum didn't define a deal as such?
-
The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.
No, if things are going utterly tits up with the negotiations (and to me it looks like they are), I think you can credibly call a halt to Brexit although I agree it might be political suicide for some people.
Still, if people had been prepared to put the well being of the country ahead of narrow political ambition in the first place, we would not be having this discussion.
-
Just a reminder the EU Referendum Act passed through parliament almost unopposed. Once MPs voted that way the decision to stay in the EU was ceded to the electorate, yes advisory so technically they didn't, but practically they did.
No they didn't, precisely because they enacted an advisory referendum - they could have ceded the decision to the electorate by enacting a binding referendum (as was the case for the FPTP vs AV referendum) - but they didn't.
-
The Remaniac MP's now seem to want to have the ability to effectively reverse brexit surely the only way of credibly doing that is another referendum, a position that Labour do not support.
MPs, whose electoral mandate is, of course, more recent and therefore takes precedence over, the referendum.
-
Not sure what the size if the vote to hold a referendum in Parliament has on making it something that isn't advisory. It isn't just theoretically advisory, it is legally advisory. Not exactly sure what you mean by 'practically' here.
Though since elections are multi threaded answers to questions, not always easy to use them as a determinant answer on a single question.
so a bit of name calling from you 'Remaniacs' is fine? Implying madness amongst those you disagree with isn't abusive? Mmm.
Leaving that aside surely there is a value question about whether people have to agree with whatever deal is produced and ignore whether that is bad, no matter that the referendum didn't define a deal as such?
I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office. I think the LibDem position is coherent on supporting another vote on a deal no other party supports that position though.
I'm not suggesting a GE isn't multi-threaded just stating Brexit needs to be reversed via another referendum and there isn't support for that by enough MPs.
-
No, if things are going utterly tits up with the negotiations (and to me it looks like they are), I think you can credibly call a halt to Brexit although I agree it might be political suicide for some people.
Still, if people had been prepared to put the well being of the country ahead of narrow political ambition in the first place, we would not be having this discussion.
Yes if politicians put aside their ambitions and do what they thought was right then lots of things.
-
MPs vote 311 to 76 to reject an amendment in the name of Labour's Ian Murray to exclude EU imports from new powers allowing the government to impose duties after Brexit.
Quote from BBC, apparently Labour whipped to vote it down?
-
I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office.
It they specifically chose to vote for an advisory referendum (rather than a binding one) of course they can. I they feel obligated to enact the referendum result, why make it only advisory.
I thought one of main arguments for Brexit was to ensure that Parliament was sovereign - or is it only sovereign when it takes decisions you like.
-
The divorce bill has doubled. Wtf? Boris said that there wouldn't be one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183
-
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-loses-seat-on-international-court-of-justice-for-first-time-since-1946-11136644
-
The divorce bill has doubled. Wtf? Boris said that there wouldn't be one.
There is in your statement an implication that you believed something Boris said. Can I politely suggest you check yourself in for some therapy that will alleviate the gullibility you appear to be exhibiting. ;)
-
There is in your statement an implication that you believed something Boris said. Can I politely suggest you check yourself in for some therapy that will alleviate the gullibility you appear to be exhibiting. ;)
I don't think the NHS could cope with all the muppets patients who believed in Boris.
-
The divorce bill has doubled. Wtf? Boris said that there wouldn't be one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42060183
Of course there was going to be one as the UK is legally required to meets its proportion of commitments made while it was a member of the EU. The UK cannot sign up to major long term projects that involve significant financial liabilities and then refuse to meet those financial requirements. It matters not that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU - it signed up to the obligations and they remain in place regardless of whether the UK is a member of the EU or not.
-
Of course there was going to be one as the UK is legally required to meets its proportion of commitments made while it was a member of the EU. The UK cannot sign up to major long term projects that involve significant financial liabilities and then refuse to meet those financial requirements. It matters not that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU - it signed up to the obligations and they remain in place regardless of whether the UK is a member of the EU or not.
But - but - you mean Boris told a fib?
-
But - but - you mean Boris told a fib?
I was trying to find out what Boris's latest approval figures and discovered that the yougov site which is delightful place to waste some time on. I was entranced that there is a strong correlation between people who like Arthur Lowe and Michael Gove
https://yougov.co.uk/opi/browse/Boris_Johnson
-
It they specifically chose to vote for an advisory referendum (rather than a binding one) of course they can. I they feel obligated to enact the referendum result, why make it only advisory.
We will have to agree to disagree, Corbyn leader of the Opposition seems to side with me on this one. The centrists in Labour are now powerless to mount another challenge on Corbyn prior to Brexit, and Labour gained more seats in the last election.
Corbyn, almost pro-Brexit leads the opposition and the Tories run Govt, its happening.
I thought one of main arguments for Brexit was to ensure that Parliament was sovereign - or is it only sovereign when it takes decisions you like.
Not quite I think the UK Parliament is more accountable to the electorate it serves.
-
We will have to agree to disagree ...
What is it about the word 'advisory' that you do not understand? This isn't a matter of opinion, but a statement of fact, and this was clearly indicated in the official briefing paper on the European Union Referendum Bill. To quote:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the result of the referendum, nor set a term limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
The referendum was advisory - that is a fact - and there is no requirement for the Government to implement the result of the referendum - that too is a fact.
-
Not quite I think the UK Parliament is more accountable to the electorate it serves.
I don't think you understand what sovereign means.
The UK Government is only accountable to the electorate in democratic terms. Once elected the electorate has no direct ability to 'force' the government to take a particular line - MPs are representatives nor delegates. However, of course, if a government (and MPs) act in a manner that the electorate don't like they can vote them out at the next opportunity.
So in the current example Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has a perfect right to say 'stuff the referendum result, we are not implementing it' - if the electorate doesn't like that view it can vote in a new set of MPs likely to take a different line.
-
Why do discussions with you always feel like its as point scoring exercise.
What is it about the word 'advisory' that you do not understand? This isn't a matter of opinion, but a statement of fact, and this was clearly indicated in the official briefing paper on the European Union Referendum Bill. To quote:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the result of the referendum, nor set a term limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
The referendum was advisory - that is a fact - and there is no requirement for the Government to implement the result of the referendum - that too is a fact.
Never claimed it was not advisory, question if it could be have been binding but lets not discuss issues which neither of us care about.
I stated:-
I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office.
You then claimed this wasn't an issue, we agree to disagree on that point.
-
I don't think you understand what sovereign means.
I don't think you understand what I said.
The UK Government is only accountable to the electorate in democratic terms. Once elected the electorate has no direct ability to 'force' the government to take a particular line - MPs are representatives nor delegates. However, of course, if a government (and MPs) act in a manner that the electorate don't like they can vote them out at the next opportunity.
So in the current example Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has a perfect right to say 'stuff the referendum result, we are not implementing it' - if the electorate doesn't like that view it can vote in a new set of MPs likely to take a different line.
Spare me the lecture and read back, I said accountable, politicians are held to account not just by the voting booth but by the media \ culture.
In any event none of the current MP's got elected on the basis of 'stuff the referendum result' (I suspect they agree with me and know this would be political suicide) one party were advocating another referendum on the deal and they got a handful of seats.
There are many centrist Labour MP's who would, I guess, support that policy, but Corbyn is in control empowered by the recent election.
In the last GE I could have seen a very soft Brexit happening if:-
1) Tory had won a massive majority reducing the Brexit Tory group to an irrelevance
2) Corbyn had not gained seats resulting in his demise and the return of the party to the centre
3) A stronger LibDem showing resulting in another coalition which the Lib Dems would have insisted on another referendum
-
In the last GE I could have seen a very soft Brexit happening if:-
1) Tory had won a massive majority reducing the Brexit Tory group to an irrelevance
2) Corbyn had not gained seats resulting in his demise and the return of the party to the centre
3) A stronger LibDem showing resulting in another coalition which the Lib Dems would have insisted on another referendum
As soon as the details of a Brexit deal become clear all semblance of a mandate will be gone. There is certainly no mandate for a hard Brexit, despite what the more extreme Brexit nutters claim. And were the Government to move in a soft Brexit direction then the same people would cry 'betrayal'.
On a second referendum, well that will depend entirely on the developing political mood. Once people turn against what is actually proposed and see it variously as 'not what I voted for' then the clamour will grow. Sure only one party advocated it in 2017, but the political mood wasn't in their favour as it was effectively a two horse race. Had one of the main parties advocated a second referendum (presumably Labour) then who knows what would have happened.
But the most likely scenario is that May's government will fall at some point between now and implementation of a final deal, resulting in either a general election or a rainbow coalition without a general election. That would be as a direct result of disquiet over the direction of Brexit. It would be very easy politically for an incoming government to say that the people should have the final say, once they had done that then whether or not people wanted a referendum they would simply need to get on with it as has happened in previous referendums. Don't forget that prior to the 2015 general election just 4% of people say the EU as a big issue - there was no clamour for a referendum in the first place, it was just proposed for political reasons by a party to try and lance the boil of their ultra eurosceptic fanatics in an election that they didn't think they would win.
-
As soon as the details of a Brexit deal become clear all semblance of a mandate will be gone. There is certainly no mandate for a hard Brexit, despite what the more extreme Brexit nutters claim. And were the Government to move in a soft Brexit direction then the same people would cry 'betrayal'.
As I recall leaving the single market you regard as hard Brexit? If so then what refer to as a hard Brexit others just think of as Brexit.
On a second referendum, well that will depend entirely on the developing political mood. Once people turn against what is actually proposed and see it variously as 'not what I voted for' then the clamour will grow. Sure only one party advocated it in 2017, but the political mood wasn't in their favour as it was effectively a two horse race. Had one of the main parties advocated a second referendum (presumably Labour) then who knows what would have happened.
Think I agree but Jezza isn't pro-EU so was never going to happen.
But the most likely scenario is that May's government will fall at some point between now and implementation of a final deal, resulting in either a general election or a rainbow coalition without a general election. That would be as a direct result of disquiet over the direction of Brexit. It would be very easy politically for an incoming government to say that the people should have the final say, once they had done that then whether or not people wanted a referendum they would simply need to get on with it as has happened in previous referendums.
You will need to walk me through that scenario, if Labour were in the control of a centrist I can see it happening, but given how strong Corbyn is in Labour just can't see it.
Don't forget that prior to the 2015 general election just 4% of people say the EU as a big issue - there was no clamour for a referendum in the first place, it was just proposed for political reasons by a party to try and lance the boil of their ultra eurosceptic fanatics in an election that they didn't think they would win.
First I suggest you check who voted for the EU vote in Parliament, secondly you are contradicting yourself, its a big issue, not a big issue.
-
As I recall leaving the single market you regard as hard Brexit? If so then what refer to as a hard Brexit others just think of as Brexit.
Think I agree but Jezza isn't pro-EU so was never going to happen.
You will need to walk me through that scenario, if Labour were in the control of a centrist I can see it happening, but given how strong Corbyn is in Labour just can't see it.
First I suggest you check who voted for the EU vote in Parliament, secondly you are contradicting yourself, its a big issue, not a big issue.
I don't think you really understand what makes Corbyn tick. Having spent many years as a Labour party member I have a pretty good understanding of what makes his kind of politics tick. For him Labour are first and foremost a members organisation and what position is taken will always be driven first and foremost by those members. Effectively he will hold in behind the views of the membership, determined via their internal democratic processes, regardless of his own personal view.
Don't believe me, well think about this. Possible the most firmly held (and let's face it principles view) that Corbyn holds is his opposition to nuclear weapons - it runs through him like a stick of rock. Yet his 2017 manifesto included this:
'Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear-free world.'
You might wonder how on earth a committed anti nuclear weapons campaigner whose resolutely opposes trident replacement as a personal view, could possibly be leader of a party that is committed to exactly the opposite. But it is obvious once you understand what makes him tick. He will accept that policy as it is the democratically decided view of the members.
So were the membership to democratically agree to support a second referendum, he will go along with that, regardless of his personal views. That hasn't happened yet, but I think it is highly possible given how pro-EU, pro-remain the Labour party is - significantly in its supporter, even more so in its membership.
-
... secondly you are contradicting yourself, its a big issue, not a big issue.
Different times.
It is, of course, a huge issue now - the biggest we face. It was not a big issue at all in the years leading up to the referendum. So in the Ipsos MORI issues survey, which allows people, unprompted, to indicate the most important issues facing the country the EU hardly featured at all amongst the public. Indeed in 2010 I think this hit an all time low, with just 1% (I think) indicating it as an issue (and the public can state many issues), I think by the time of the 2015 General Election (you know the one fought with the referendum as a manifesto pledge) that figure had risen to a 'staggering' less than 10% - meaning that 90% of the population didn't feel that the EU was an issue facing the country.
So in effect the Tories created the problem - they decided to have a referendum on a topic that 19 out of 20 people weren't bothered about. Of course having announced it people had to become bothered as the result would potentially massively affect their lives for years to come.
So the Tories created the issue - something that was barely a concern to the public is now their top concern.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf
-
Different times.
It is, of course, a huge issue now - the biggest we face. It was not a big issue at all in the years leading up to the referendum. So in the Ipsos MORI issues survey, which allows people, unprompted, to indicate the most important issues facing the country the EU hardly featured at all amongst the public. Indeed in 2010 I think this hit an all time low, with just 1% (I think) indicating it as an issue (and the public can state many issues), I think by the time of the 2015 General Election (you know the one fought with the referendum as a manifesto pledge) that figure had risen to a 'staggering' less than 10% - meaning that 90% of the population didn't feel that the EU was an issue facing the country.
So in effect the Tories created the problem - they decided to have a referendum on a topic that 19 out of 20 people weren't bothered about. Of course having announced it people had to become bothered as the result would potentially massively affect their lives for years to come.
So the Tories created the issue - something that was barely a concern to the public is now their top concern.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf
To make the contrast even more stark.
May 2015 - General Election, which huge focus on the possibility of a referendum on EU membership just 2% of the UK population saw the EU as the most important issue facing the UK, ranked equal 14th in issues.
Sept 2017 (the most recent) 31% see the EU as the most important issue facing the UK, that is the top issue by a country mile, with the next being the NHS on just 12%.
Talk about taking a non-issue and creating it as a problem.
Bottom line - the UK population wasn't the slightest bit concerned about the EU as an issue when we were a member, they are now massively concerned about the EU and our relationships when we are leaving.
-
Different times.
It is, of course, a huge issue now - the biggest we face. It was not a big issue at all in the years leading up to the referendum. So in the Ipsos MORI issues survey, which allows people, unprompted, to indicate the most important issues facing the country the EU hardly featured at all amongst the public. Indeed in 2010 I think this hit an all time low, with just 1% (I think) indicating it as an issue (and the public can state many issues), I think by the time of the 2015 General Election (you know the one fought with the referendum as a manifesto pledge) that figure had risen to a 'staggering' less than 10% - meaning that 90% of the population didn't feel that the EU was an issue facing the country.
So in effect the Tories created the problem - they decided to have a referendum on a topic that 19 out of 20 people weren't bothered about. Of course having announced it people had to become bothered as the result would potentially massively affect their lives for years to come.
So the Tories created the issue - something that was barely a concern to the public is now their top concern.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/2017-07/issues-index-july-17-charts.pdf
The Tories faced a problem in their party, it was voted through Parliament with an overwhelming majority.
Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.
-
I don't think you really understand what makes Corbyn tick. Having spent many years as a Labour party member I have a pretty good understanding of what makes his kind of politics tick. For him Labour are first and foremost a members organisation and what position is taken will always be driven first and foremost by those members. Effectively he will hold in behind the views of the membership, determined via their internal democratic processes, regardless of his own personal view.
Don't believe me, well think about this. Possible the most firmly held (and let's face it principles view) that Corbyn holds is his opposition to nuclear weapons - it runs through him like a stick of rock. Yet his 2017 manifesto included this:
'Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Labour will lead multilateral efforts with international partners and the UN to create a nuclear-free world.'
You might wonder how on earth a committed anti nuclear weapons campaigner whose resolutely opposes trident replacement as a personal view, could possibly be leader of a party that is committed to exactly the opposite. But it is obvious once you understand what makes him tick. He will accept that policy as it is the democratically decided view of the members.
So were the membership to democratically agree to support a second referendum, he will go along with that, regardless of his personal views. That hasn't happened yet, but I think it is highly possible given how pro-EU, pro-remain the Labour party is - significantly in its supporter, even more so in its membership.
I think that being in the manifesto was hard fought by one contingent within the party. It is not Labour policy to have another vote, I can't see that changing given who now controls the party.
Lets recap
Davey so far wrong on Brexit, wrong on art50 getting through Parliament, wrong on there being an early election, wrong on DUP supporting staying in single market.
Will he be right on Labour changing policy?
Not likely.
I get you see this as an issue but it would take a rebellion by the centrists that would tear Labour apart, those Labour MP's must feel Brexit is a price worth paying for Labour's future.
-
Growth predictions in the budget not looking good.
-
The Tories faced a problem in their party, it was voted through Parliament with an overwhelming majority.
Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make.
So if the vote was overwhelming and the vote said overwhelmingly that the referendum was advisory you would be saying that you think it was then advisory? Overwhelmingly?
I don't understand what your issue is with Prof D's post here as it is an explanation to a question you asked. Was your question so confusing that you didn't know what point you were making?
-
It is not Labour policy to have another vote, I can't see that changing given who now controls the party.
The members control the party - that is the key change that Corbyn has taken. If the members decide to change the policy Corbyn will fold into line, because that is how he operates.
-
So if the vote was overwhelming and the vote said overwhelmingly that the referendum was advisory you would be saying that you think it was then advisory? Overwhelmingly?
I accept ProfD's point about it wasn't a big issue but now is a bigger issue. He then went on about the history of the issue how it was brought about solely by the Tories if so why did the Eu referendum bill pass through Parliament so easily:-
MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the bill.
The Conservatives and Labour support the bill, but the SNP opposes it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157
Never claimed it wasn't advisory.
The point over which we disagree is that I don't think politicians who voted for the referendum can then merrily ignore the result.
I seem to recall Hilary Benn saying 'We have to respect the outcome of the referendum'.
Therefore the only way to undo Brexit is another vote, which Davey seems to have accepted since the next straw he is clutching at is that Labour will change policy.
I don't understand what your issue is with Prof D's post here as it is an explanation to a question you asked. Was your question so confusing that you didn't know what point you were making?
I hope you are not confused now.
-
Would ‘£3 Billion For Brexit Planning Instead of the NHS’ fit on the side of a bus?
-
Would ‘£3 Billion For Brexit Planning Instead of the NHS’ fit on the side of a bus?
Will you stop pointing out awkward facts. Let people live out their demented fantasies about taking back control. Of course, you do have to stop and wonder about what will be left to take control of.
But there I go again remoaning. (Thought I'd stick that in to save one of the jolly wags on here the bother of posting it)
-
Recently watched a programme about the English Scottish border through the ages by Tory with a story Rory Stewart.
Wondered if Kent might turn into a sort of wild border country no man's land after Brexit. Then Low and Behold this is actually a proposal with the Border being moved to Ashford. The Tories have no respect for Hellfire corner it seems.
-
Would ‘£3 Billion For Brexit Planning Instead of the NHS’ fit on the side of a bus?
Probably, and it would be true unlike the Leave campaigns slogan.
-
I accept ProfD's point about it wasn't a big issue but now is a bigger issue.
Talk about understatement:
non-issue to massive issue is rather more realistic description.
May 2015 - just 1% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 14th of issues
Sept 2017 - 31% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 1st of issues, with the next largest at just 12%.
One way to look at what Governments are supposed to do it to turn issues that worry lots of people into issue that now longer concern people. This Government has done the reverse in spectacular style - and a complete own goal.
-
Talk about understatement:
non-issue to massive issue is rather more realistic description.
May 2015 - just 1% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 14th of issues
Sept 2017 - 31% of the population said that our relation with the EU was the biggest issue facing the UK - ranked 1st of issues, with the next largest at just 12%.
One way to look at what Governments are supposed to do it to turn issues that worry lots of people into issue that now longer concern people. This Government has done the reverse in spectacular style - and a complete own goal.
So whilst discussing the chances and mechanics of Brexit happening you opted to focus on semantics.
Noted.
-
Will you stop pointing out awkward facts. Let people live out their demented fantasies about taking back control. Of course, you do have to stop and wonder about what will be left to take control of.
But there I go again remoaning. (Thought I'd stick that in to save one of the jolly wags on here the bother of posting it)
It’s democracy in action, Trent. Far more important than the NHS, or affordable food, or national security, or animal welfare, or the environment...
-
It’s democracy in action, Trent. Far more important than the NHS, or affordable food, or national security, or animal welfare, or the environment...
Yes I notice as part of the Brexit shenanigins Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account. A bunch of...oh you know the words already. Despicables.
-
Yes I notice as part of the Brexit shenanigins Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account. A bunch of...oh you know the words already. Despicables.
Straight out of the Alan Burns big book of compassion and reason.
-
Yes I notice as part of the Brexit shenanigins Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account. A bunch of...oh you know the words already. Despicables.
Fake News.
-
So whilst discussing the chances and mechanics of Brexit happening you opted to focus on semantics.
Noted.
I don't think it is semantics to point out that you appear to be massively underplaying the significance of the huge increase in people concerned about our relationship with the EU (which of course is about Brexit) compared to May 2015.
The government have created a monster, without any need to do so, and we are now all suffering.
To note that the £3billion on preparing for Brexit (a completely unnecessary expense seeing as we shouldn't be in that position) announced yesterday is on top of £700m already announced - so £3.7billion over 2 years. To put that in some kind of context - you could fund approximately 90,000 nurses with that money.
Point being that just because a tiny minority shout very loudly and scream and scream until they are sick about their little issue (the 1% who thought the EU was the top issue for the country) doesn't mean that the Government should pander to them with a referendum. The vast majority of the people in the UK were not concerned about our relationship with the EU, yet of course when you provide a totally unnecessary and unjustified referendum you 'force' them to be concerned whether or not that actually were. You create concern where there was none and generate division where there was little.
-
Fake News.
Really? Can you substantiate that Donald?
I mean why would Michael Gove have to make a promise to introduce "any necessary changes" this morning if the safeguards are currently there?
-
I can't see how a politician practically can vote for a referendum and then vote against the result and stay in office.
Easy. If the politician's views in opposition to Brexit are known at the time of their election, either in a General Election or a by-election, they have a mandate from their constituents - i.e. the people they represent - to vote against Brexit.
-
An unforeseen side effect of Brexit
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-42095477
I hope the money that the five cities involved have unknowingly pissed up the wall will be counted as part of the cost of Brexit. Perhaps they should be refunded out of the £3 billion.
-
Fake News.
Outside of Trumpworld, if you want to call something fake news, it's best to make sure it really is false first
http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/20/mps-vote-that-animals-cant-feel-pain-or-emotion-as-part-of-brexit-bill-7093881/
-
Easy. If the politician's views in opposition to Brexit are known at the time of their election, either in a General Election or a by-election, they have a mandate from their constituents - i.e. the people they represent - to vote against Brexit.
Even if that weren't specifically known, we have a representative democracy not a delegative one. But agree, the idea that Ken Clarke is supposed to vote for Brexit seems bizarre.
-
Outside of Trumpworld, if you want to call something fake news, it's best to make sure it really is false first
http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/20/mps-vote-that-animals-cant-feel-pain-or-emotion-as-part-of-brexit-bill-7093881/
The notion that existing legislation covers animal sentience is utter bollocks. As the article makes clear, it doesn't cover wild or lab animals. Apart from anything else this will please the Tory pro-hunt supporters.
-
Even if that weren't specifically known, we have a representative democracy not a delegative one. But agree, the idea that Ken Clarke is supposed to vote for Brexit seems bizarre.
Indeed and there will be very significant numbers of MPs who were well know to be pro-remain and whose constituents votes remain.
-
Really? Can you substantiate that Donald?
I mean why would Michael Gove have to make a promise to introduce "any necessary changes" this morning if the safeguards are currently there?
The Tories argued that Lucas amendment would have caused confusion. I would always tend to side with Lucas on animal welfare but wouldn't misrepresent the other wide.
-
Outside of Trumpworld, if you want to call something fake news, it's best to make sure it really is false first
http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/20/mps-vote-that-animals-cant-feel-pain-or-emotion-as-part-of-brexit-bill-7093881/
I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552
The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.
Is factually incorrect, or fake.
-
I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552
The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.
Is factually incorrect, or fake.
May is lying. She says that current legislation 'provides protection for all animals capable of feeling pain'. It doesn't. It only provides protection for domestic animals and doesn't include animals that are hunted, including foxes, deer and badgers. So she is free to reverse any hunting ban she feels like.
As for her promises to improve animal welfare...yeah right.
-
I don't think it is semantics to point out that you appear to be massively underplaying the significance of the huge increase in people concerned about our relationship with the EU (which of course is about Brexit) compared to May 2015.
The government have created a monster, without any need to do so, and we are now all suffering.
To note that the £3billion on preparing for Brexit (a completely unnecessary expense seeing as we shouldn't be in that position) announced yesterday is on top of £700m already announced - so £3.7billion over 2 years. To put that in some kind of context - you could fund approximately 90,000 nurses with that money.
Point being that just because a tiny minority shout very loudly and scream and scream until they are sick about their little issue (the 1% who thought the EU was the top issue for the country) doesn't mean that the Government should pander to them with a referendum. The vast majority of the people in the UK were not concerned about our relationship with the EU, yet of course when you provide a totally unnecessary and unjustified referendum you 'force' them to be concerned whether or not that actually were. You create concern where there was none and generate division where there was little.
Yeah horrible terrible world going to end blah blah.
You don't want it to happen though right?
If you don't want it to happen I would suggest Labour have to change their policy on another vote.
-
I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552
The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.
Is factually incorrect, or fake.
Well I'll grant you that it is an evolving and confusing picture - but until they were called out by various welfare groups do you think the Tories would have put in place the apparent concessions they are now suggesting?
-
May is lying. She says that current legislation 'provides protection for all animals capable of feeling pain'. It doesn't. It only provides protection for domestic animals and doesn't include animals that are hunted, including foxes, deer and badgers. So she is free to reverse any hunting ban she feels like.
As for her promises to improve animal welfare...yeah right.
This is getting derailed.
'May is lying' - opinion not fake news.
'Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions' - fake.
-
Well I'll grant you that it is an evolving and confusing picture - but until they were called out by various welfare groups do you think the Tories would have put in place the apparent concessions they are now suggesting?
Don't know as I said with regard to animal welfare I'd support Lucas.
-
I suggest you always find articles that present both sides.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42083552
The statement
Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions and so are incapable of suffering, or rather that they don't have to take the suffering into account.
Is factually incorrect, or fake.
Seems to me a matter of opinion here, not fact. It's a representation of a position the Govt took, it's not a matter of fact .
-
This is getting derailed.
'May is lying' - opinion not fake news.
'Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions' - fake.
No, especially as you have edited trentvoyager's post here.
-
Easy. If the politician's views in opposition to Brexit are known at the time of their election, either in a General Election or a by-election, they have a mandate from their constituents - i.e. the people they represent - to vote against Brexit.
Could go that way, I don't think so.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-backbencher-mps-shadow-cabinet-eu-single-market-customs-union-quit-jeremy-corbyn-a8066806.html
Labour is currently a pro-Brexit party.
-
Derailed from what?
I would have thought that one of the core issues about this whole BREXIT thing you are so keen on is how current laws get translated and transferred back to our sovereign government. You appear to have much more faith in this government that they will do the right thing on all the many complex areas covered by EU law.
I have no such faith - and the issue over animal rights is proof enough for me that they will be duplicitous. They will change the law for their perceived benefit and you can kiss goodbye to many environmental, health-related andconsumer rights if you don't watch them like a hawk.
-
Could go that way, I don't think so.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-backbencher-mps-shadow-cabinet-eu-single-market-customs-union-quit-jeremy-corbyn-a8066806.html
Labour is currently a pro-Brexit party.
Reads as a non sequitur to jeremyp's poiint
-
No, especially as you have edited trentvoyager's post here.
I shortened it?
Add the word 'effectively' to the original statement and I'm good with it, in fact I'm good with it now, getting boring.
-
This is getting derailed.
'May is lying' - opinion not fake news.
'Tories have decreed that animals have no feelings or emotions' - fake.
No it isn't. May has declared that "The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides protection for all animals capable of experiencing pain or suffering." She is therefore saying that the government's position is that animals that fall outside that - wild and lab animals - are not capable of feeling pain or suffering - are not sentient.
-
Reads as a non sequitur to jeremyp's poiint
Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit, my opinion is that they will not.
From the link
Former Shadow Cabinet member Ian Murray tabled a surprise amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Bill, which would have prevented taxes being charged on imports to the UK after it leaves the EU, a move that, owing to WTO rules, would effectively have kept the UK in the customs union.
Labour whips ordered MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated by 311 votes to 76, and saw the unusual spectacle of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell voting with the government.
-
Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit, my opinion is that they will not.
From the link
Former Shadow Cabinet member Ian Murray tabled a surprise amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Bill, which would have prevented taxes being charged on imports to the UK after it leaves the EU, a move that, owing to WTO rules, would effectively have kept the UK in the customs union.
Labour whips ordered MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated by 311 votes to 76, and saw the unusual spectacle of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell voting with the government.
No, Jeremyp was making a point about why those MPs might be justified in voting against Brexit
-
I shortened it?
Add the word 'effectively' to the original statement and I'm good with it, in fact I'm good with it now, getting boring.
Then it isn't fake news
-
No, Jeremyp was making a point about why those MPs might be justified in voting against Brexit
Yes and I made a point as why they might not feel justified in voting against it.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/80937/anna-soubry-i-only-backed-eu-referendum-vote-because
Quote
Ms Soubry said she would vote for the triggering of Article 50 despite calls for her to “thwart it”. “I told people that if we voted leave, we would. And I can’t go back on that. It’s taken me time to get to this place. It’s against everything I believe in [but]…I’ve made up my mind.”
-
Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit, my opinion is that they will not.
From the link
Former Shadow Cabinet member Ian Murray tabled a surprise amendment to the Taxation (Cross Border Trade) Bill, which would have prevented taxes being charged on imports to the UK after it leaves the EU, a move that, owing to WTO rules, would effectively have kept the UK in the customs union.
Labour whips ordered MPs to vote against the amendment, which was defeated by 311 votes to 76, and saw the unusual spectacle of Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell voting with the government.
I think the reason why that amendment was defeated was because it raised the very worst case scenario, whereby our exporters are charged import tariffs, while we had legislated to prevent us from charging import tariffs on goods imported into the UK. From the very same link:
"... Labour’s Shadow International Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner said the amendment was impractical and would not have kept the UK in the customs union. “Amendment would have stopped Treasury from applying any tariffs or quotas to goods in or out of EU after Brexit. It did NOT keep us in Customs Union as EU could still impose tariffs on us!”
Given that possibility it is unsurprising that there was significant cross party support against the amendment.
-
Could go that way, I don't think so.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-backbencher-mps-shadow-cabinet-eu-single-market-customs-union-quit-jeremy-corbyn-a8066806.html
Labour is currently a pro-Brexit party.
What you mean is the parliamentary party is "pro-Brexit" but I would suggest that this is only because of Corbyn's stance. I think, if he had canvassed the membership and the MPs about Brexit, he would have found a majority in both camps for remain (assuming they didn't lie to him). Corbyn himself is a Brexiteer (hence his invisibility during the referendum) and that is what is informing the Labour position right now. Unfortunately, his opponents made him unassailable after the last leadership challenge and the general election.
-
Jeremy's opinion is that MP's will vote against Brexit,.
No it isn't. The post to which you were responding was just laying out a justification for how an MP could practically oppose Brexit in spite of the referendum and keep their democratic credentials intact.
The sad fact is that MPs are putting their careers ahead of what they believe to be the best interests of the country and so they'll probably continue to support this shambolic process.
-
No it isn't. The post to which you were responding was just laying out a justification for how an MP could practically oppose Brexit in spite of the referendum and keep their democratic credentials intact.
The sad fact is that MPs are putting their careers ahead of what they believe to be the best interests of the country and so they'll probably continue to support this shambolic process.
Noted, point well made.
Don't agree with everything said there but on MPs putting their careers first totally agree.
-
Presumably, the govt is hoping that the EU accept some sort of payment, e.g. £40 billion, and will accept that the Irish border is insoluble at the moment. Who knows what happens next, as the question of non-tariff barriers seems to loom large, e.g. border checks, provenance checks, and so on. For 'just in time' manufacturing, it sounds difficult.
-
The disgraced Trade Secretary and his winning ways.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/karan-bilimoria-attacks-liam-fox-for-brexit-export-comments-2017-11?r=US&IR=T
-
Political opinion static because people feel there is an emergency on.
Right wingers want Brexit now because they feel that even a scintilla of recovery will get them elected.
-
Cracking interview with Anna Soubry.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/26/anna-soubry-interview-brexit-history-will-condemn-this-period
-
Not only did those who voted for Brexit not know what was entailed it seems that some would rather they didn't know even now when there is more information available: including other MPs.
Isn't democracy wonderful!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42142882
-
Story on how much information on Brexit effect Davis provided mysteriously ended on BBC News.
-
Not only did those who voted for Brexit not know what was entailed it seems that some would rather they didn't know even now when there is more information available: including other MPs.
Isn't democracy wonderful!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42142882
FTA
Mr Davis said the papers had been redacted because there was no guarantee the committee would keep them secret.
Holy fuck. Why does he think they need to be kept secret? Don't we have a right to know what the effect of our decision to leave the EU will be?
The contrast between the approach of our sovereign government elected by us and the unelected EU negotiators is illuminating. They are being completely transparent whereas we aren't even allowed to know what's going on from our side. I wonder if the EU will give me permission to transfer my citizenship to the EU. I don't want to be part of this anymore.
-
We broke it therefore you have to pay for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42137597
-
Story on how much information on Brexit effect Davis provided mysteriously ended on BBC News.
Wasn't even reported at all on the 10 o'clock news. I would have thought this is a big story - parliament voted that the reports, in full (i.e. non redacted), should, be provided to the relevant select committee - and that it was for that committee to scrutinise the full details and to decide what could be released into the public domain and what needed to be redacted. David Davis has provided highly redacted reports, clearly contravening what parliament had decided.
Seems to me that Davis is in contempt of parliament - but also whatever happened to the whole parliament is sovereign mantra that was one of the big claims for the leave campaign, that a vote to leave would bring power back to the Westminster parliament.
-
Wasn't even reported at all on the 10 o'clock news. I would have thought this is a big story - parliament voted that the reports, in full (i.e. non redacted), should, be provided to the relevant select committee - and that it was for that committee to scrutinise the full details and to decide what could be released into the public domain and what needed to be redacted. David Davis has provided highly redacted reports, clearly contravening what parliament had decided.
Seems to me that Davis is in contempt of parliament - but also whatever happened to the whole parliament is sovereign mantra that was one of the big claims for the leave campaign, that a vote to leave would bring power back to the Westminster parliament.
So story pulled half way through at 9.15 on BBC News channel and disappeared on the 10 o'clock news.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42161346
Can someone do the maths as to how many times £350 million goes into 50 billion euros?
-
Can someone do the maths as to how many times £350 million goes into 50 billion euros?
Not me, I have difficulty with the simplest of sums like 2+2!
-
Can someone do the maths as to how many times £350 million goes into 50 billion euros?
I make it 126ish. Well, my phone does.
-
I make it 126ish. Well, my phone does.
Yes - I got that figure - mathematically correct but, as has been pointed out before, the £350 million cost is just a barefaced lie.
-
Description of David Davis 'The man who paid full price for a DFS sofa'
-
Do you think that they are aware of how utterly inept they look? Or how completely out of their depth they are?
-
Do you think that they are aware of how utterly inept they look? Or how completely out of their depth they are?
IDS on Channel 4 news last night said the Irish were being difficult because of the upcoming Presidential election. Only problem the election is Nov 2018 and the President doesn't have political power. I now have no idea. At times I suspect this is being done for a bet.
-
The trouble is that Brexit is really important. Distractions from it are bad.
You are assuming that people understand what is going wrong any more than they understood what they were voting for or against.
-
The trouble is that Brexit is really important. Distractions from it are bad.
I agree - but it does play to the jingoist - 'hey look how great Britain is' tendency. I suspect it is increasingly a law of diminishing returns with fewer and fewer people really giving a damned - despite what the media try to tell us we should think.
-
The trouble is that Brexit is really important. Distractions from it are bad.
Yes you're right j p, it's very important that we complete our seperation from the E U.
Regards ippy
-
Yes you're right j p, it's very important that we complete our seperation from the E U.
Which one - the one we were promised by the Leave campaign during the referendum, with its £350m a week boost for the NHS, its maintenance of memberships of the 'free trade zone that extends from Iceland to the Russian border', its return of sovereignty to parliament, its free trade deals sorted within months of the referendum with countries across the globe, the one without a slowing economy, without our credit rating slashed, the pound crashing.
Or the reality.
-
Which one - the one we were promised by the Leave campaign during the referendum, with its £350m a week boost for the NHS, its maintenance of memberships of the 'free trade zone that extends from Iceland to the Russian border', its return of sovereignty to parliament, its free trade deals sorted within months of the referendum with countries across the globe, the one without a slowing economy, without our credit rating slashed, the pound crashing.
Or the reality.
That is a point of view, we're unlikely to agree, the point is we are leaving so we need to get on with it and make the effort necessary to make a success of leaving.
Regards ippy
-
That is a point of view, we're unlikely to agree, the point is we are leaving so we need to get on with it and make the effort necessary to make a success of leaving.
Regards ippy
Or take stock, decide once we have seen the reality of a real deal on offer (rather than a hypothetical pollyanna-ish wish list) that it isn't in the best interests of the country and provide an opportunity for people, democratically, to change their minds.
Who was it who said this:
"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."
-
Or take stock, decide once we have seen the reality of a real deal on offer (rather than a hypothetical pollyanna-ish wish list) that it isn't in the best interests of the country and provide an opportunity for people, democratically, to change their minds.
Who was it who said this:
"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."
Agreed, I would use the analogy of being offered a TUPE, and then ultimately deciding to stay with the original firm.
-
Or take stock, decide once we have seen the reality of a real deal on offer (rather than a hypothetical pollyanna-ish wish list) that it isn't in the best interests of the country and provide an opportunity for people, democratically, to change their minds.
Who was it who said this:
"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."
I will join any agency necessary to prevent having referendum after referendum until you remoaners get your way, because that would be removing the decision from those that in reality have the best interests of our country in mind and took this democratic opportunity to vote leave. (We're not likely to agree).
Regards ippy
-
The leavers will probably rue the day they voted for Brexit, imo.
-
I will join any agency necessary to prevent having referendum after referendum until you remoaners get your way, because that would be removing the decision from those that in reality have the best interests of our country in mind and took this democratic opportunity to vote leave. (We're not likely to agree).
Regards ippy
That would be your country, ippy, not mine: my country is being dragged out of the EU by your country.
-
The leavers will probably rue the day they voted for Brexit, imo.
But they'll never admit they made a mistake - they simply blame the EU for all our woes having left, just as they blamed the EU for all our woes while we were a member. Sometimes you have to take some responsibility for your own failures rather than constantly blaming someone else.
-
I will join any agency necessary to prevent having referendum after referendum until you remoaners get your way, because that would be removing the decision from those that in reality have the best interests of our country in mind and took this democratic opportunity to vote leave. (We're not likely to agree).
Regards ippy
How on earth would a democratic decision to reject a specific brexit deal (which note wouldn't be a second referendum as the first one wasn't about a specific deal) be somehow undemocratic. Here is a clue - we have a general election every 5 years for a reason - we don't say 'hay we voted Tory in 2015 so that's it, we must respect the will of the people, so no more general elections'.
If the specific Brexit deal negotiated is great why would you worry about putting it to a democratic vote - if it is a pig's ear why on earth do you think we should accept it without a direct democratic mandate - given that there was no deal on the table in the 2016 referendum.
-
The leavers will probably rue the day they voted for Brexit, imo.
I suppose the "imo" was tagged on to avoid having to give any evidence for this 'probably'?
-
I will join any agency necessary to prevent having referendum after referendum ...
I'm not talking about referendum after referendum.
In 2016 we had no idea what a deal would actually look like so we were voting on the theory of brexit rather than its practice. Once there is an actual deal in place that deal should be put to a vote in a referendum for us to accept (and leave the EU) or reject (and remain in the EU). I'd be more than happy for that referendum to be binding, provided it was based on an actual deal. And also more than happy to accept that the result should settle the matter for a generation.
Having a two step process for decision making of this type - which is of such magnitude that it will define our prosperity seems entirely sensible.
-
I will join any agency necessary to prevent having referendum after referendum until you remoaners get your way,
That's right, Ippy. You tell 'em. And while you're at it, let's do away with elections, too ...
The more I see of this grand, ill-conceived, botched, revolutionary plan unravelling, the more it seems to me that a further referendum is inevitable - to get the politicians out of the mess they have got themselves into.
But then, that's what happens with referendums organised for party management purposes. Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said something like "referendums are for despots"?
-
That's right, Ippy. You tell 'em. And while you're at it, let's do away with elections, too ...
The more I see of this grand, ill-conceived, botched, revolutionary plan unravelling, the more it seems to me that a further referendum is inevitable - to get the politicians out of the mess they have got themselves into.
But then, that's what happens with referendums organised for party management purposes. Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said something like "referendums are for despots"?
We kind of have an unwritten rule in our democracy.
That a mandate for change (e.g. in a general election manifesto) needs to be enacted in 5 years of that vote, or it in effect is 'timed-out', i.e. needing a fresh mandate.
So a government cannot use a previous general election mandate on an issue, but needs a new mandate at the next general election if they haven't implemented it. Given that we are unlikely to see the final brat deal implemented before 2021, at the earliest, a mandate (not that there is one on an actual deal) wouldn't really be safe.
And just on the basis of demographic shift - old people dying between 2016 and 2021, and young one attaining voting age, it is unlikely that there will remain a majority for leave even if no-one actually changes their mind.
-
I can't see that a referendum on the final deal will give us a different result. People don't understand or care about the long term effects on the country.
As the government is frail, the chances are that there will be an election before the final agreement. Then we might elect a government with a mandate to take the soft approach - continued membership of the single market and customs union, but from outside the EU.
The whole episode will be put down as a failure of democracy.
-
I can't see that a referendum on the final deal will give us a different result.
That might be true, but it would give democratic legitimacy for the actual deal which the 2016 referendum patently doesn't.
-
That would be your country, ippy, not mine: my country is being dragged out of the EU by your country.
I understand that and think the remainers have got it wrong, but that's your choice of course, but when the referendum was taken as a whole the U K voted out, for which I was and am still delighted no matter how much abuse I get.
It's looking to me as though it depends on whatever side any individual chooses, it's not a democratic vote if you're on the loosing side.
This referendum has certainly divided the U K.
Incidentally I voted against joining the EEC when Wilson was in power and have never been in favour of joining and I certainly didn't want anything to do with closer and closer union with this now titled E U.
Regards ippy
-
... but when the referendum was taken as a whole the U K voted out, for which I was and am still delighted
I'm struggling to see how you can be delighted when neither you nor I know what Brexit will look like. It makes no sense - so would you still be delighted if brexit resulted in a hard border with Ireland, resulting in destabilisation of the fragile peace process, resulted in major down-turn in the UK economy resulting in reduced household incomes and poorer public services, delighted if brexit resulted in the UK turning into a hard capitalist state more like the USA. All these are perfectly plausible outcomes of brexit - surely you should reserve your delight until you actually know what brexit means in reality.
no matter how much abuse I get.
You haven't had any abuse from me - and I think it cuts both ways.
-
I'm struggling to see how you can be delighted when neither you nor I know what Brexit will look like. It makes no sense - so would you still be delighted if brexit resulted in a hard border with Ireland, resulting in destabilisation of the fragile peace process, resulted in major down-turn in the UK economy resulting in reduced household incomes and poorer public services, delighted if brexit resulted in the UK turning into a hard capitalist state more like the USA. All these are perfectly plausible outcomes of brexit - surely you should reserve your delight until you actually know what brexit means in reality.
You haven't had any abuse from me - and I think it cuts both ways.
I'm delighted for reasons you'll not agree with no matter, we're poles apart, no you in person haven't abused me but there is a hint given by remainers that leavers are bunch of knuckle scrapers, even if that is how lots of remainers see us, well we still won the vote.
Regards ippy
-
Incidentally I voted against joining the EEC when Wilson was in power
No you did not. There was no such referendum to join the Common Market.
The UK entered the Common Market as the result of a General Election in which membership was one of the issues. The referendum you vaguely recall was called by Harold Wilson for exactly the same party management reason as that by Cameron: to shut up protesters (in Wilson's case - Anthony Wedgewood Benn).
-
I'm delighted for reasons you'll not agree with no matter, we're poles apart
So you are delighted regardless of the actual outcome of brexit, good, bad or indifferent - that sounds like the sort of evangelical attitude we normally associate with some of the fundamentalist theists on this forum. I thought better of you.
no you in person haven't abused me
Thank you for confirming this.
but there is a hint given by remainers that leavers are bunch of knuckle scrapers
Blimey you must be very thin skinned - getting touchy about perhaps being accused of being a bit thick. You are aware, I hope, that remainers are routinely being accused of treason and worse - that currently remain MPs are receiving death threats, and of course one prominent remain MP was murdered by someone using those justifications.
-
Interesting comments from Tusk - given the Tories deal with the DUP this seems to be turning into a rock versus a hard place for our hapless government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42202830
-
Interesting comments from Tusk - given the Tories deal with the DUP this seems to be turning into a rock versus a hard place for our hapless government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42202830
This was always going to be a huge problem unless the UK decided to remain in the customs union.
If you aren't in the customs union you either need a hard border between NI and the republic, or between NI and the rest of the UK. And neither is (quite reasonably) acceptable to the DUP. I think, however, they were naive in agreeing to prop up the Tories, presumably on a promise of completely frictionless borders with both the republic and the rest of the UK - something that they simply cannot deliver, unless they give up on their plan to leave the customs union.
-
So you are delighted regardless of the actual outcome of brexit, good, bad or indifferent - that sounds like the sort of evangelical attitude we normally associate with some of the fundamentalist theists on this forum. I thought better of you.
Thank you for confirming this.
Blimey you must be very thin skinned - getting touchy about perhaps being accused of being a bit thick. You are aware, I hope, that remainers are routinely being accused of treason and worse - that currently remain MPs are receiving death threats, and of course one prominent remain MP was murdered by someone using those justifications.
I'm delighted with the result of the referendum for as I see them as very good reasons therfore not without any reason.
Where you refer to being evangelical etc, I could say the same about remainers and find myself disapointed when I hear the things they say and who they are.
We wont agree no matter how many times we were to exchange our views.
It can't be right to make death threats, the hint of knuckle scraping leavers by remainers, please hint away.
The first referendum was for the European Economic Community and I also find it dissapointing with some people I usually agree with on most other ideas when I see or hear them complaining about something I have always wanted from right back in the EEC vote days.
Just the same as you I wont be changing my stance because my reasons for leaving , I think, are overwhelming just as you think your reasons for staying are, we both see each other as wrong on this subject and it aint going to alter, is it?
Wouldn't it be strange if we were to agree on everything?
Regards ippy
-
I'm delighted with the result of the referendum for as I see them as very good reasons therfore not without any reason.
Would you like to explain that is a manner that might mean something to anyone.
-
It can't be right to make death threats, the hint of knuckle scraping leavers by remainers, please hint away.
And it can't be right to equate death threats with comments implying that someone is a bit dim. Still less when death threats actually turn into murder, which of course is what happened to Jo Cox.
-
Just the same as you I wont be changing my stance because my reasons for leaving , I think, are overwhelming just as you think your reasons for staying are, we both see each other as wrong on this subject and it aint going to alter, is it?
No - there is a difference.
I know what remain looks like, so I know what it is that I am dismayed about losing.
You on the other hand have no idea what brexit looks like, yet you claim to be delighted about something totally unknown and a term which covers such a spectrum that some versions of brexit are closer to remain than they are to the more extreme versions of brexit.
-
Where you refer to being evangelical etc, I could say the same about remainers and find myself disapointed when I hear the things they say and who they are.
I disagree as for remainers we know what membership of the EU, warts and all, looks like. For the brexiters there is a kind of unshakable faith in an unknown future that somehow must be OK because it isn't the EU, regardless of the fact that you have no idea whatsoever what that future will be like.
-
The situation regarding the border with Ireland looks very problematic and that there would be an issue here and that this wasn't explored during the referendum campaign is exactly why it can be said that those who voted Brexit didn't know what they were voting for, which makes their continued defence of Brexit appear myopically stupid.
Hopefully the negotiations and this hapless government will both unravel fast enough for this madness to be stopped by some form of democratic means. The DUP might, ironically, be useful in this regard albeit if they do pull the plug on May it will be for reasons that are just as blinkered as Brexit.
It is an utter mess that somebody needs to tidy up.
-
The situation regarding the border with Ireland looks very problematic and that there would be an issue here and that this wasn't explored during the referendum campaign is exactly why it can be said that those who voted Brexit didn't know what they were voting for, which makes their continued defence of Brexit appear myopically stupid.
Hopefully the negotiations and this hapless government will both unravel fast enough for this madness to be stopped by some form of democratic means. The DUP might, ironically, be useful in this regard albeit if they do pull the plug on May it will be for reasons that are just as blinkered as Brexit.
It is an utter mess that somebody needs to tidy up.
Indeed - entirely predictable, and actually entirely predicted by all sorts of people. The brexiteers seem to be suggesting some kind of completely unknown and untested 'technological solution' as if the border between the republic and NI was a bit like the London congestion zone.
It beggars belief when we have had nigh on 20 years of effective peace in a region which has been largely at war for hundreds of years.
-
As the Prof notes the Irish border questioj was entirely predicted. That said I don't think ir wouod have beyond a solution if it was properly understood and prepared for. That David Davis didn't seem to realise there was a land border, and the continual snipinh tgat this is just Ireland causing problems, or that they should be brought back into the UK is blinkered and ignorant.
-
As the Prof notes the Irish border questioj was entirely predicted. That said I don't think ir wouod have beyond a solution if it was properly understood and prepared for. That David Davis didn't seem to realise there was a land border, and the continual snipinh tgat this is just Ireland causing problems, or that they should be brought back into the UK is blinkered and ignorant.
I think actually it is a completely intractable problem unless the UK is in the customs union (or some other mechanism that is in effect identical to the customs union). The only other options are:
1. A hard border between NI and the Republic
2. A hard border between NI and the rest of the UK
3. A hard border between the Republic and the rest of the EU
None are acceptable. And by 'hard border' I mean anything that prevents the completely free (DUP term frictionless) movement of people, goods and services across the border as is the case now.
-
Would you like to explain that is a manner that might mean something to anyone.
I would think the contents of my past posts have given you my answer on this subject, we wont agree no matter whatever one or the other were to say, I'm sorry if you don't like it but winning the referendum is sufficient for me, I look forward to the day.
Regards ippy
-
I would think the contents of my past posts have given you my answer on this subject, we wont agree no matter whatever one or the other were to say, I'm sorry if you don't like it but winning the referendum is sufficient for me, I look forward to the day.
Regards ippy
I'm sorry but I haven't read all your previous posts so I really don't know. So it would be helpful if you could enlighten us.
What I can't understand is that Referendums are about what we do in the future, yet you appear to be delighted with a result that provides absolutely no clarity about what that future might entail. How can you be delighted about something, when you haven't a clue what that something actually is.
-
Good article
https://www.rte.ie/amp/924399/
-
We broke it therefore you have to pay for it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42137597
Obviously channelling the Trumpster.
-
I make it 126ish. Well, my phone does.
What, you mean a little over two years. Fancy the EU wanting us to pay two years of contributions that we have already committed to. How evil of them.
-
That is a point of view, we're unlikely to agree, the point is we are leaving so we need to get on with it and make the effort necessary to make a success of leaving.
Regards ippy
Somebody tell the fuckwits in charge that.
The thing is, the only thing all the Brexiteers really agree on is leaving the EU. Beyond that, there are almost as many visions of post Brexit Britain as there are Brexiteers, so it is not surprising that the negotiation is a complete shambles. They can't agree amongst themselves what they want.
-
I would think the contents of my past posts have given you my answer on this subject, we wont agree no matter whatever one or the other were to say, I'm sorry if you don't like it but winning the referendum is sufficient for me, I look forward to the day.
Regards ippy
Winning is sufficient?You wanted a win and that was it?I imagine that was what a lot of people wanted. ...............what I want to know is why and when scratchcards and fucking fruit machines became unsatisfactory for people who "wanted a win"?
-
I will join any agency necessary to prevent having referendum after referendum until you remoaners get your way,
I think that is the height of hypocrisy. We had a referendum in the 1970's and decided to stay in what is now the EU. So it's obviously OK to have referendum after referendum until the Brexiteers get their way but not the other way around.
because that would be removing the decision from those that in reality have the best interests of our country in mind and took this democratic opportunity to vote leave. (We're not likely to agree).
It's pretty obvious now that the Brexiteers did not have the best interests of the country in mind.
We're going to be kicked out of the single market.
We're going to be kicked out of Horizon 2020
We're going to be kicked out of Europol
Even leading Brexiteers are telling people to pull investment out of the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/labour-accuses-john-redwood-of-talking-britain-down). (I always knew that John Redwood was a lying backstabbing shit).
If we have hard Brexit, our airlines will be kicked out of Europe
Our negotiation team is a shambles and they are keeping information secret that we, the electorate, need to know, in spite of the fact that we were told we would have more say in our government.
Look at what is going on and then tell us honestly if you think it is going well.
-
I'm delighted for reasons you'll not agree with no matter
Why are you being so coy about naming them?
-
Why are you being so coy about naming them?
Exactly - we may not agree, but that isn't any reason not to state your reasons.
-
I'm sorry but I haven't read all your previous posts so I really don't know. So it would be helpful if you could enlighten us.
What I can't understand is that Referendums are about what we do in the future, yet you appear to be delighted with a result that provides absolutely no clarity about what that future might entail. How can you be delighted about something, when you haven't a clue what that something actually is.
We obviously will never be agreeing on this subject and yes I was delighted with the result of the referendum, nor do I expect it will be easy. even so I'm still delighted and more than likely will remain pleased with the end product.
I'm sorry you don't share my feelings about the referendum, but as you must know we don't agree and are never likely to agree whatever one or the other says, there isn't very much I want to say about Brexit.
I didn't enter into this Brexit thread someone derailed on to Brexit from another thread, I commented on their Brexit remark and before I knew it I ended up on a thread where the contributors wish to argue about Brexit, I don't, and didn't elect to be on this thread in the first place, sorry to have bothered you.
Regards ippy
-
Why are you being so coy about naming them?
I refer you to my post 1159 it will explain.
Regards ippy
-
I'm still delighted and more than likely will remain pleased with the end product.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Do you really believe the negotiations are going well?
-
... more than likely will remain pleased with the end product.
SO can you enlighten us a bit further.
Which of the many possible brexit outcomes would you be pleased with, and which not.
So lets give some examples of what may happen in 2019:
1. The UK remaining in the customs union and single market, but leaving the EU.
2. A no deal hard brexit - with the UK trading only on WTO rules, with consequential major issues with air travel and a hard NI/Republic border.
3. A no deal brexit, but with a transitional arrangement coming in in 2019 which is effectively continuation of a current EU membership rules, without an end stop due for the transitional arrangement, nor any clarity on what a post-traditional deal will look like (if one even is agreed)
These are 3 entirely plausible outcomes and all would satisfy the referendum result that we would have left the EU - which of these would you be 'please' with, and which not.
-
I think actually it is a completely intractable problem unless the UK is in the customs union (or some other mechanism that is in effect identical to the customs union). The only other options are:
1. A hard border between NI and the Republic
2. A hard border between NI and the rest of the UK
3. A hard border between the Republic and the rest of the EU
None are acceptable. And by 'hard border' I mean anything that prevents the completely free (DUP term frictionless) movement of people, goods and services across the border as is the case now.
There already exists a hard border between Ireland and EU.
-
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Do you really believe the negotiations are going well?
From the EU point of view they might be.
-
There already exists a hard border between Ireland and EU.
No there isn't.
There is passport control, as the Republic, just like the UK isn't in Schengen. But there are no customs checks for goods arriving into the Republic from another EU country or vice versa, just as there are no customs checks for good arriving into the UK from another EU country or vice versa.
Unless the UK remains in the customs union, or come effectively identical equivalent somewhere there will need to be a hard border where goods are checked for customs purposes. None of the options for where that border would be (between NI/rest of UK; between Republic/NI; between Republic/rest of EU) are acceptable to key stakeholders who have the power simply to block a deal.
-
No there isn't.
There is passport control, as the Republic, just like the UK isn't in Schengen. But there are no customs checks for goods arriving into the Republic from another EU country or vice versa, just as there are no customs checks for good arriving into the UK from another EU country or vice versa.
Unless the UK remains in the customs union, or come effectively identical equivalent somewhere there will need to be a hard border where goods are checked for customs purposes. None of the options for where that border would be (between NI/rest of UK; between Republic/NI; between Republic/rest of EU) are acceptable to key stakeholders who have the power simply to block a deal.
To semi-quote you:-
By 'hard border' you mean anything that prevents the completely free (DUP term frictionless) movement of people,
Are you changing your definition?
btw
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hard-border
If solution can't be found then we leave with no deal, so we are both hoping for a solution, are we?
-
There is passport control, as the Republic, just like the UK isn't in Schengen.
Is this true? I confess to never having visited Ireland - north or south - but I thought that both parts of Ireland, the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man comprised the Common Travel Area in which there are no passport controls. I visit the Channel islands frequently and all I need when flying there is a government issued document bearing a photograph - this is a requirement of the airline.
I usually use my bus pass.
-
Is this true? I confess to never having visited Ireland - north or south - but I thought that both parts of Ireland, the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man comprised the Common Travel Area in which there are no passport controls. I visit the Channel islands frequently and all I need when flying there is a government issued document bearing a photograph - this is a requirement of the airline.
I usually use my bus pass.
There is no passport check if you are arriving from the UK. There is a passport check if you are arriving from other parts of the EU.
-
Thank you. I misread Prof D's post.
-
Looks as if the UK government has blinked first again. NI will not diverge from key EU laws and regulations in the future to allow no hard border. However this will necessary require a hard border between NI and the rest of the UK, unless the rest of the UK also agrees to the same regulatory arrangements as the EU - in other words de facto membership of single market and customs union.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/04/meps-say-uk-has-conceded-on-ireland-border-in-brexit-talks?CMP=share_btn_fb
Not sure this is going to go down well with unionists in NI, nor actually in other parts of the UK as they see NI effectively being able to remain in the single market and customs union while they are ejected.
-
This is being spun in multiple ways, as a rebuff to the DUP, and half way to a united Ireland, or on the other hand, a necessary fudge to allow talks to proceed to stage 2. As Prof. D. just said, it seems to suggest a hard border between NI and the rest of UK, which seems well, interesting.
The reactions are going to be interesting, for example, Scottish govt may well ask, why can't we have the same? What will the Ultras say to this? Maybe there is some sop to them about to be revealed.
-
What a fucking stupid mess.
-
It seems bizarre if one chunk of the UK is in effect part of the single market (NI), but other parts are not, and therefore have a hard border with NI. I suppose NI is a special case, but expect the Scots to come roaring in, saying, we are a special case as well. The independence banners are being dusted off.
-
Looks as if the UK government has blinked first again. NI will not diverge from key EU laws and regulations in the future to allow no hard border. However this will necessary require a hard border between NI and the rest of the UK, unless the rest of the UK also agrees to the same regulatory arrangements as the EU - in other words de facto membership of single market and customs union.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/04/meps-say-uk-has-conceded-on-ireland-border-in-brexit-talks?CMP=share_btn_fb
Not sure this is going to go down well with unionists in NI, nor actually in other parts of the UK as they see NI effectively being able to remain in the single market and customs union while they are ejected.
You're right there"
If Davies thinks NI being effectively still part of the customs union whilst Scotland - which voted substantially to remain in the EU - does not have the same privilege - is solving a problem, he, and May, are more deluded than I otherwise thought.
So much for May's assurance that all parts of the 'UK' would be treated in the same manner as far as the Brexit debate was concerned.
-
It seems bizarre if one chunk of the UK is in effect part of the single market (NI), but other parts are not, and therefore have a hard border with NI. I suppose NI is a special case, but expect the Scots to come roaring in, saying, we are a special case as well. The independence banners are being dusted off.
We have never put them away.
-
It seems bizarre if one chunk of the UK is in effect part of the single market (NI), but other parts are not, and therefore have a hard border with NI. I suppose NI is a special case, but expect the Scots to come roaring in, saying, we are a special case as well. The independence banners are being dusted off.
Latest poll figures in Scotland are 53/47 to stay in union and 68/32 to stay in Europe.
-
Struggling to see how the DUP could continue to support the govt if what is been indicated is correct. And certain of the Brexiteer Tories will surely struggle as well
-
Deal is off, DUP says no.
-
Call me a cynic but I suspect that's an extra billion off to NI to be spent in DUP constituencies.
Just to distract from a govt that is too weak to say no.
-
Deal is off, DUP says no.
I'm now hearing rumours that deal is back on, on the basis that all of the UK will retain the same regulatory status as NI, and therefore as the EU. Effectively customs union/single market for the whole UK.
-
I guess that wraps it up for Brexit......or Theresa May.
-
I'm now hearing rumours that deal is back on, on the basis that all of the UK will retain the same regulatory status as NI, and therefore as the EU. Effectively customs union/single market for the whole UK.
If so, and on this basis, the next few hours and days should be interesting: luckily I do have access to popcorn.
-
I'm now hearing rumours that deal is back on, on the basis that all of the UK will retain the same regulatory status as NI, and therefore as the EU. Effectively customs union/single market for the whole UK.
Can't see that working with the Tory Bexiteers
-
Mrs May is so lucky ... her constituency practically adjoins the Chiltern Hundreds. She won't have far to travel ...
-
You'd think that somebody on the British team might have raised the point that a soft border just might be opposed by the DUP, and indeed, some of the Tory headbangers. You'd think that it would have occurred to May herself.
-
You'd think that somebody on the British team might have raised the point that a soft border just might be opposed by the DUP, and indeed, some of the Tory headbangers. You'd think that it would have occurred to May herself.
Hence my cynicism.
-
Brexit and the countryside.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/04/new-zealand-britain-countryside-michael-gove-brexit
Of course there will be another option available to farmers that will be tempting post Brexit in an age without subsidies: sell the land for development. And the most profitable land will be in the South East, and in the East Anglian arable heartlands that James Lovelock says we need to preserve unless we are going to starve.
-
Hence my cynicism.
Any chance of Scotland now really getting rid of the Tories instead of just hiding them away for a bit with tea and tunnocks
-
Any chance of Scotland now really getting rid of the Tories instead of just hiding them away for a bit with tea and tunnocks
???
-
???
Scotland has no business critiquing Northern Ireland because it could be argued that the Tory revival in Scotland is equally responsible for this Frankenstein monster of a government.
-
Scotland has no business critiquing Northern Ireland because it could be argued that the Tory revival in Scotland is equally responsible for this Frankenstein monster of a government.
Scotland, last time I looked, isn't a member of this forum.
-
Can't see that working with the Tory Bexiteers
May really is between a rock and a hard place - and that's just with her 'friends'.
The only way to achieve what is acceptable to the DUP is for their to be sufficient regulatory alignment with the republic to prevent a hard border, but with that same agreement UK wide. The only way to achieve this is effectively to remain in the customs union, or something which is effectively identical.
But that is unacceptable to the hard brexit rump in the Tories.
-
Scotland has no business critiquing Northern Ireland ...
Do you mean criticising?
In so far as it means anything, the ugly American word you used means "writing a critical essay about" ...
-
Do you mean criticising?
In so far as it means anything, the ugly American word you used means "writing a critical essay about" ...
Are you critiquing me?
-
Can't see that working with the Tory Bexiteers
As far as I can see, their choices are
a) suck it up
b) break up the UK
c) face a general election
They should probably go for option c, because it's likely that afterwards, they won't have to worry about it anymore.
-
Are you critiquing me?
Can you see an academic essay? No, I'm appealing to your better nature. ???
-
Scotland, last time I looked, isn't a member of this forum.
I seem to recall a deal of crowing on this form concerning the removal of all bar one Tory MP from Scotland prior to the 2017 election.
-
I did not crow.
I expressed my regret that one Tory - Mundell the incompetant - was voted in. tHAT WAS ONE tORY TOO MANY.
-
I'm been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
ippy
-
I'm been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
ippy
What? You mean Mr Banks and Mr Redwood aren't compensating those who lose out from Brexit?
-
What? You mean Mr Banks and Mr Redwood aren't compensating those who lose out from Brexit?
No I mean, I've been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
I thought I had made that plain enough, but there?
ippy
-
http://newsthump.com/2017/12/05/brexiters-whove-spent-18-months-saying-you-lost-get-over-it-still-waiting-to-discover-what-theyve-won/
-
No I mean, I've been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
I thought I had made that plain enough, but there?
ippy
Well the fucker Farage is making sure he's getting his - so you really haven't got a point.
-
Sounds like a deal is on the cards, surely May just had to say 'if not me then Corbyn'.
-
I'm now hearing rumours that deal is back on, on the basis that all of the UK will retain the same regulatory status as NI, and therefore as the EU. Effectively customs union/single market for the whole UK.
Probably a silly question but could the UK retain the same regulatory status as Ireland but still leave the single market and customs union, thus not having to allow free movement? A bit like writing EU law into UK law without being in the EU?
-
Sounds like a deal is on the cards, surely May just had to say 'if not me then Corbyn'.
Wasn't tayt what she thought prior to calling the unnecessary election that led to her losing a majority and in coalition with the DUP which then led to the farce of having an agreed deal scrapped?
-
Probably a silly question but could the UK retain the same regulatory status as Ireland but still leave the single market and customs union, thus not having to allow free movement? A bit like writing EU law into UK law without being in the EU?
That's effectively the being in the single market. It won't be accepted by many in the Tory party as it means you do what the EU says with no input. That said many on the Leave campaign, such as Farage, Banks and Hannan, did say we wouldn't leave the single market but would be in the EEA and function like Norway.
-
And, if i recall correctly, Norway told Britain that Britain was better off remaining in the EU than being excluded from effective decision making, as Norway was.
-
That's effectively the being in the single market. It won't be accepted by many in the Tory party as it means you do what the EU says with no input. That said many on the Leave campaign, such as Farage, Banks and Hannan, did say we wouldn't leave the single market but would be in the EEA and function like Norway.
Two assertions with no evidence please provide.
-
Two assertions with no evidence please provide.
If you enact all EU regulation into law but aren't in the EU, then it folows you have no say.
As to Farage etc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
-
If you enact all EU regulation into law but aren't in the EU, then it folows you have no say.
I was referring to 'That's effectively the being in the single market'
As to Farage etc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
How low will you go? That is a propaganda piece, honestly I sometimes think leavers are sabotaging themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA&t=550s
Some of that material in your linked video is quote mined, sad to see.
-
I was referring to 'That's effectively the being in the single market'
How low will you go? That is a propaganda piece, honestly I sometimes think leavers are sabotaging themselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA&t=550s
Some of that material in your linked video is quote mined, sad to see.
What are the procedures for compensating people for loss due to Brexit, Jack?
Restoration of the Manpower Services Commission, Increased benefits, mortgage and rent payments?
-
Heard an interview on BBC radio Scotland's "Good morning, Scotland" this morning, with the interim leader of Sinn Feinn in Northern Ireland.
She was adamant that anything which distanced Northern Ireland from the present customs, cross -border co-operation, ease of access, transfer of goods, etc, would endanger the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, and might mean her party would have to reconsider its' position.
I have no support for May, and believe she's in a mess of her own making - but I feel sorry for her.
Interesting times.
-
Heard an interview on BBC radio Scotland's "Good morning, Scotland" this morning, with the interim leader of Sinn Feinn in Northern Ireland.
She was adamant that anything which distanced Northern Ireland from the present customs, cross -border co-operation, ease of access, transfer of goods, etc, would endanger the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, and might mean her party would have to reconsider its' position.
I have no support for May, and believe she's in a mess of her own making - but I feel sorry for her.
Interesting times.
Things are on a knife edge for you. If we move to 2nd stage in a few years Scotland will be out of EU with its path to independence very limited.
-
Things are on a knife edge for you. If we move to 2nd stage in a few years Scotland will be out of EU with its path to independence very limited.
What's that got to do do with Sinn Fein's stance?
-
You are both against one union but for another, something I don't really understand.
-
[quote author=Anchorman link=topic=12832.msg708733#msg708733 date=1512554314
What's that got to do do with Sinn Fein's stance?
You are both against one union but for another, something I don't really understand.
Again, this has nothing to do with the interim leaser of Sinn Fein's pronouncement this morning.
-
Davis admits there are no economic impact statements.
-
Impact analysis, what impact analysis?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42249854
I am now officially extremely concerned for the future of my country.
-
Impact analysis, what impact analysis?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42249854
I am now officially extremely concerned for the future of my country.
I think it's almost conclusive evidence that Brexit was an acknowledged disaster from the get go.
The plan was therefore national widescale poverty in order to reintroduce a form of Bastard feudalism on the population.
-
If you enact all EU regulation into law but aren't in the EU, then it folows you have no say.
No say on EU regulation, agreed, but how much say on immigration? Lots.
-
I think it's almost conclusive evidence that Brexit was an acknowledged disaster from the get go.
The plan was therefore national widescale poverty in order to reintroduce a form of Bastard feudalism on the population.
I'm genuinely curious - if you had been forced out of your job by a band of Eastern Europeans would you still have voted Remain?
-
I'm genuinely curious - if you had been forced out of your job by a band of Eastern Europeans would you still have voted Remain?
Who do you know who this happened to? Did it happen to you?
-
I'm genuinely curious - if you had been forced out of your job by a band of Eastern Europeans would you still have voted Remain?
Scotland welcomes immigrants, and demands control o immigration.
We're not xenophobes.
-
It's also interesting that as immigration has reached high levels, unemployment has reached low levels, in fact, the lowest for 42 years. Not being an economist, I don't really understand how those two figures relate to each other, but low unemployment does produce labour shortages, which tend to be filled by immigrants in some sectors, such as health, catering and agriculture.
-
Well the fucker Farage is making sure he's getting his - so you really haven't got a point.
I do have a point the point I made and continue to make is: I've been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
Trent, if you wish to have a rant about Farage be my guest, I can't say I'm bothered either way about him.
Regards ippy
-
Impact analysis, what impact analysis?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42249854
I am now officially extremely concerned for the future of my country.
I think the govt are in a delusional bubble, and cannot alter their stance. The DUP fiasco, now the lack of impact assessments, show a group of people who are not in control, but who will carry on regardless. There is opposition in the Commons, but I wonder if a lot of people just feel demoralized by it all? It's a very weird time. Some people seem to suspect that the govt are prepared to bore people into a state of anaesthesia, but then what?
-
Again, this has nothing to do with the interim leaser of Sinn Fein's pronouncement this morning.
Its segway to a question, why obfuscate?
-
Impact analysis, what impact analysis?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42249854
I am now officially extremely concerned for the future of my country.
Agree the Govt is a mess, meanwhile Labours position on the single market / customs union is <flip coin here>.
-
I do have a point the point I made and continue to make is: I've been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
Trent, if you wish to have a rant about Farage be my guest, I can't say I'm bothered either way about him.
Regards ippy
So your post is in no way a sarcastic jibe?
Also you appear to not be able to spot hypocrisy when it is stamping all over your face and also laughing at your sheer gullibility. Well done.
-
Davis proving that now you can get away with anything.
-
Its segway to a question, why obfuscate?
Eh?
I raised the question of SF's reaction in order to get opinions.
I hadn't intended to mention the Scottish government's stance - but, hey, if you wish...
If NI gets even one concession denied Scotland, which also - sensibly - voted to remain - then the Scottish government is entitled to question every dot, comma and other punctuation mark, and put every spanner in the already shambolic works of the burach Westminster has created in order to ensure Scotland gets the same privilege NI gets.
-
So your post is in no way a sarcastic jibe?
Also you appear to not be able to spot hypocrisy when it is stamping all over your face and also laughing at your sheer gullibility. Well done.
Trent, I'm quite happy with my decision about the E U, I don't see it the same way as you do and I'm also quite happy to not want to argue with anyone about it, I rather obviously don't see the E U in the same way as you, we probably see each other as gullible, but like I said I'm not looking for an argument, little bit of a gloat because my side won, yes.
I didn't put my post on to this thread I was answering someone else on another thread and the next thing I know my post ended up here on this thread, had I wanted to argue the point I would have joined this discussion, on this thread voluntarily.
Regards ippy
-
Trent, I'm quite happy with my decision about the E U, I don't see it the same way as you do and I'm also quite happy to not want to argue with anyone about it, I rather obviously don't see the E U in the same way as you, we probably see each other as gullible, but like I said I'm not looking for an argument, little bit of a gloat because my side won, yes.
I didn't put my post on to this thread I was answering someone else on another thread and the next thing I know my post ended up here on this thread, had I wanted to argue the point I would have joined this discussion, on this thread voluntarily.
Regards ippy
Your post about Kinnock and his wife was posted onto this thread. It wasn't moved.
-
Trent, I'm quite happy with my decision about the E U, I don't see it the same way as you do and I'm also quite happy to not want to argue with anyone about it, I rather obviously don't see the E U in the same way as you, we probably see each other as gullible, but like I said I'm not looking for an argument, little bit of a gloat because my side won, yes.
I didn't put my post on to this thread I was answering someone else on another thread and the next thing I know my post ended up here on this thread, had I wanted to argue the point I would have joined this discussion, on this thread voluntarily.
Regards ippy
I think Davis has provided all we need to know about the impact of Brexit. Describing your side as having 'won' can now no longer be met with anything but derision.
-
Come, come, we know now that regulatory alignment is the order of the day. This means whatever you want it to mean, which is very flexible. It doesn't just apply to N. Ireland but the whole of the UK. And it means non-divergence, but not harmonization. And it will be decided upon by a non-directive non-committee of nincompoops.
-
I think people will try to ignore Brexit for as long as poss.
-
I do have a point the point I made and continue to make is: I've been so worried that Kinock an his Mrs might not get their pensions from the E U any more once we leave, can anyone put my mind to rest over this one.
Trent, if you wish to have a rant about Farage be my guest, I can't say I'm bothered either way about him.
Regards ippy
Farage is still drawing a salary and expenses from the EU because he is an MEP. He's hypocrisy on a stick.
-
Come, come, we know now that regulatory alignment is the order of the day. This means whatever you want it to mean, which is very flexible. It doesn't just apply to N. Ireland but the whole of the UK. And it means non-divergence, but not harmonization. And it will be decided upon by a non-directive non-committee of nincompoops.
They need to go for it, or just call the whole thing off.
-
They need to go for it, or just call the whole thing off.
Be good to know what 'it' is.
-
Be good to know what 'it' is.
Some form of words that everyone can agree to, then decide what it means later.
-
Yes, didn't Hammond say that the Cabinet haven't yet decided on the outcome of negotiations that they prefer? Oh well, let us know.
-
Some form of words that everyone can agree to, then decide what it means later.
It's difficult, because the Tory party includes hard Brexiteers, who want a no-deal, and also soft Brexit people, who would like to stay in single market. I suppose they are looking for a form of words which satisfies all of them, e.g. 'regulatory alignment'.
-
Your post about Kinnock and his wife was posted onto this thread. It wasn't moved.
Must be forum fairies.
Ippy is right to be worried as, if they don't have enough funding, they will burn up his and the rest of ours.
-
Some form of words that everyone can agree to, then decide what it means later.
I think we are fast coming to the realisation that there is no form of words that everybody can agree on. It looks like there isn't even a form of words that the Brexiteers can agree on.
-
I think they are trying to use ambiguity, which can be interpreted differently by different groups. Hence, 'regulatory alignment' has been used, to mean that N. Ireland would keep many EU regulations, but then today Davis seemed to be saying that the whole of the UK would also. This set off the headbangers, who want a pure UK, unadulterated by foreign muck.
-
I think they are trying to use ambiguity, which can be interpreted differently by different groups.
Yeah, that's not going to work. You're just deferring the problems until later, when it'll probably be even harder to fix them.
-
Yeah, that's not going to work. You're just deferring the problems until later, when it'll probably be even harder to fix them.
I agree running a government in the manner of three silver cups and a pea under one has got to come unstuck sooner or later.
-
Report in Guardian.
DUP referred earlier to an impact statement of Brexit on the Republic of Ireland.
-
Davis has got away with it.
-
The question is now is are there or were there impact assessments.
Davis statement has been a bit like that Donovan song First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.
-
Who do you know who this happened to? Did it happen to you?
Yes. So basically a long time ago I worked on a fruit farm in Kent during the holidays while I was a student, and loved it, then after a few years couldn't find work in the career I trained for, so I tried to get work back at the same farm. By that time the farmer was employing dozens of Europeans who hogged all the apple trees (if you've ever done fruit picking you'll know apples and pears are great fun to pick), and I was relegated to strawberries, poor me. I had such a backache. At the time I really needed this job because for various reasons I don't fit the mold of commuter-up-to-london, which everyone who is anyone does in my town. So basically I ended up without a decent source of work, couldn't afford a car even.
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
-
Yet the fruit farmers in Scotland - particularly the soft fruit industry - are appalled that migrant workers may be thin on the ground in future years. That's why the main Scottish parties - SNP, Scottish Greens, Scottish Labour and the LIbDems ( the Tories don't count) have united to call for immigration to be devolved to the parliaments and assemblie in this less than united 'kingdom'.
-
Yes. So basically a long time ago I worked on a fruit farm in Kent during the holidays while I was a student, and loved it, then after a few years couldn't find work in the career I trained for, so I tried to get work back at the same farm. By that time the farmer was employing dozens of Europeans who hogged all the apple trees (if you've ever done fruit picking you'll know apples and pears are great fun to pick), and I was relegated to strawberries, poor me. I had such a backache. At the time I really needed this job because for various reasons I don't fit the mold of commuter-up-to-london, which everyone who is anyone does in my town. So basically I ended up without a decent source of work, couldn't afford a car even.
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
So what you are actually saying is that you went back to somewhere that you'd worked before but the 'best' jobs had been taken so that you had to do a job that didn't work so well for you? You didn't think a job would just be sitting there waiting for you?
Now if you said that you'd had to take a wage cut because of migrant labour that's a different thing. It is an effect of high immigration that employers can and do pay lower wages. On the other hand this can allow employers to expand and create more jobs.
-
Yes. So basically a long time ago I worked on a fruit farm in Kent during the holidays while I was a student, and loved it, then after a few years couldn't find work in the career I trained for, so I tried to get work back at the same farm. By that time the farmer was employing dozens of Europeans who hogged all the apple trees (if you've ever done fruit picking you'll know apples and pears are great fun to pick), and I was relegated to strawberries, poor me. I had such a backache. At the time I really needed this job because for various reasons I don't fit the mold of commuter-up-to-london, which everyone who is anyone does in my town. So basically I ended up without a decent source of work, couldn't afford a car even.
Oh Dear. One of my brothers, we are from suburban Kent, worked on a fruit farm in rural Kent in the nineties, two of the local boys picked a fight with him in a pub because one of the local girls quite liked him. He threw one of them over his shoulders, and knocked the other one over. And YES he was barred from the pub, not the local oiks. Nobody helped him, but it is half to their credit that nobody joined in against him either.
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
One half of my family are south eastern European (Romanian). My wife is a qualified Electrical Engineer, my nephew is a policeman who trained at Hendon. Are you telling me that you do not want my family here?
-
Eh?
I raised the question of SF's reaction in order to get opinions.
I hadn't intended to mention the Scottish government's stance - but, hey, if you wish...
If NI gets even one concession denied Scotland, which also - sensibly - voted to remain - then the Scottish government is entitled to question every dot, comma and other punctuation mark, and put every spanner in the already shambolic works of the burach Westminster has created in order to ensure Scotland gets the same privilege NI gets.
I think the SNP would need a supply agreement with the Tories for that to happen.
You still have answered my question; why are you in favour of the European Union but against the UK Union?
-
Now if you said that you'd had to take a wage cut because of migrant labour that's a different thing. It is an effect of high immigration that employers can and do pay lower wages. On the other hand this can allow employers to expand and create more jobs.
Wow next you will be arguing the minimum wages should be abolished like a full blown hard line right-winger.
-
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
That is certainly a novel approach to the issue of freedom of movement. Control the numbers because Eastern Europeans aren't reliable as long-term friends. Not heard that one before.
-
Yes. So basically a long time ago I worked on a fruit farm in Kent during the holidays while I was a student, and loved it, then after a few years couldn't find work in the career I trained for, so I tried to get work back at the same farm. By that time the farmer was employing dozens of Europeans who hogged all the apple trees (if you've ever done fruit picking you'll know apples and pears are great fun to pick), and I was relegated to strawberries, poor me. I had such a backache. At the time I really needed this job because for various reasons I don't fit the mold of commuter-up-to-london, which everyone who is anyone does in my town. So basically I ended up without a decent source of work, couldn't afford a car even.
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
How interesting ::)! You don't say why you don't fit the 'mold' of the commuter-up-to-London & I suppose that's your business but, honestly, you were probably no different to lots of other unemployed graduates. A solution would have been to get a job in London and live there in a house share which is what many young people do when they're starting out. It can be fun too.
It's not the fault of the Eastern Europeans that you couldn't go back to picking apples and pears and were relegated to strawberries. As Rhiannon said, did you expect your temporary job to be kept open for you or did you think one of the workers should be sacked to make room for you? The gap had to filled by someone.
As for "reliable long-term friends", how many of those do we make in a lifetime from a cast of millions of our own countrymen? People pass in and out of our lives, some are remembered with affection, others less so and a few stick around.
Ridiculous post Spud.
-
Wow next you will be arguing the minimum wages should be abolished like a full blown hard line right-winger.
Didn't know you were a woo peddler, Jak. Think you'll find that's the category fortune telling falls into. And mind reading.
-
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
Ideally, we all want freedom, ultimately. Barriers and obstacles are yesterday's news, so twentieth century. To head back towards that model, towards isolation, revitalising arbitrary 'us and them' divides is a miserable step backwards imv.
-
Yes. So basically a long time ago I worked on a fruit farm in Kent during the holidays while I was a student, and loved it, then after a few years couldn't find work in the career I trained for, so I tried to get work back at the same farm. By that time the farmer was employing dozens of Europeans who hogged all the apple trees (if you've ever done fruit picking you'll know apples and pears are great fun to pick), and I was relegated to strawberries, poor me. I had such a backache. At the time I really needed this job because for various reasons I don't fit the mold of commuter-up-to-london, which everyone who is anyone does in my town. So basically I ended up without a decent source of work, couldn't afford a car even.
So you effectively were expected someone already in a job to be kicked out of that job to create a job for you. In what way would that be reasonable - they hadn't taken 'your' job, when they were offered the job you didn't want it.
Eastern Europeans can be nice, but I find that the majority are not reliable as long-term friends. That's why I think there has to be some control over the numbers coming here. I'm actually pro EU but for this policy of uncontrolled freedom of movement.
What a nasty little generalising xenophobic comment. You do understand that people from Eastern European countries are all individuals don't you.
-
BBC Breakfast gave Grayling a rigourous grilling this morning.
-
BBC Breakfast gave Grayling a rigourous grilling this morning.
No they didn't. Not one of the news channels had the guts to ask the question: "Was David Davies lying?" (about the impact statements).
He got off lightly if you ask me.
-
The country punished May in the election. That in turn cannot go unpunished. It's therefore a cruel going through the motions, crash out of Europe and mass unemployment.
-
The country punished May in the election. That in turn cannot go unpunished. It's therefore a cruel going through the motions, crash out of Europe and mass unemployment.
Whilst I yield to no-one in my absolute disdain for the Conservative party, that really is a wild and silly theory.
-
Whilst I yield to no-one in my absolute disdain for the Conservative party, that really is a wild and silly theory.
Not really. It all serves the purpose. A population desperate for work, willing to forgo rights and a traditional army of unemployed to haunt those in work all ruled by a government prepared to show that the only economic consideration is that of about 300 souls in the UK.
-
Whilst I yield to no-one in my absolute disdain for the Conservative party, that really is a wild and silly theory.
Of course they want a crash out. May could have gone for shit or bust and ignored the DUP.
-
The Grayling solution. Get the Irish and EU to construct and operate the Hard Border.
Only trouble is if they don't then no hard border in Ireland but one at Kent.
-
Aw, thanks guys. I knew you'd understand.
-
the Tories don't count
Why not? Because you don't like them?
-
I think the SNP would need a supply agreement with the Tories for that to happen.
You still have answered my question; why are you in favour of the European Union but against the UK Union?
I think the SNP would need a supply agreement with the Tories for that to happen.
You still have answered my question; why are you in favour of the European Union but against the UK Union?
Because I am not british, have absolutely no loyalty to britain, regard Westminster as an anachronistic absurdity, and wish my nation to take her place amongst other nations in a union of free nation states, rather than part of a moribund, failed political anachronism still dreaming of a greatness that was only ever imagination/.
Because I am not british, have no loyalty to britawin, regard Westmibnster aas an anachronistic absur
-
Because I am not british, have absolutely no loyalty to britain, regard Westminster as an anachronistic absurdity, and wish my nation to take her place amongst other nations in a union of free nation states, rather than part of a moribund, failed political anachronism still dreaming of a greatness that was only ever imagination/.
Because I am not british, have no loyalty to britawin, regard Westmibnster aas an anachronistic absur
Whether you like it or not, you are still a Brit unless Scotland leaves the UK, which would be unwise, imo.
-
Whether you like it or not, you are still a Brit unless Scotland leaves the UK, which would be unwise, imo.
It would be unwise to remain in a UK where the DUP, John Redwood and Jacob Rees Mogg call the shots.
-
Because I am not british,
Factually incorrect.
have absolutely no loyalty to britain,
Whatever.
regard Westminster as an anachronistic absurdity,
So why isn't the EU an 'anachronistic absurdity'?
and wish my nation to take her place amongst other nations in a union of free nation states, rather than part of a moribund, failed political anachronism still dreaming of a greatness that was only ever imagination/.
Are you describing the Eu or UK here?
Because I am not british, have no loyalty to britawin, regard Westmibnster aas an anachronistic absur
But to the EU, loyalty, you seemed to have evaded the question again:-
Why are you in favour of the European Union but against the UK Union?
Also worth bearing in mind if we get to stage 2, then Scottish independence is done for 20 years.
-
It would be unwise to remain in a UK where the DUP, John Redwood and Jacob Rees Mogg call the shots.
The way things are going I can't see that being true for much longer.
-
Either David Davis was lying in October when he said the government had done impact assessments, or the government did the assessments and they were so toxic that Davis thinks it is preferable to look like an incompetent lying buffoon than admit that they exist.
Any Brexiteer here want to take a guess on which of the two options is true?
-
Phase 2 then.
-
Phase 2 then.
Single market and customs union in all but name. Farage and hard brexiteers livid.
-
I see May appears to have sorted out the Irish border dispute.
-
I see May appears to have sorted out the Irish border dispute.
By agreeing to the whole of the effectively remaining in single market/customs union as the default solution.
-
Carry on Brexit
Nigel Farage Jim Dale
Theresa May Patsy Rowlands
David Davis Sid James
Anna Soubry Barbara Windsor
Michel Barnier Louis Jourdan
Mrs Merkel Joan Sims
Aron Banks Herbert Lom
Boris Johnson Bernard Bresslaw
Jacob Rees Nookie Kenneth Williams
Liam Fox Chick Murray
Jeremy Corbin Wilfred Brambell
Arlene Foster Hattie Jacques
-
No, Vlad, Theresa May should be played by Barbara Windsor (saying "thank you" for her dameship). Who else would be able to satisfactorily recreate the visit to Donald Trump in Washington?
I'm a bit stuck with Trump, though. Brian Blessed in a wig?
-
I'm a bit stuck with Trump, though. Brian Blessed in a wig?
In the sixties it would have to be Phil Silvers, Lionel Merton or Shane Rimmer.
-
By agreeing to the whole of the effectively remaining in single market/customs union as the default solution.
.. at least until after Xmas.
-
No, Vlad, Theresa May should be played by Barbara Windsor (saying "thank you" for her dameship). Who else would be able to satisfactorily recreate the visit to Donald Trump in Washington?
I'm a bit stuck with Trump, though. Brian Blessed in a wig?
Leave the blessed Brian out of this.
I think the perfect casting is Ricky Gervais.
-
Leave the blessed Brian out of this.
I think the perfect casting is Ricky Gervais.
That made me laugh but surely the correct answer here is Alec Baldwin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVobgfXE34
-
I will take this as good news. Some Brexiteers may disagree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42277040
-
I will take this as good news. Some Brexiteers may disagree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42277040
De facto continued membership of the internal market and customs union it is then, as this is the default and will only not happen through agreement on an alternative - and that agreement must be bilateral, i.e. both the UK and EU. So in effect it is no longer our decision as to whether we in effect remain in the internal market and customs union, it is the EUs - if they don't agree to an alternative, then in them we remain.
-
We are pretty well back to where we were. Nigel Farage is dusting-off his megaphone ...
-
We are pretty well back to where we were. Nigel Farage is dusting-off his megaphone ...
But this time we know that he either never had a plan or he did it and it was one that couldn't be shared ( Davis showed us that ) for fear of losing support.
We now know he weaved a fantasy in which to spin a tale of cocky brits being insubordinate to SS captors.
-
In some ways it kicks the can down the road, but I guess soft Brexiteers will heave a sigh of relief, as the chances of hard Brexit are diminishing rapidly, barring a coup d'etat in the Tory party.
Interesting article in the Irish Times, where he says that N. Ireland has been a Trojan horse - since with no hard border, Belfast will follow the same trade regs as Dublin, and London will follow Belfast. Hmm, well, it's an interesting view, and I guess that the Irish are celebrating this morning.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-has-just-saved-the-uk-from-the-madness-of-a-hard-brexit-1.3320096
-
In some ways it kicks the can down the road, but I guess soft Brexiteers will heave a sigh of relief, as the chances of hard Brexit are diminishing rapidly, barring a coup d'etat in the Tory party.
Interesting article in the Irish Times, where he says that N. Ireland has been a Trojan horse - since with no hard border, Belfast will follow the same trade regs as Dublin, and London will follow Belfast. Hmm, well, it's an interesting view, and I guess that the Irish are celebrating this morning.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-has-just-saved-the-uk-from-the-madness-of-a-hard-brexit-1.3320096
Which is exactly what sections 49 and 50 of the agreement boil down to. And of course Dublin follows the EU regs.
The only way this will now change is via an 'agreed solution' - agreed being by both the UK and EU, so effectively we remain de facto in internal market and customs union unless the EU decide otherwise.
-
so effectively we remain de facto in internal market and customs union unless the EU decide otherwise.
With what implications for the free movement of people, I wonder?
-
With what implications for the free movement of people, I wonder?
(A) good to see you posting, you are a favourite, and (b) if there is free movement between the Republic and the EU and free movement in the sense of a frictionless border between the Republic and Norn Irn, and there is no differentiation between NI and rUK then presumably free movement?
-
Thanks for your kind words :)
If the UK loses any hope of restricting EU immigration and we remain bound by EU regulations then it's difficult to see what Brexiters can salvage from the negotiations so far. One might almost conclude that staying in the EU would be the rational option at this point. Little hope of that then.
-
Thanks for your kind words :)
If the UK loses any hope of restricting EU immigration and we remain bound by EU regulations then it's difficult to see what Brexiters can salvage from the negotiations so far. One might almost conclude that staying in the EU would be the rational option at this point. Little hope of that then.
The UK always had the choice to limit immigration. Some politicians just chose to lie about that. And to not make a real argument about why it is bad. To be fair too many politicians didn't make the case of why having people wanting to come here and contribute to your society is a great thing.
-
Single market and customs union in all but name. Farage and hard brexiteers livid.
Yes two things to be happy about!
-
Yes two things to be happy about!
How long before Farage and the Kippers start demanding a referendum on the deal.
-
How long before Farage and the Kippers start demanding a referendum on the deal.
I hope that won't get any traction, I suppose you could end up with the extremist leavers and remainers form a strange campaign group to get one. I can't see there being one only the LibDems have that as policy and any referendum will need to get through Parliment.
It will go before Parliament options leave - no deal or leave with deal, there is no chance the deal that it will fail to get through I think.
-
I hope that won't get any traction, I suppose you could end up with the extremist leavers and remainers form a strange campaign group to get one. I can't see there being one only the LibDems have that as policy and any referendum will need to get through Parliment.
It will go before Parliament options leave - no deal or leave with deal, there is no chance the deal that it will fail to get through I think.
What do you mean 'I hope that won't get any traction', it already has and that was before the likely joining of the uber brexiters in calling for a referendum on the final deal.
The most recent polling (obviously before today's announcement) had 50% wanting a referendum on the final deal, compared to just 34% opposing a referendum.
Things have moved on - get with the programme.
-
What do you mean 'I hope that won't get any traction', it already has and that was before the likely joining of the uber brexiters in calling for a referendum on the final deal.
The most recent polling (obviously before today's announcement) had 50% wanting a referendum on the final deal, compared to just 34% opposing a referendum.
Things have moved on - get with the programme.
Traction in Parliament, get with the programme, read in context. 😀
-
An interesting issue to come out of the deal announced is that British people born in Northern Ireland will have the right to be a member of the EU if they so wish.
I am pleased for them - but it hardly ties in with Madame Foster's cry that N. Ireland should be treated the same as the rUK.
-
An interesting issue to come out of the deal announced is that British people born in Northern Ireland will have the right to be a member of the EU if they so wish.
I am pleased for them - but it hardly ties in with Madame Foster's cry that N. Ireland should be treated the same as the rUK.
And when that becomes clear it becomes unworkable, surely.
-
Traction in Parliament, get with the programme, read in context. 😀
If public opinion becomes embedded, or even moves more in favour of them having a say on the final deal, then Parliament will follow.
-
An interesting issue to come out of the deal announced is that British people born in Northern Ireland will have the right to be a member of the EU if they so wish.
I am pleased for them - but it hardly ties in with Madame Foster's cry that N. Ireland should be treated the same as the rUK.
Its the case now that those people can get an Irish passport, nothing changes really.
I got the impression Foster was posturing this last week.
-
If public opinion becomes embedded, or even moves more in favour of them having a say on the final deal, then Parliament will follow.
Yes if public opinion moves then Parliament might, the vast middle is made up of people like me that would be satisfied with a Norway type deal, there are the extremists like yourself and Farage who won't be happy.
Besides Farage would be campaigning for a vote where the options will be no deal or leave, he will not campaign for a third option, stay.
-
You do understand that people from Eastern European countries are all individuals don't you.
Totally. Plus they were living in grotty caravans on the farm, I felt sorry for them. I just think the farmer could have made space for me to pick with them, but he didn't. They were tough and could pick a lot faster, and of course from a business perspective the farmer was bound to employ whoever was fittest. However, there appear to be many others in this country who've had a similar experience, losing job opportunities because of European migrants. It seems many people used the referendum to reclaim something they had lost. Don't get me wrong they are great people, full of life. But I don't see any problem with putting a cap on numbers- even David Cameron tried his hardest to achieve that. My statement about them not being reliable long term friends came out wrong (sorry). I was badly let down by a Romanian and observed quite a lot of behaviour I just thought was inappropriate.
-
the vast middle is made up of people like me that would be satisfied with a Norway type deal
Evidence for this please - I actually think rather few people would be happy with a Norway-type deal, given that 48% want to remain part of the EU, and the 52% of brexiteers is deeply split - we keep being told that most thought stopping FOM to be the biggest issue, which isn't compatible with a Norway deal.
And this is actually the critical problem - as soon as an actual deal emerges any sense of a mandate vanishes, because it only takes 2% of the leave supporting population to oppose that particular deal for the majority for brexit itself to vanish.
, there are the extremists like yourself and Farage who won't be happy.
On what basis am I an extremist - my views reflect 48% of the country as per the referendum, and over 50% according to all the recent polling which indicates a majority to believe that Britain was wrong to vote for brexit.
Besides Farage would be campaigning for a vote where the options will be no deal or leave, he will not campaign for a third option, stay.
He might, but the notion that a deal and no deal were actually options was always nonsense - we cannot have no deal as there all sorts of things that cannot not be agreed as there is no 'default' solution. The 3 big issues in the preliminary talks being three examples.
-
Its the case now that those people can get an Irish passport, nothing changes really.
I got the impression Foster was posturing this last week.
Of course, something changes post-Brexit. The population of N.Ireland will be treated differently to the population in rUK. How will this work?
Agree Foster was posturing but that's what the DUP are very good at - having had such a lot of practice.
-
I just think the farmer could have made space for me to pick with them, but he didn't. They were tough and could pick a lot faster, and of course from a business perspective the farmer was bound to employ whoever was fittest.
So they were already in the job and were better at it than you - and yet you seem peeved that the farmer didn't give you their job. The farmer is running a business, not a charity - and you aren't 'owed' a job, certainly not 'owed' a particular job as you seem to think.
However, there appear to be many others in this country who've had a similar experience, losing job opportunities because of European migrants.
Actually many of the jobs regularly taken by Eastern European immigrants are ones that employers really struggled to fill with UK workers - either because their weren't enough UK workers with the necessary skills, or because they were jobs that many UK workers felt below them.
And what about all the jobs that these immigrants help to create - don't forget that they pay tax, use local businesses and services and generally help buoy up the economy, which creates new jobs.
-
Totally. Plus they were living in grotty caravans on the farm, I felt sorry for them. I just think the farmer could have made space for me to pick with them, but he didn't. They were tough and could pick a lot faster, and of course from a business perspective the farmer was bound to employ whoever was fittest. However, there appear to be many others in this country who've had a similar experience, losing job opportunities because of European migrants. It seems many people used the referendum to reclaim something they had lost. Don't get me wrong they are great people, full of life. But I don't see any problem with putting a cap on numbers- even David Cameron tried his hardest to achieve that. My statement about them not being reliable long term friends came out wrong (sorry). I was badly let down by a Romanian and observed quite a lot of behaviour I just thought was inappropriate.
Businesses need to be competitive to stay in business and that means drawing on the best talent available. By extrapolating from your personal grievance at losing out to 'fitter' workers from overseas to a general principle endorsing some arbitrary cap on incoming numbers you are also endorsing an economic model that would see British businesses becoming less competitive and ultimately the British economy becoming less competitive. You would drag everyone down because of your personal grievance, in other words. We need the maximum possible freedoms to secure the best talent for our economy, I don't see that putting up artificial barriers to that need will benefit anyone in the long run. We will end up just dwindling back into some impoverished irrelevant backwater again.
-
Evidence for this please - I actually think rather few people would be happy with a Norway-type deal, given that 48% want to remain part of the EU, and the 52% of brexiteers is deeply split - we keep being told that most thought stopping FOM to be the biggest issue, which isn't compatible with a Norway deal.
And this is actually the critical problem - as soon as an actual deal emerges any sense of a mandate vanishes, because it only takes 2% of the leave supporting population to oppose that particular deal for the majority for brexit itself to vanish.
On what basis am I an extremist - my views reflect 48% of the country as per the referendum, and over 50% according to all the recent polling which indicates a majority to believe that Britain was wrong to vote for brexit.
He might, but the notion that a deal and no deal were actually options was always nonsense - we cannot have no deal as there all sorts of things that cannot not be agreed as there is no 'default' solution. The 3 big issues in the preliminary talks being three examples.
There was a post Brexit poll that suggested that most remainers accepted the result. The extremes are those that would not have accepted the result either way, it's not a bad thing.
Your opinion on a mandate is irrelevant, Parliaments views are key, there will not be another referendum unless enough politicians support it, currently there are a few.
You predict that will change may I remind you that your record of predictions is pretty dire.
-
Of course, something changes post-Brexit. The population of N.Ireland will be treated differently to the population in rUK. How will this work?
Today the population of NI is treated differently to rUK it works.
-
There was a post Brexit poll that suggested that most remainers accepted the result. The extremes are those that would not have accepted the result either way, it's not a bad thing.
There's a difference between 'accepting' and abiding by a majority view as a good democrat, and believing the majority view is correct. Speaking up for a minority viewpoint does not make one an extremist.
-
I was watching the Andrew Marr programme this morning. There was a hint during the discussion on today's newspapers that the decision about Brexit might actually be taken by third-party countries.
They may say that they have a satisfactory trading relationship with the EU and are not prepared to waste time and energy on building a new one with the UK. If the UK wishes to trade with them it can do so though the framework which already exists. My attention then drifted to other things and I did not note this point being raised with either Keir Starmer or David Davis later in the programme.
-
There was a post Brexit poll that suggested that most remainers accepted the result.
Indeed - many, many months ago and things can and have changed - we are in extremely volatile political times. And of course there is no contradiction between accepting the result of the 2016 referendum (which was, at best, about the 'concept' of brexit rather than an actual brexit deal), and wanting a referendum to provide a democratic mandate for the actual deal, which doesn't exist currently.
As we are seeing any actually deliverable deal will not be supported by some parts of the Leave vote - and with such a wafer thin majority in 2016, that makes any mandate unsafe even if there were one. I suspect there are parts of the Leave vote who would actually prefer to remain rather than have an ultra-soft Norway type brexit.
Why are you so terrified of democracy - we have a general election every 5 years - by the time we are actually about to implement any final deal)(2021 at the earliest) we will be 5 years on from the 2016 referendum - in other cases we would consider that mandate 'timed out' even if there were a mandate for an actual deal.
-
Indeed - many, many months ago and things can and have changed - we are in extremely volatile political times. And of course there is no contradiction between accepting the result of the 2016 referendum (which was, at best, about the 'concept' of brexit rather than an actual brexit deal), and wanting a referendum to provide a democratic mandate for the actual deal, which doesn't exist currently.
What are you attempting to refute here?
As we are seeing any actually deliverable deal will not be supported by some parts of the Leave vote - and with such a wafer thin majority in 2016, that makes any mandate unsafe even if there were one. I suspect there are parts of the Leave vote who would actually prefer to remain rather than have an ultra-soft Norway type brexit.
Speculation, there are some parts of Leave will not be happy and some parts of remain that will.
Why are you so terrified of democracy - we have a general election every 5 years - by the time we are actually about to implement any final deal)(2021 at the earliest) we will be 5 years on from the 2016 referendum - in other cases we would consider that mandate 'timed out' even if there were a mandate for an actual deal.
Very strange that you portray me as 'terrified of democracy' I'd be quite happy with another vote on the deal. I'm trying to explain to you that in order for there to be another vote there has to be a majority of MP's that will vote another referendum bill through.
You need to get 326 MP's to agree with you, currently that number is 47, its possible I'm not saying it isn't just that there is some way to go.
I would urge anyone reading your predictions that you deliver with such apparent certainty to be aware of your track record on predictions, it is woeful.
-
You need to get 326 MP's to agree with you, currently that number is 47 ...
On what basis do you think that only 47 MPs support a referendum on the final deal?
-
On what basis do you think that only 47 MPs support a referendum on the final deal?
SNP & libdems, oh forgot Green & the plids. Think Kier Stammer would from interview today but currently doesn't.
-
SNP & libdems, oh forgot Green & the plids. Think Kier Stammer would from interview today but currently doesn't.
When in that House MPs divide
If they've a brain, and cerebellum too
They have to leave that brain outside
And vote just as their leaders tell'em to.
You are assuming that the members of the two largest parties will all vote in the way the Party Whips tell them to vote. Certainly not in what would very likely be a free vote.
It is a pity that the House of Commons cannot come up with a better way of voting than requiring members to present their bodies at the point of counting. Rebels - or perhaps members following their conscience - have to ask whether or not it is worth while standing up against the moral bullying called "whipping".
-
You are assuming that the members of the two largest parties will all vote in the way the Party Whips tell them to vote. Certainly not in what would very likely be a free vote.
I did say currently. The Remainers in the Tories seem happy, perhaps they agree with Davey:-
Single market and customs union in all but name. Farage and hard brexiteers livid.
-
Privatisation, how does that work then?
http://www.dw.com/en/brexit-hard-liners-angered-by-royal-mails-refusal-to-release-brexit-stamp/a-41738522
-
Privatisation, how does that work then?
http://www.dw.com/en/brexit-hard-liners-angered-by-royal-mails-refusal-to-release-brexit-stamp/a-41738522
I wish the Brexiteers would concentrate on sorting out Brexit rather than whine about trivialities.
-
I wish the Brexiteers would concentrate on sorting out Brexit rather than whine about trivialities.
I wish some remainers would concentrate on helping to sort out Brexit rather than whine about losing.
-
I wish some remainers would concentrate on helping to sort out Brexit rather than whine about losing.
What do you want them to do exactly?
-
Of course, a single market might have been achievable if Labour wanted that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192
-
Of course, a single market might have been achievable if Labour wanted that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192
It may still be, given that last week's agreement between the UK and EU is entirely consistent with the UK remaining in the single market (or some fudge which in effect delivers exactly the same).
-
I wonder what other posters think of the Daily Mail's attempts to cow the members of the Conservative party who dared to vote against the government.
It seems that parliamentary sovereignty can only be invoked when it works in favour of one particular ideology.
-
By the sound of it the Tory sceptics are going to rebel whenever May displeases them!
-
By the sound of it the Tory sceptics are going to rebel whenever May displeases them!
As is their right. What worries me is the way the Mail highlight and demonize the rebels and make them targets.
Have they forgotten Jo Cox so easily?
-
I wonder what other posters think of the Daily Mail's attempts to cow the members of the Conservative party who dared to vote against the government.
It seems that parliamentary sovereignty can only be invoked when it works in favour of one particular ideology.
Little changes.
Stanley Baldwin, in 1931:
The newspapers attacking me are not newspapers in the ordinary sense.They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal vices, personal likes and dislikes of the two men. What are their methods? Their methods are direct falsehoods, misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker's meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context...What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
Apparently, the epithet originated with Rudyard Kipling, who was Baldwin's cousin.
-
As is their right. What worries me is the way the Mail highlight and demonize the rebels and make them targets.
Have they forgotten Jo Cox so easily?
Indeed, and it's worth remembering that the vote was merely to enshrine the vote on the deal - which the govt said they were going to offer anyway. It's not a vote stopping Brexit but the Mail indulges in hyperbole as is their method
-
As is their right. What worries me is the way the Mail highlight and demonize the rebels and make them targets.
Have they forgotten Jo Cox so easily?
Mr. Pot Mr. Kettle is saying nasty things about you.
Kudos to the rebels sticking by their principles, the Mail is a feeble excuse for Newspaper but fear the day comrade Trent is able to tell them what they can print.
-
Mr. Pot Mr. Kettle is saying nasty things about you.
Kudos to the rebels sticking by their principles, the Mail is a feeble excuse for Newspaper but fear the day comrade Trent is able to tell them what they can print.
No, he's able to complain about it. Don't know why you felt the need to try a misrepresentation here
-
Mr. Pot Mr. Kettle is saying nasty things about you.
Kudos to the rebels sticking by their principles, the Mail is a feeble excuse for Newspaper but fear the day comrade Trent is able to tell them what they can print.
In reply to your post of bollocks I would refer you to HH's post above - power without responsibility.
I'm not telling them what to print, and in fact I'd like you to point to a post where I even implied that, and if you can't I'd like you to retract your statement.
Anyway, to run a front page in exactly the same style they use for terrorists and paedophiles seems to me to be highly irresponsible. You apparently disagree. Quelle surprise.
-
Jeez mellow out a little?
In reply to your post of bollocks I would refer you to HH's post above - power without responsibility.
You don't demonise politicians?
I do particularly Trump but feel quite guilty about it and feel uncomfortable when having a go at others when they do it.
I'm not telling them what to print, and in fact I'd like you to point to a post where I even implied that, and if you can't I'd like you to retract your statement.
No retraction from me comrade, it was hypothetical light musing.
Anyway, to run a front page in exactly the same style they use for terrorists and paedophiles seems to me to be highly irresponsible. You apparently disagree. Quelle surprise.
Not sure I would disagree actually, I would celebrate demonising Trump though which makes me something of a hypocrite. Gah, hoisted by me own petard. :)
-
and feel uncomfortable when having a go at others when they do it.
Clearly not uncomfortable enough :P
-
No, he's able to complain about it. Don't know why you felt the need to try a misrepresentation here
Are you Mr. Pot or Mr. Kettle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
-
As is their right. What worries me is the way the Mail highlight and demonize the rebels and make them targets.
Have they forgotten Jo Cox so easily?
Never mind the late, lamented Jo Cox - whom some would trivialise as as a mark of their disregard - have they forgotten the supreme Tory rebel to end all supreme Tory rebels - a certain W.L.S. Churchill?
-
You don't demonise politicians?
I do particularly Trump
Hmmm.....that raises an interesting point as I am not sure you can demonize Trump as he has already done the work for you.
-
Are you Mr. Pot or Mr. Kettle?
what has anything I've posted got to do with your misrepresentation of trent?
-
I wish some remainers would concentrate on helping to sort out Brexit rather than whine about losing.
We are. We are trying to stop it from happening. That's the most constructive outcome.
-
what has anything I've posted got to do with your misrepresentation of trent?
You wrongly accused me of misrepresentation, I quoted you citing a video that misrepresents.
-
You wrongly accused me of misrepresentation, I quoted you citing a video that misrepresents.
What has any of that got to do with you misrepresenting Trentvoyager?
-
What has any of that got to do with you misrepresenting Trentvoyager?
That I don't waste much time being accused of being dishonest by someone who has been shown to be dishonest.
-
That I don't waste much time being accused of being dishonest by someone who has been shown to be dishonest.
Ah the tu quoque fallacy.
-
Ah the tu quoque fallacy.
No, I'm not arguing that your opinion is wrong just stating I don't care about your opinion.
-
No, I'm not arguing that your opinion is wrong just stating I don't care about your opinion.
Except that isn't what you have been stating here. Rather you were suggesting that it was ok to misrepresent Trentvoyager because you think I have misrepresented people
In that sense you are right, it isn't even as wrong as a tu quoque. It's just nonsense.
-
We are. We are trying to stop it from happening. That's the most constructive outcome.
Indeed but it's heartening to realize that even if the utter disaster of Brexit goes ahead, it's likely to be reversed eventually. Not only are the consequences likely to be dire but the younger generations voted overwhelmingly to remain. So when the old fools who instigated this tragedy die off, there'll be the chance to put things right. Hopefully a fully integrated United States of Europe is the future...
:)
-
Except that isn't what you have been stating here. Rather you were suggesting that it was ok to misrepresent Trentvoyager because you think I have misrepresented people
In that sense you are right, it isn't even as wrong as a tu quoque. It's just nonsense.
Nope you might not have understood what I meant, I may have not explained it well, accept that. Again, I'm not arguing that your opinion is wrong just stating I don't care about your opinion, you think it is nonsense, fine, I don't care.
-
Nope you might not have understood what I meant, I may have not explained it well, accept that. Again, I'm not arguing that your opinion is wrong just stating I don't care about your opinion, you think it is nonsense, fine, I don't care.
And I said nothinf about my opinion here other than I think you misrepresented Trentvoyager. So do you accept you did?
-
the younger generations voted overwhelmingly to remain.
Factually incorrect, the young generations either voted to leave or abstained. If you would revise to prefix with 'of those that voted'.
So when the old fools.....
Sometimes I think the art of persuasion is dead.
-
And I said nothinf about my opinion here other than I think you misrepresented Trentvoyager. So do you accept you did?
I have engaged with Trent's posts directly.
-
Factually incorrect, the young generations either voted to leave or abstained. If you would revise to prefix with 'of those that voted'.
Sometimes I think the art of persuasion is dead.
Baffled by your first sentence.
-
I have engaged with Trent's posts directly.
By misrepresenting him
-
Indeed but it's heartening to realize that even if the utter disaster of Brexit goes ahead, it's likely to be reversed eventually. Not only are the consequences likely to be dire but the younger generations voted overwhelmingly to remain. So when the old fools who instigated this tragedy die off, there'll be the chance to put things right. Hopefully a fully integrated United States of Europe is the future...
I'm sure you are right, which makes this whole Brexit thing a pointless painful interlude.
-
Baffled by your first sentence.
He's counting the young people who didn't vote as being on his side of the fence.
-
Factually incorrect, the young generations either voted to leave or abstained. If you would revise to prefix with 'of those that voted'.
Completely non-sensical statement - you could just as easily say that young generations either voted to remain or abstained, and in greater numbers than voted to leave or abstained.
The implication that somehow young people were more in favour of leaving is simply non-sense.
-
He's counting the young people who didn't vote as being on his side of the fence.
Why on earth would he conclude that. If anything it is easier to argue that those that choose not to vote are more likely to be content with the status quo, as people who want change tend to be more motivated.
-
Why on earth would he conclude that.
My guess is that he doesn't want it to be true that we eventually go back in to the EU.
-
Completely non-sensical statement - you could just as easily say that young generations either voted to remain or abstained, and in greater numbers than voted to leave or abstained.
The implication that somehow young people were more in favour of leaving is simply non-sense.
Yes both my statement and the one I replied to are non-sense, which I why I suggested the person posting prefix it with 'Of those that voted' to be accurate.
Glad we agree and in your head you've scored some points of me in your petty point scoring game, I think NearlySane is the clear winner of that one though. :)
-
Yes both my statement and the one I replied to are non-sense, which I why I suggested the person posting prefix it with 'Of those that voted' to be accurate.
Glad we agree and in your head you've scored some points of me in your petty point scoring game, I think NearlySane is the clear winner of that one though. :)
I'm not engaging in point scoring.
However we need to clear the muddied waters.
The best estimates suggest that turnout amongst 18-14 year olds was 64% and that 75% of those that voted voted remain. That means that 48% of all 18-24 year olds (whether they voted or not) voted remain - very close to an actual majority. And that those voting remain (48%) far outweighed those who voted leave (16%) and those who didn't vote (36%).
-
New poll out commissioned by the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html).
Headline is that Remain currently leads Brexit by 51% to 41%. The lead widens slightly if the undecideds had their arms twisted. Most of the swing (this time last year, Brexit was ahead) comes from people who did not vote in the referendum who are now overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit.
I think, it is clear that the majority of the British people now have no stomach for Brexit. Let us stop it now.
-
It seems to me that "Brexit" has acquired an independent life of its own, now.
Mrs May's current behaviour defies logic. Why, if there is a real concern that the mood of the populace has changed, and this can be verified, is she condoning, encouraging, continued waste of money (at a time of general financial stringency - at least in the Treasury) by continuing with discussion, preparation, negotiation, Parliamentary business and all other costly activity concerned with leaving the EU? Would it not be more appropriate to retest the national desire for this action given that its stimulus was sometime ago and the decision may not reflect the popular will and that she has already - effectively - lost a General Election?
Her actions appear to be more concerned with her relationship with the Conservative Party than the national interest. She is not helped by the Opposition - also similarly obsessed with its own structural problems than those of the nation.
I think the case is building for another referendum.
-
But please note that the cabinet is meeting to discuss the Brexit endpoint for the first time. It's very gratifying that our politicians are taking their time - after all, it's only 18 months since the referendum, and they are trying to understand what it means.
-
It's an utter disaster.
It always was of course, given the referendum was allowed for the wrong reason (to sort out a faction of the Tory party), and where voters in some parts of the UK were naive enough to believe the lies and xenophobia of suspect characters and support a major change without any assessment of what the outcome would actually be. Then, for good measure, it is placed in the hands of the incompetent to manage and deliver.
You'd think that by now even the likes of our hapless PM would start to realise she is presiding over a shambles - but seemingly not. I suspect that 'Brexit means Brexit' is tattooed on their palms to ensure they stick to their tedious simplistic mantra. Still, looking on the bright side, it might hasten the breakup of the UK unless someone finds a way to stop Brexit.
-
It's an utter disaster.
It always was of course, given the referendum was allowed for the wrong reason (to sort out a faction of the Tory party), and where voters in some parts of the UK were naive enough to believe the lies and xenophobia of suspect characters and support a major change without any assessment of what the outcome would actually be. Then, for good measure, it is placed in the hands of the incompetent to manage and deliver.
You'd think that by now even the likes of our hapless PM would start to realise she is presiding over a shambles - but seemingly not. I suspect that 'Brexit means Brexit' is tattooed on their palms to ensure they stick to their tedious simplistic mantra. Still, looking on the bright side, it might hasten the breakup of the UK unless someone finds a way to stop Brexit.
They won't.
If anybody does, I want to expect, and would actively encourage, violence in every street in the realm.
-
Still, looking on the bright side, it might hasten the breakup of the UK unless someone finds a way to stop Brexit.
Actually the opposite.
-
If anybody does, I want to expect, and would actively encourage, violence in every street in the realm.
Is this a joke or are you actually advocating violence Shaker - and if so under what circumstances - I'm confused.
-
In view of the reports of extremely nasty messages to MPs with differing views from those of some of the electorate, I think that Shaker's comment is extremely ill-advised and should be removed.
It is out of keeping with the normal qualified tolerance we expect on this forum. It is also tasteless.
-
In view of the reports of extremely nasty messages to MPs with differing views from those of some of the electorate, I think that Shaker's comment is extremely ill-advised and should be removed.
It is out of keeping with the normal qualified tolerance we expect on this forum. It is also tasteless.
I agree - there is absolutely no justification for violence whatsoever. The only time that civil disobedience could ever be countenanced would be if actions of government ended up being unlawful (but this should be dealt with in the courts) or unconstitutional (again by the courts) and if the courts failed to do their job.
I government chooses to deliver Brexit (of whatever flavour) with the express support of Parliament to fulfil the outcome of the advisory referendum then that is both legal and constitutional. Likewise if the government, sanctioned by Parliament choses not to enact the result of the advisory referendum on that basis of their judgement that this is in the best interests of the UK the that is also both legal and constitutional.
In neither case can violence be justified.
-
If anybody does, I want to expect, and would actively encourage, violence in every street in the realm.
Nice.
BTW hope you enjoy reading Wright's 'Why Buddhism is true'.
-
Nice.
BTW hope you enjoy reading Wright's 'Why Buddhism is true'.
No idea - I haven't got hold of it yet.
-
If anybody does, I want to expect, and would actively encourage, violence in every street in the realm.
Why? It's clear that the majority of people no longer want Brexit. The democratic decision would be to stop it.
Another nail in the coffin: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42424700
-
Why? It's clear that the majority of people no longer want Brexit. The democratic decision would be to stop it.
On the basis of one opinion poll? Seriously? Knowing you, you probably are.
-
On the basis of one opinion poll? Seriously? Knowing you, you probably are.
Nope - on the basis of many polls over the past few months - for about a years there was virtually no change in the polling - with tiny Leave majority (as per the actual referendum) but over the past 4-5 months there has been a progressive shift in opinion against Leave and in favour of Remain. One poll can be dismissed, as it may be an outlier - a series of polls asking the same question every couple of weeks that show a progressive shift in opinion cannot be dismissed.
-
On the basis of one opinion poll? Seriously? Knowing you, you probably are.
I note too that you have still failed to clarify your earlier comment:
'If anybody does, I want to expect, and would actively encourage, violence in every street in the realm.'
Please would you do so - on what basis are you advocating violence - I trust it wouldn't be if the government and democratically elected parliament chose to do something that was constitutionally and legally justified.
-
If this forum were Facebook or Twitter, a statement such as the one Shaker has made would possibly attract the attention of some government agency. For all we know, GCHQ may already have noted its presence.
-
It'll give them something to do at Christmas ::)
-
It'll give them something to do at Christmas ::)
Still no response to questions about you calling for violence on the streets I note.
-
No.
-
They won't.
If anybody does, I want to expect, and would actively encourage, violence in every street in the realm.
And here we can observe, in its natural habitat, the lesser spotted maladapted moron caling for a 'day of rage' when something happens he doesn't like. The British police could stock up on rubber bullets and live ammunition I suppose in case any protesting children start throwing stones.
-
No.
Who is this single word in response to?
-
And here we can observe, in its natural habitat, the lesser spotted maladapted moron caling for a 'day of rage' when something happens he doesn't like. The British police could stock up on rubber bullets and live ammunition I suppose in case any protesting children start throwing stones.
And grossly irresponsible given that we have already had one MP murdered for their pro-remain views and others receiving regular death threats.
-
Who is this single word in response to?
You.
-
You.
So you don't believe that you should justify your appalling comment calling for violence.
Disgraceful comment and rank cowardice in refusing to try to justify or explain your comment when called out on it.
Pathetic.
-
So you don't believe that you should justify your appalling comment calling for violence.
Disgraceful comment and rank cowardice in refusing to try to justify or explain your comment when called out on it.
Pathetic.
No, I'll follow my standard practice of commenting as, when and if I damned well please and not outside of that.
-
No, I'll follow my standard practice of commenting as, when and if I damned well please and not outside of that.
Up to you - but that doesn't stop you being a coward.
If you aren't prepared to defend or justify your views posted here then perhaps you shouldn't make them in the first place.
-
As I was saying but moments ago ...
-
As I was saying but moments ago ...
Indeed you were, just as I was discussing you clear cowardice.
I cannot make you discuss this but while you refuse you will remain a coward, and only you are able to change that. That you refuse to speaks volumes about you I'm afraid.
-
Not my problem. It's clearly yours, though.
-
On the basis of one opinion poll? Seriously? Knowing you, you probably are.
How many opinion polls do we need before you'll accept the point?
Obviously, sentiment could swing back the other way, but say, hypothetically, the polls showed a consistent 10 or 15 point lead for Remain over six months, wouldn't you begin to get uncomfortable about the validity of the referendum as being representative of the people's view over that six month period?
-
How many opinion polls do we need before you'll accept the point?
Obviously, sentiment could swing back the other way, but say, hypothetically, the polls showed a consistent 10 or 15 point lead for Remain over six months, wouldn't you begin to get uncomfortable about the validity of the referendum as being representative of the people's view over that six month period?
Given that final Brexit deal wont be implemented until 2021, at least 5 years after the referendum the majority will have vanished without a single person chaining their mind. The reason - lots of elderly people will have died by then and a whole new cohort of young people will have attained voting age.
-
Given that final Brexit deal wont be implemented until 2021, at least 5 years after the referendum the majority will have vanished without a single person chaining their mind. The reason - lots of elderly people will have died by then and a whole new cohort of young people will have attained voting age.
Polls change for all sorts of reasons, as I recall a few years back Leave was ahead.
-
How many opinion polls do we need before you'll accept the point?
Obviously, sentiment could swing back the other way, but say, hypothetically, the polls showed a consistent 10 or 15 point lead for Remain over six months, wouldn't you begin to get uncomfortable about the validity of the referendum as being representative of the people's view over that six month period?
Are you advocating we change policy every six months based on opinion poll?
-
Are you advocating we change policy every six months based on opinion poll?
Looks like it.
-
Brexit- makes people have all kinds of mad ideas.
-
Rioting averted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42443253
-
Documents published on sectoral analyses of Brexit, there are some reports that bits of it are copied from Wikipedia.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/exiting-the-european-union-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/department-sectoral-analyses-17-19/publications/
-
Rioting averted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42443253
Liked this bit:
What does this new passport do?”
“It’s blue.”
“Can I use it to travel freely and work in 26 neighbouring countries?”
“No - but look, it’s blue.”
And of course, in addition, the little passport of whatever colour, spends most of its life stuck in the dark at the back of drawer.
-
I preferred the maroon passport, as it meant we were part of the EU.
-
If we’re all going to be taking the fantasy bus to Brexit heaven, why not go the whole hog (factory-farmed, chlorine-washed mutant from the US probably) and have bespoke personalised passports to go with Theresa’s bespoke deal?
Brexiters could have A4 sized, hard-backed blue passports weighing several kilos - sorry, pounds. These would have an integrated sound bar that plays Rule Britannia when opened, and inside there’d be 3D pop-ups of suitably stirring characters from Britain’s glorious past like Bomber Harris, Queen Victoria and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We could even design our own using government fantasy software. Mine would incorporate a wormhole for rapid escape from Brexit Britain whenever the ecstatic freedom from Europe became just too much to bear, or possibly a time machine so I could travel back to those balmy days when we were still connected to mainland Europe by a land bridge. Truly the possibilities of Brexit are endless.
-
Brexiters could have A4 sized, hard-backed blue passports weighing several kilos - sorry, pounds. These would have an integrated sound bar that plays Rule Britannia when opened, and inside there’d be 3D pop-ups of suitably stirring characters from Britain’s glorious past like Bomber Harris, Queen Victoria
Now you're talking! Wantwantwant one!
and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Some people always have to spoil things.
-
I have just listened to Simon Calder on PM on Radio 4. He was explaining that Brits will have to give far, far more information about where they are going in Europe and the reasons and I have to say that I can't help having a little gloat and thinking well, it just serves all those Brexiteers right if their travel is affected! Perhaps they should have thought of all this before voting out.
He also said, though, that with the new passport the Europeans will have a long delay coming here while Brits will sail through. fortunately, it will not affect me, so my little gloat won't affect anything!
-
I have just listened to Simon Calder on PM on Radio 4. He was explaining that Brits will have to give far, far more information about where they are going in Europe and the reasons and I have to say that I can't help having a little gloat and thinking well, it just serves all those Brexiteers right if their travel is affected! Perhaps they should have thought of all this before voting out.
He also said, though, that with the new passport the Europeans will have a long delay coming here while Brits will sail through. fortunately, it will not affect me, so my little gloat won't affect anything!
A gloating remaimer, who knew.
-
A gloating remaimer, who knew.
Not denying the veracity of his comments I note.
Regardless of its colour (which, let's face it is irrelevant) a British passport will be a diminished item post-Brexit as it will no longer allow the bearer unfettered access to live, work, retire etc in the majority of European countries in the way it does now.
Due to my academic position I am often asked to sign passport application forms as a witness - recently these have been as likely to be Irish application forms for people lucky enough to qualify for dual citizenship and looking to retain the benefits of being a citizen of an EU country for themselves and their families.
-
I have dual British/Irish citizenship, the latter I obtained in 2008, just for a bit of fun, having had an Irish grandmother I was entitled to it.
-
Not denying the veracity of his comments I note.
Regardless of its colour (which, let's face it is irrelevant) a British passport will be a diminished item post-Brexit as it will no longer allow the bearer unfettered access to live, work, retire etc in the majority of European countries in the way it does now.
Due to my academic position I am often asked to sign passport application forms as a witness - recently these have been as likely to be Irish application forms for people lucky enough to qualify for dual citizenship and looking to retain the benefits of being a citizen of an EU country for themselves and their families.
Don't really care about colour of passport, care even less about engaging in another point scoring discussion with you.
-
Are you advocating we change policy every six months based on opinion poll?
I'll tell you what I advocate after youShaker answers the question.
-
Looks like it.
Do you want to answer the question?
On the current trend, Brexit no longer has a majority of people in favour of it and there's no sign of the trend abating. Is democracy served by continuing on a course that most of the people don't seem to want?
-
Don't really care about colour of passport, care even less about engaging in another point scoring discussion with you.
A lot of your fellow Brexiteers do seem to care. Many of them seem to be calling it a symbolic victory and dear old Nigel Farage is wetting his pants about it. It's pathetic. The country is being driven down the toilet, but, hey, we have blue passports.
-
A lot of your fellow Brexiteers do seem to care. Many of them seem to be calling it a symbolic victory and dear old Nigel Farago is wetting his pants about it. It's pathetic. The country is being driven down the toilet, but, hey, we have blue passports.
Farage is a pathetic creep, and the worst sort of hypocrite taking a salary as an MEP! >:(
-
Regarding the shape and size of passports, these are set in stone. We can't go back to the "Old Blue" passports because of all the machine readers that they have to fit in.
We were discussing passports at our traditional Christmas last day in the pub at work. It made me feel quite old because I worked on the first UK computerised passport system and it still had to handle extensions to "old blue" passports for children and most of the people in our company were born after old blues were completely obsolete and had never seen one.
-
A lot of your fellow Brexiteers do seem to care. Many of them seem to be calling it a symbolic victory and dear old Nigel Farage is wetting his pants about it. It's pathetic. The country is being driven down the toilet, but, hey, we have blue passports.
Which we could have had at any time while in the EU: EU dismisses May's claim blue passports are sovereignty statement (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/23/eu-guy-verhofstadt-dismisses-mays-claim-blue-passports-are-sovereignty-statement)
-
Which we could have had at any time while in the EU: EU dismisses May's claim blue passports are sovereignty statement (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/23/eu-guy-verhofstadt-dismisses-mays-claim-blue-passports-are-sovereignty-statement)
The reason people like Nigel Farage are so ecstatic is that this is the only tangible consequence of Brexit that has happened so far that is not a complete screw up.
-
The reason people like Nigel Farage are so ecstatic is that this is the only tangible consequence of Brexit that has happened so far that is not a complete screw up.
Except that it's not actually a consequence of Brexit, just something the small-minded Brexit clowns can pretend is a consequence of Brexit.
-
Except that it's not actually a consequence of Brexit
Well it is. Without Brexit, the colour would be the same as the existing passports. Yes there is no legal reason why they couldn't change the colour but they wouldn't have.
-
A lot of your fellow Brexiteers do seem to care. Many of them seem to be calling it a symbolic victory and dear old Nigel Farage is wetting his pants about it. It's pathetic. The country is being driven down the toilet, but, hey, we have blue passports.
Take it up with them then, just because some people agree on one question doesn't align them on all issues.
-
just because some people agree on one question doesn't align them on all issues.
So you agree that the Brexiteers have no common vision for the future of this country, apart form the colour of the passports. No wonder they are screwing it up so badly.
-
The passport thing is getting embarrassing now.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/23/blue-passport-brexit-pr-stunt-says-former-thatcher-aide-charles-powell
Even some of the Remainers are getting in on the act.
Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon was another who tweeted that the episode risked further damaging UK’s reputation on the world stage, denouncing the return of the navy blue passport as “insular, inward-looking, blue passport-obsessed nonsense”
-
Is it slightly ironic that the EU flag is also blue? ::)
-
So you agree that the Brexiteers have no common vision for the future of this country, apart form the colour of the passports. No wonder they are screwing it up so badly.
Do you agree that all remainers have no common vision for the future of this country?
With regard to Brexit Remainers are split, some want it overturned, others accept the result but want a vote on the deal, others just think we should get on with it.
Drop the Tribalism.
-
Ooh look a lecture on tribalism from a Brexiteer.
Irony will never die.
-
Yes, but being a Brexiteer does mean that he will be totally devoid of any understanding of the irony.
Do you agree that all remainers have no common vision for the future of this country?
Isn't continuing to be a member of the European Union a common vision?
Modified for clarity in use of negative expression
-
Do you agree that all remainers have no common vision for the future of this country?
No. Of course not. We all wanted to carry on in the EU.
With regard to Brexit Remainers are split, some want it overturned, others accept the result but want a vote on the deal, others just think we should get on with it.
Drop the Tribalism.
You are transparently trying to deflect from the point. It's the Brexiteers that wanted us to leave and the Brexiteers that needed to come up with a coherent vision of what leaving should look like. Stop trying to blame the Remainers for the Brexiteers screw up.
-
Jakswan, skip the stupidity - or assumption of stupidity. We all know that you are capable of rational thought (if you try hard).
There are no splits in the remain camp. Every single member wants the same thing - abandonment of Brexit and a return to the acceptance of unbroken, continued membership of the EU. There is no tribalism.
On the other hand, the Brexit minority is split into many camps, none representing rationality. Nostalgia appears to be an important component of the Brexit case - but nostalgia is not what it used to be.
-
Here is a (so far) unexplored on this forum consequence of Brexit to which, as far as I know, neither Jakswan nor Nigel Farage have paid any attention.
My edited quote is from an answer on Quora given by a retired senior French civil servant.
Great Britain imports around 20TWh per year, or more than 5% of its [electricity]consumption, mainly from France and the Netherlands. Power lines connecting the British Isles to the mainland are vital for powering and balancing the grid.
The electricity exchange capacity on the IFA 2000 submarine cable between France and England has been open to competition since 1 April 2001. However, the maximum transmission capacity of this link is limited to 2,000 Megawatts (MW). In order to allocate in a fair and non-discriminatory way the right of passage over this link to all market players (traders, suppliers, producers, etc.), the French and English transmission system operators, RTE and National Grid set up, from 1 April 2001, in a coordinated way, an auction system which is a bilateral mechanism for allocating electricity capacity.
…
They are likely to be frozen or slowed down until the regulatory framework is clarified, resulting in a deterioration of energy security in the British Isles. A good thing though: even within the WTO, electricity trade (as well as oil, gas or coal) between Britain and the EU will not be subject to tariffs.
Finally, the exit of the European Economic Area should lead to the exit of the Internal Energy Market. This system allows the coupling of electricity markets and facilitates cross-border balancing. Leaving the internal energy market will make balancing the UK grid even more difficult and pull electricity prices up. This should also increase volatility, already high in Britain with serious consequences for new electricity providers that have multiplied in the country for 5 years and are experiencing significant difficulties.
How on earth will the UK be able to meet the supposed increase in demand for its products if it can't plug its electric kettles into a reliable electricity source? Will the UK have to go cap-in-hand to China again, and beg for another nuclear power station to be built (at excessive cost) ready to go on-line in about 20 years time?
-
Here's another one. My Mum is in a care home - the owners of which have written to me informing that the fees will rise by 7.9% from February. Some of this increase is due to the lack of EU workers who have already left after the referendum vote, leading to an increased reliance on agency staff.
To put that in context 7.9% equates to just over £50 a week on my Mum's bill - an extra £2,600 a year. Now I know there are other factors at work - not least the fact that self funders like my Mum subsidise residents who are paid for by the local authority because they can't afford to pay the full costs of social care - but the leave vote puts another pressure on an already stretched and pressurised area of social care.
But do remind me Brexiteers when does this become a price worth paying?
-
Ooh look a lecture on tribalism from a Brexiteer.
Irony will never die.
Tribalism as I used it is to label those on the 'other side' with derogatory terms and to use a large dose of prejudice.
Please explain your post.
-
Yes, but being a Brexiteer does mean that he will be totally devoid of any understanding of the irony.
Which implies all Brexiteers are stupid?
Isn't continuing to be a member of the European Union a common vision?
Yes but not all remainers now want that, besides JP accused Brexiters of not having a common vision for the country, which I wouldn't expect since its such a wide remit.
-
No. Of course not. We all wanted to carry on in the EU.
We were all asked to vote on a single issue those that voted all had different visions for the country.
You are transparently trying to deflect from the point. It's the Brexiteers that wanted us to leave and the Brexiteers that needed to come up with a coherent vision of what leaving should look like. Stop trying to blame the Remainers for the Brexiteers screw up.
Newsflash the country is leaving and we live in a democracy so exactly how we leave should be on that basis. I know you want to sit in the corner with the dummy on the floor telling us how horrible it all is and losing the vote wasn't your fault, but the grown ups need to decide what happens next.
-
And as has been previously pointed out "the grown ups" in this case aka the tories are doing a splendid job of it. For the hard of thinking "splendid" in this instace is dripping with sarcasm.
-
Tribalism as I used it is to label those on the 'other side' with derogatory terms and to use a large dose of prejudice.
Please explain your post.
One thing I would not accuse you of is being stupid. So I'm sure you've worked it out for yourself by now.
-
Yes but not all remainers now want that, besides JP accused Brexiters of not having a common vision for the country,
It wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact.
which I wouldn't expect since its such a wide remit.
Well, I'm really not understanding why Brexiteers didn't hold off the actual Brexit until they did have a common understanding. I think the negotiations would be going much better if everybody knew what we were aiming at.
-
It wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact.
It was an accusation in that you expect one group of people who voted on a single issue to have the same vision for the country.
Well, I'm really not understanding why Brexiteers didn't hold off the actual Brexit until they did have a common understanding. I think the negotiations would be going much better if everybody knew what we were aiming at.
I think you are still misunderstanding, as a result of the vote the country is leaving the EU, not Brexiters the country, Remainers, Brexiters all have an input, via democratic means, to have a say on what the final deal with the EU should be. Subject to negotiations we can then say what the deal could be.
-
We were all asked to vote on a single issue those that voted all had different visions for the country.
Wrong.
The Remainers all had the same goal of staying in the EU.
I know you want to sit in the corner with the dummy on the floor telling us how horrible it all is and losing the vote wasn't your fault, but the grown ups need to decide what happens next.
I'm saying that the winners of the vote needed to decide before starting out on the actual leaving part.
Would you really characterise the Brexit negotiations as going well? Be honest.
-
It was an accusation in that you expect one group of people who voted on a single issue to have the same vision for the country.
You don't really read other people's posts, do you. I didn't say "all the people that voted one way", I said "Brexiteers".
I think you are still misunderstanding, as a result of the vote the country is leaving the EU, not Brexiters the country
Yes, unfortunately. We all have to go through the pain and hardship for something that Brexiteers can't even agree on.
Remainers, Brexiters all have an input, via democratic means, to have a say on what the final deal with the EU should be. Subject to negotiations we can then say what the deal could be.
What is the mechanism for me to get my say on the final deal? What if the majority of people don't like it - and it is very likely that the majority of people won't like it because the hard Brexiteers won't like a soft Brexit and the soft Brexiteers won't like a hard Brexit.
-
If this is a fall out of Brexit...its probably a good thing!
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42452950
*********
Long before Manchester had football, it had cotton.
The city and surrounding region was built on the success of spinning and sewing during the industrial revolution, giving rise to its catchy nickname, Cottonopolis.
But as production slowed, moved off shore and we began to import, the beautiful red brick mills in the North West fell silent.
Now, ending a 40-year hiatus, cotton is once again back on the production line.
After a £6m investment, textile manufacturer English Fine Cottons has started spinning cotton imported from the sunny fields of southern California to here in Greater Manchester, producing yarn that's being used across the region in a newly reopened supply chain.
"It's really re-engaged the weavers and the finishers and the dyers to pull together and forge those chains back again, and there's an enormous appetite for provenance and British made and the quality that we're making here as well," says Tracy Hawkins, managing director of English Fine Cottons.
In an area rooted in centuries of textile history, expertise and resounding pride, the cotton process has slowly been sewn back together.
*********
-
If this is a fall out of Brexit...its probably a good thing!
It's not the fall out of Brexit. We haven't yet left the EU so all this was done under EU rules in the EU single market.
In fact, depending on the deal we get, it might be snuffed out by Brexit - if they whack on a tariff for import of textiles.
-
Wrong.
The Remainers all had the same goal of staying in the EU.
Remaining in the EU and a vision for the country are two different, albeit slightly overlapping, things.
I'm saying that the winners of the vote needed to decide before starting out on the actual leaving part.
First that would be impossible to decide since no one could know what the EU negotiations would lead to and secondly, despite losing, the remainers still have a valid voice in what happens next.
Would you really characterise the Brexit negotiations as going well? Be honest.
As expected, still thinking it will be free trade, freedom of movement of labour sort of deal.
-
You don't really read other people's posts, do you. I didn't say "all the people that voted one way", I said "Brexiteers".
If you are using Remainers as all those that voted one way then I think you are forced to use the opposite term the same way.
Yes, unfortunately. We all have to go through the pain and hardship for something that Brexiteers can't even agree on.
We all have to go through the pain and hardship for something that Remainers can't even agree on, some want another vote on the deal, some want to get out, some want to ignore the result.
What is the mechanism for me to get my say on the final deal? What if the majority of people don't like it - and it is very likely that the majority of people won't like it because the hard Brexiteers won't like a soft Brexit and the soft Brexiteers won't like a hard Brexit.
Write to MP, campaign, try to change peoples minds to your thinking with persuasive argument, vote in elections. Being abusive of others on an internet forum I suspect isn't going to get you far.
I think a proportion of the population say 25% ish think leaving the EU is one of the the biggest disasters in the history of the country, had the LibDems won 25% of the vote then most likely Brexit would not be happening.
Funny thing is though people that talk like Brexit as a disaster, like you, I don't recall campaigning for the LibDems in the last election, some feel its easier to sit on the sidelines I guess.
-
First that would be impossible to decide since no one could know what the EU negotiations would lead to and secondly, despite losing, the remainers still have a valid voice in what happens next.
Rubbish.
The negotiations might force us to modify our goals but there should have been a clear vision as to where we wanted to end up when we started. There should also have been a realistic assessment of what the EU would let us have and it should all have been communicated clearly to the public.
As expected, still thinking it will be free trade, freedom of movement of labour sort of deal.
You were expected the complete screw up that is unfolding?
-
Rubbish.
Bluster.
The negotiations might force us to modify our goals but there should have been a clear vision as to where we wanted to end up when we started. There should also have been a realistic assessment of what the EU would let us have and it should all have been communicated clearly to the public.
It was if we left the EU we would be out of the single market, leaders of both leave and remain campaigns said that.
The two campaigns leave and remain made claims but neither would be forming a Govt, an election was held post Brexit both leave parties Labour and Tory romped home.
You were expected the complete screw up that is unfolding?
I think the Govt have not been great but expect it be a long difficult negotiation.
-
We all have to go through the pain and hardship for something that Remainers can't even agree on, some want another vote on the deal, some want to get out, some want to ignore the result.
No. If the Remainers had prevailed we would have stayed inside the EU with all the rights and benefits we have had for forty years.
Being abusive of others on an internet forum I suspect isn't going to get you far.
Being abusive does not help. Fortunately, I don't see anybody on this forum being abusive. On the other hand, the the abuse that Remainers have had to take since the referendum just because we still disagree with the Brexiteers has been absolutely corrosive. In particular, the Brexiteer press can only be described as rabid.
I think a proportion of the population say 25% ish think leaving the EU is one of the the biggest disasters in the history of the country
A much larger proportion, while not putting it in those terms, would rather it wasn't happening. If the opinion polls are correct, it's 10% more than the proportion that wants to carry on with Brexit.
, had the LibDems won 25% of the vote then most likely Brexit would not be happening.
Funny thing is though people that talk like Brexit as a disaster, like you, I don't recall campaigning for the LibDems in the last election.
Well I did in a small way as a matter of fact.
-
It was if we left the EU we would be out of the single market, leaders of both leave and remain campaigns said that.
Some Leavers wanted us out of the Single Market, some wanted us in. The government seemed to be trying to keep it secret. Now it looks like, we will have to stay in in order to resolve the Irish border problem. I'm sure some of the Brexiteers are unhappy about that.
The two campaigns leave and remain made claims but neither would be forming a Govt, an election was held post Brexit both leave parties Labour and Tory romped home.
That's an interesting way to put it. The Tories lost their majority and yet Labour failed to turf them out. That's not romping for either party. I think Labour would have romped home if they'd promised to at least pause Brexit to take stock of the situation and provide a coherent plan of where we hope to end up.
I think the Govt have not been great but expect it be a long difficult negotiation.
That's an understatement. So what happened to the impact assessments do you think? Was David Davies lying when he said they were too complicated to let us see them or is he lying now when he says they don't exist?
-
No. If the Remainers had prevailed we would have stayed inside the EU with all the rights and benefits we have had for forty years.
Yes but they lost and how they want to proceed on Brexit is not all the same.
Being abusive does not help. Fortunately, I don't see anybody on this forum being abusive. On the other hand, the the abuse that Remainers have had to take since the referendum just because we still disagree with the Brexiteers has been absolutely corrosive. In particular, the Brexiteer press can only be described as rabid.
Some of the press has not been great, having a go at them with a suggestion that all Brexiteers are the same is abusive.
A much larger proportion, while not putting it in those terms, would rather it wasn't happening. If the opinion polls are correct, it's 10% more than the proportion that wants to carry on with Brexit.
Opinion polls count for little, elections and referendums do.
-
Some Leavers wanted us out of the Single Market, some wanted us in. The government seemed to be trying to keep it secret. Now it looks like, we will have to stay in in order to resolve the Irish border problem. I'm sure some of the Brexiteers are unhappy about that.
But some will be happy and so will many remainers.
That's an interesting way to put it. The Tories lost their majority and yet Labour failed to turf them out. That's not romping for either party. I think Labour would have romped home if they'd promised to at least pause Brexit to take stock of the situation and provide a coherent plan of where we hope to end up.
Ahh yes if, as it was they were pro-Brexit
Today:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42503659
"Tom Brake, Brexit spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the Labour leadership had "shirked their responsibility" to provide effective opposition to the government.
"The Labour leadership has constantly played a game of smoke and mirrors over their Brexit position.
"But here they are nailing their colours to the mast in support of hard Brexit," he added.
That's an understatement. So what happened to the impact assessments do you think? Was David Davies lying when he said they were too complicated to let us see them or is he lying now when he says they don't exist?"[/i]
Take it up with him.
-
Interesting resignation letter from Lord Adonis to the Maybot - worth a read.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42515637
-
Yes but they lost and how they want to proceed on Brexit is not all the same.
You didn't ask how they want to proceed on Brexit, you tried to deny they had a coherent vision. They did have a coherent vision: be a member of the European community of nations. Following the vote, reaction has been varied, but I think you'll find that most still wish they hadn't lost.
Some of the press has not been great, having a go at them with a suggestion that all Brexiteers are the same is abusive.
I don't suggest that all Brexiteers are the same, but many of them do follow the lead of the press.
Opinion polls count for little, elections and referendums do.
The referendum wasn't really much more than a government organised opinion poll. In any case, until we have another referendum, opinion polls are the only tool we have to gauge public opinion. And there's no reason to believe the current ones are wrong within the normal margin of error.
-
Take it up with him.
I want your opinion on David Davies and his impact assessments that existed and then didn't and then did but were stolen off Wikipedia. Surely you must have one. You Brexiteers seem so unwilling to confront the consequences of your vote, I'm beginning to think that you are all in denial.
-
You didn't ask how they want to proceed on Brexit, you tried to deny they had a coherent vision. They did have a coherent vision: be a member of the European community of nations. Following the vote, reaction has been varied, but I think you'll find that most still wish they hadn't lost.
No you suggested that Brexiteers didn't have a clear vision for Britain and I stated that neither have the remain side now since they all want different things to happen next.
I don't suggest that all Brexiteers are the same, but many of them do follow the lead of the press.
Some may, I'd tone down the prejudice if I were you.
The referendum wasn't really much more than a government organised opinion poll. In any case, until we have another referendum, opinion polls are the only tool we have to gauge public opinion. And there's no reason to believe the current ones are wrong within the normal margin of error.
And you claim I'm in denial, this is your opinion the opinion that matters is the politicians in Parliament.
Almost all major political parties supported the referendum and decided to give the electorate the decision to stay or leave. As I recall before the Referendum Bill passed before Parliament politicians were vowing to 'respect the result', you can't say that then later claim 'wasn't really much more than a government organised opinion poll'.
Also what do you want to happen next? I'm assuming Brexit not to happen, given politicians will not feel they have a mandate to overturn this result there has to be another referendum, you are undermining your position.
-
I want your opinion on David Davies and his impact assessments that existed and then didn't and then did but were stolen off Wikipedia. Surely you must have one. You Brexiteers seem so unwilling to confront the consequences of your vote, I'm beginning to think that you are all in denial.
He was careless with his language bordering on dishonest, there was sectoral analysis but never impact assessments. Not sure what impact assessments would look like since you can't know the final deal.
-
That unpleasant piece of work, 'Farage', is upset because he isn't featured in the New Year's honours list for his services to Brexit. I remember the lies he told about the money we paid for our membership to the EU going to support the NHS! >:(
-
That wasn't one of Nigel's.
-
That wasn't one of Nigel's.
Yes it was.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html
-
That unpleasant piece of work, 'Farage', is upset because he isn't featured in the New Year's honours list for his services to Brexit. I remember the lies he told about the money we paid for our membership to the EU going to support the NHS! >:(
He's upset, is he?!! I hadn't heard that, but serves him right!
-
No you suggested that Brexiteers didn't have a clear vision for Britain and I stated that neither have the remain side now since they all want different things to happen next.
It's pretty obvious Brexiteers so not have a coherent vision for Britain. The Remain side does. But the current situation with the Remain side is irrelevant because Brexit is allegedly happening.
Some may, I'd tone down the prejudice if I were you.
If you can show I was factually wrong, please do. However, it'snot prejudice to state that the Brexiteers are all over the place. It's obvious that they are.
And you claim I'm in denial, this is your opinion the opinion that matters is the politicians in Parliament.
It appears you are in denial because your response to my claim that Brexiteers don't have a coherent vision is a Tu Quoque (i.e. Remainers don't have a coherent vision). You are clinging to Brexit even though many of your fellow Brexiteers are pulling in different directions.
Almost all major political parties supported the referendum and decided to give the electorate the decision to stay or leave. As I recall before the Referendum Bill passed before Parliament politicians were vowing to 'respect the result', you can't say that then later claim 'wasn't really much more than a government organised opinion poll'.
I didn't say I would respect the result before the referendum, so there's nothing hypocritical about me saying it was little more than a government organised opinion poll. The fact is that it was not legally binding and therefore my comment is true whether or not the major parties are respecting it.
Also what do you want to happen next? I'm assuming Brexit not to happen, given politicians will not feel they have a mandate to overturn this result there has to be another referendum, you are undermining your position.
I want Brexit to stop. I think the mandate to continue it is highly dubious and, in any case, it's a bad idea regardless of what the majority of British people who could be bothered to vote thought 18 months ago.
-
He was careless with his language bordering on dishonest, there was sectoral analysis but never impact assessments.
So you are admitting he lied.
Not sure what impact assessments would look like since you can't know the final deal.
So we entered the negotiations without knowing what we were aiming at or what the outcome would be with whatever result we will get.
Holy Fuck. That sounds like criminal negligence to me.
-
It's pretty obvious Brexiteers so not have a coherent vision for Britain. The Remain side does. But the current situation with the Remain side is irrelevant because Brexit is allegedly happening.
Just because Remain lost doesn't mean they do not have a voice.
If you can show I was factually wrong, please do. However, it'snot prejudice to state that the Brexiteers are all over the place. It's obvious that they are.
Of course Brexiteers are all over the place its crazy to expect them to be any other way, they are not a political party they just happen to agree on one issue.
If Corbyn is Remain I doubt his vision for Britain is that of neo-liberal EU, whereas the moderates in Labour also Remain will be.
I'm not being critical of Remain because that just describes a group of people segmented by how they voted on one issue.
It appears you are in denial because your response to my claim that Brexiteers don't have a coherent vision is a Tu Quoque (i.e. Remainers don't have a coherent vision). You are clinging to Brexit even though many of your fellow Brexiteers are pulling in different directions.
I'm not clinging to anything, I did vote for Brexit and I was 7/10 on the issue, I think I'd support another vote on the deal and my mind could be changed.
I didn't say I would respect the result before the referendum, so there's nothing hypocritical about me saying it was little more than a government organised opinion poll. The fact is that it was not legally binding and therefore my comment is true whether or not the major parties are respecting it.
I don't think you are reading what I'm writing. Your opinion is the result can be ignored, politicians, the ones with the power do not agree, in order to get the outcome you seek you have to change their minds.
I want Brexit to stop. I think the mandate to continue it is highly dubious and, in any case, it's a bad idea regardless of what the majority of British people who could be bothered to vote thought 18 months ago.
Ok.
-
So you are admitting he lied.
If you like I've little interest in defending the Tories.
So we entered the negotiations without knowing what we were aiming at or what the outcome would be with whatever result we will get.
I think the sectoral analysis would inform what we were aiming at.
Holy Fuck. That sounds like criminal negligence to me.
Ok.
-
I think the sectoral analysis would inform what we were aiming at.
Wouldn't it have been sensible to have that in place before triggering article 50 - indeed more sensible still to have it in place before the referendum so people would actually have a clue what they were voting for if they voted Leave.
-
Wouldn't it have been sensible to have that in place before triggering article 50 - indeed more sensible still to have it in place before the referendum so people would actually have a clue what they were voting for if they voted Leave.
Like this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
-
Like this:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
Nope - this document doesn't provide the type of information needed to determine which type of brexit would be best (or rather least worst) as it is clear that remaining is the best option.
How it is possible to decide on a negotiating strategy, which presumably requires an desired end point for the UK, without having actually assess the impact of the myriad possible brexit options beggars belief.
-
Nope - this document doesn't provide the type of information needed to determine which type of brexit would be best (or rather least worst) as it is clear that remaining is the best option.
How it is possible to decide on a negotiating strategy, which presumably requires an desired end point for the UK, without having actually assess the impact of the myriad possible brexit options beggars belief.
That said I think we remain in the dark as to whether they exist or not - Davis seems to constantly be flipped-flopping on their existence. What we do know is that they haven't been made available to MPs as required by Parliament - so we can be sure that if they do exist they do not make comfortable reading for the Brexiteers.
-
That said I think we remain in the dark as to whether they exist or not - Davis seems to constantly be flipped-flopping on their existence. What we do know is that they haven't been made available to MPs as required by Parliament - so we can be sure that if they do exist they do not make comfortable reading for the Brexiteers.
I think the analyses were done but were very negative with respect to whatever his Brexit strategy is. He did everything he could to stop people from seeing them but when he failed, he did the equivalent of "dog ate my homework" and then rapidly put together some crap to try to appease the enemy.
The logical part of my brain tells me that is a wild conspiracy theory, but I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve him being a snivelling pathetic idiot using "dog ate my homework" style excuses.
-
Interesting survey on views of members of political parties has just been published - full details here:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/qmul/media/publications/Grassroots,-Britain's-Party-Members.pdf
% who agree or strongly agree with the following statements:
1. Britain should stay in the single market
Con 25%
Lab 87%
LD 96%
SNP 95%
2. Britain should stay in the customs union
Con 27%
Lab 85%
LD 95%
SNP 91%
3. There should be a second referendum on the Brexit deal
Con 14%
Lab 78%
LD 91%
SNP 87%
Given the overwhelming support for remaining in the Single Market/Customs union and for a referendum on the final deal amongst Labour members, how long can the leadership retain a policy so out of line with its members views (and of course the views of the broader group of Labour voters, and narrower, but critical group of Labour MPs).
-
Interesting survey on views of members of political parties has just been published - full details here:
http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/qmul/media/publications/Grassroots,-Britain's-Party-Members.pdf
% who agree or strongly agree with the following statements:
1. Britain should stay in the single market
Con 25%
Lab 87%
LD 96%
SNP 95%
2. Britain should stay in the customs union
Con 27%
Lab 85%
LD 95%
SNP 91%
3. There should be a second referendum on the Brexit deal
Con 14%
Lab 78%
LD 91%
SNP 87%
Given the overwhelming support for remaining in the Single Market/Customs union and for a referendum on the final deal amongst Labour members, how long can the leadership retain a policy so out of line with its members views (and of course the views of the broader group of Labour voters, and narrower, but critical group of Labour MPs).
I'm amazed given the strength of feeling on Brexit that the centrists in Labour seem to be putting party before country, it will be too late soon.
-
I'm amazed given the strength of feeling on Brexit that the centrists in Labour seem to be putting party before country, it will be too late soon.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'putting party before country' - surely if it was just pandering to the party, then Labour would commit to single market membership and a referendum on the final deal, as that is the overwhelming view of the 'party' in all its forms (voters, members, MPs).
Why they aren't is, frankly, beyond me.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by 'putting party before country' - surely if it was just pandering to the party, then Labour would commit to single market membership and a referendum on the final deal, as that is the overwhelming view of the 'party' in all its forms (voters, members, MPs).
Why they aren't is, frankly, beyond me.
Cos Jezza & JM are pro-Brexit?
A socialist state won't be possible in the EU.
-
As I have said before, removing the UK from the EU will be one of its biggest mistakes EVER, imo.
-
Cos Jezza & JM are pro-Brexit?
A socialist state won't be possible in the EU.
But they are also completely wedded to the notion that the leadership is merely a mouthpiece for the membership - that's how the left wing of the Labour party thinks - that the membership is basically in charge of the party.
-
But they are also completely wedded to the notion that the leadership is merely a mouthpiece for the membership - that's how the left wing of the Labour party thinks - that the membership is basically in charge of the party.
I don't think so, what else explains their lack of substantial movement on this issue?
Also forgot to explain my 'party before country' line...
The centrists in Labour feel very strongly that Brexit is a bad idea, yet Labour position as set out by John Mcdonell is Pro-Brexit
e.g.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-john-mcdonell-votes-tories-labour-customs-unions-amendment-protection-a8066411.html
If the centrists revolted and demanded a change in policy then its open warfare in Labour again, it might tear the party apart, so they don't revolt even though they think Brexit is a disaster for UK, ala party before country.
-
If the centrists revolted and demanded a change in policy then its open warfare in Labour again, it might tear the party apart, so they don't revolt even though they think Brexit is a disaster for UK, ala party before country.
Why would it result in open warfare - it would be quite the reverse as a change in policy would align policy with the views of the vast, vast majority of the party both in Westminster and amongst rank and file members. A change in policy would create a party much more comfortable with itself on policy rather than the current extremely uneasy situation where the vast majority don't agree with the policy (and it is pretty clear too when you hear even those at the top that they aren't really comfortable with the situation).
-
Why would it result in open warfare
The leadership - Corbyn specifically - is Euro-sceptic. He wants Brexit to happen although he may disagree with the government on the specifics. I don't think the Labour party could change course without another leadership battle.
-
The leadership - Corbyn specifically - is Euro-sceptic. He wants Brexit to happen although he may disagree with the government on the specifics. I don't think the Labour party could change course without another leadership battle.
I think Corbyn is euro-conflicted rather than euro-sceptic. I think there are many aspect to the EU project that resonate greatly - remember left wing politics has always considered itself to be inherently internationalist.
But he is also, at heart, a believer in 'bottom-up' politics - in other words that the membership decide and the leadership are custodians of the decisions of the members. The best example of this is Trident renewal. This is an area where Corbyn is much more passionate (and vehemently opposed) compared to the EU - yet he went into the 2017 General Election as leader of a party that had committed to Trident replacement in its manifesto. Why? Because that is what the membership decided.
-
I think Corbyn is euro-conflicted rather than euro-sceptic.
Historically he is Euro-sceptic. That's why he was almost invisible during the referendum campaign.
But he is also, at heart, a believer in 'bottom-up' politics - in other words that the membership decide and the leadership are custodians of the decisions of the members. The best example of this is Trident renewal. This is an area where Corbyn is much more passionate (and vehemently opposed) compared to the EU - yet he went into the 2017 General Election as leader of a party that had committed to Trident replacement in its manifesto. Why? Because that is what the membership decided.
I think that is why he is very quiet about what his personal EU views are.
-
Historically he is Euro-sceptic. That's why he was almost invisible during the referendum campaign.
I think that is why he is very quiet about what his personal EU views are.
Don't understand that last point. Seems to say Corbyn is keeping quiet about the EU because he is getting his way?
-
I think Corbyn is euro-conflicted rather than euro-sceptic. I think there are many aspect to the EU project that resonate greatly - remember left wing politics has always considered itself to be inherently internationalist.
The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not.
But he is also, at heart, a believer in 'bottom-up' politics - in other words that the membership decide and the leadership are custodians of the decisions of the members. The best example of this is Trident renewal. This is an area where Corbyn is much more passionate (and vehemently opposed) compared to the EU - yet he went into the 2017 General Election as leader of a party that had committed to Trident replacement in its manifesto. Why? Because that is what the membership decided.
No at heart he is a socialist, he did give a little bit of pragmatic ground on Trident but even then was promising an early defence review, which I felt clearly meant the policy would change should Labour get into power.
How many times has JC voted against the Labour party?
If JC gets into power it will be socialism and that can't happen EU, I know it, you know it and most importantly JC knows it.
-
Why would it result in open warfare - it would be quite the reverse as a change in policy would align policy with the views of the vast, vast majority of the party both in Westminster and amongst rank and file members. A change in policy would create a party much more comfortable with itself on policy rather than the current extremely uneasy situation where the vast majority don't agree with the policy (and it is pretty clear too when you hear even those at the top that they aren't really comfortable with the situation).
The picture you paint of JC is that he is a pragmatic politician, he isn't, he is an idealist and has rebelled against his own party many many times.
You said yourself 'Why they aren't is, frankly, beyond me' I offered an explanation, Occams?
-
The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not.
Absolute rubbish - the extreme left have always been extremely internationalist - seeing their politics as a movement that has no truck with traditional national borders - indeed they are typically very dismissive of the very notion of the nation state.
The extreme right, I freely accept are nationalist, not internationalist, but not the extreme left. Think about the 30s when those on hard left joined international brigades to fight for their political views in wars that didn't come close to involving the UK - that's because of their internationalist outlook.
-
No at heart he is a socialist, he did give a little bit of pragmatic ground on Trident but even then was promising an early defence review, which I felt clearly meant the policy would change should Labour get into power.
Sure he is a socialist - and one of his most firmly held views, expressed time and time again over decades is his opposition to nuclear weapons and the UK nuclear deterrent.
Yet he included renewal in his manifesto - that goes beyond 'pragmatism' - he did so out of another massively firmly held view of his - that the leadership of the party accepts the views of the membership - that the membership holds the power, not the leadership. And sure, he might call for a review, but that review would be subject to endorsement by the membership and Corbyn will accept their view, regardless of whether he likes their decision - just as he did in 2015 and 2016.
-
As a quick question, has Corbyn reversed his statement about not suggesting HoL candidates because of a party decision?
-
If JC gets into power it will be socialism and that can't happen EU, I know it, you know it and most importantly JC knows it.
Really - I don't think Corbyn's are any more 'extreme' than those regularly adopted by many EU countries, notably Sweden, Denmark and Finland regularly over the past few decades. They seemed to manage it pretty comfortably while remaining members of the EU.
I don't agree with Corbyn on a range of issues, and my biggest problem with him is that I do not believe that he is able to actually run anything, rather than simply being a occasionally effective campaigner. However I cannot see how anything in the 2017 Labour manifesto is somehow incompatible with being in the EU (except the required bits on Brexit which the party did not support in the referendum).
-
As a quick question, has Corbyn reversed his statement about not suggesting HoL candidates because of a party decision?
Context please?
-
The logical part of my brain tells me that is a wild conspiracy theory, but I can't think of an alternative that doesn't involve him being a snivelling pathetic idiot using "dog ate my homework" style excuses.
:D :D :D
-
Absolute rubbish - the extreme left have always been extremely internationalist - seeing their politics as a movement that has no truck with traditional national borders - indeed they are typically very dismissive of the very notion of the nation state.
The extreme left like the Soviet Union, China are extremely internationalist?
Some debate about the Nazi's - the National Socialist party were left wing but don't think I need to go there.
-
I think you two are arguing over different interpretations of the extreme left.
Prof was talking largely about the "extreme left" in a European context in response to your comments about Corbyn. To then drag in the state communism of the former USSR and the current China is not really relevant.
As for bringing in the National Socialists - go read William L Shirer.
Totalitarianism is not a synonym for socialism.
-
I think you two are arguing over different interpretations of the extreme left.
Prof was talking largely about the "extreme left" in a European context in response to your comments about Corbyn. To then drag in the state communism of the former USSR and the current China is not really relevant.
As for bringing in the National Socialists - go read William L Shirer.
Totalitarianism is not a synonym for socialism.
Indeed - I suspect Jakswan doesn't really understand the difference between a democratic socialist and an authoritarian communist - they are chalk and cheese - but to him I guess they are just 'lefties'.
-
Indeed - I suspect Jakswan doesn't really understand the difference between a democratic socialist and an authoritarian communist - they are chalk and cheese - but to him I guess they are just 'lefties'.
Of course they are chalk and cheese mainly on a different axis (liberal - authoritarian) but I'm not making claims about the extreme left, you were.
-
... but I'm not making claims about the extreme left, you were.
Really?!? Am I imaging post 12026 in which you make the following statement (direct quote):
"The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not."
If that isn't making a claim about the extreme left (i.e. that they are not internationalist) then I have no idea what it is.
-
The extreme left like the Soviet Union, China are extremely internationalist?
Actually yes, in theory, although in practice global factionalism kicks in, in which 'my version of left wing politics is better than your version' prevails.
But the inherent political philosophy underpinning most left wing ideologies (whether socialist, communist etc) is internationalist - 'workers of the world unite', perhaps the most famous phrase from the communist manifesto is inherently internationalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite!
The whole development of left wing politics is imbued with the idea (ideal perhaps) that workers are involved in the same struggle regardless of where they live in the world and that change happens when those workers unite and support each other where-ever they may be.
By contrast most right wing politics, on the extreme margins, is inherently nationalist focussing on people in one country or race etc. So while Hitler may have considered Mussolini or Franco as pragmatically useful allies, they weren't fighting the same battle as for Hitler the focus was Germany and the German people, while for Mussolini it was the Italian people etc. That isn't internationalist in the way that 'workers of the world unite' inherently is.
-
The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not.
A little learning may do you some good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)
Read the article and you will see that the history of internationalism is effectively completely aligned with the development of left wing politics from the mid 19thC onwards, and involves those with both moderate and more extreme left wing political positions.
Internationalism and left wing politics (across the political spectrum of the left) are basically intertwined.
If you had ever spent any time as a member of a left wing political organisation, talking to those across the left you would get that - internationalism runs through those on the left like 'Blackpool' runs through a stick of rock.
-
Really?!? Am I imaging post 12026 in which you make the following statement (direct quote):
"The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not."
If that isn't making a claim about the extreme left (i.e. that they are not internationalist) then I have no idea what it is.
The extreme left can be internationalist, in fact my statement there was partially wrong. Neither the centre left or centre right are inherently internationalist.
This is from Wiki on JC:-
In the 1975 European Union referendum put forward by the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, Corbyn opposed Britain's membership of the European Union (EU).[197]
Corbyn also opposed the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, saying: "... the whole basis of the Maastricht treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability[.] That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom—or any other Government—would wish to carry out. ... The Maastricht treaty does not take us in the direction of the checks and balances contained in the American federal constitution[.] It takes us in the opposite direction of an unelected legislative body—the [European] Commission—and, in the case of foreign policy, a policy Commission that will be, in effect, imposing foreign policy on nation states that have fought for their own democratic accountability".[198][199][200]
Corbyn also opposed the Lisbon Treaty in 2008[201] and backed a proposed referendum on British withdrawal from the European Union in 2011.
Again you seem to have been puzzled why Labour haven't changed policy, I've given you a reason
-
A little learning may do you some good:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)
Read the article and you will see that the history of internationalism is effectively completely aligned with the development of left wing politics from the mid 19thC onwards, and involves those with both moderate and more extreme left wing political positions.
Internationalism and left wing politics (across the political spectrum of the left) are basically intertwined.
If you had ever spent any time as a member of a left wing political organisation, talking to those across the left you would get that - internationalism runs through those on the left like 'Blackpool' runs through a stick of rock.
Inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
First I would suggest 'inherently' is too strong a term, secondly I don't see why an internationalist would necessarily support Remain. The EU is a free trade area but retains barriers to trade for non-member states.
Corbyn on Scotland, United Ireland, EU, is generally to support independence.
-
Inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.
Absolutely - it's how left wing politicians think in my (rather extensive) experience.
First I would suggest 'inherently' is too strong a term
Nope - see above - I really don't think you have spent much time in the company of Labour party activists/members and those of the more extreme left (e.g. SWP) - if you had you would get it.
, secondly I don't see why an internationalist would necessarily support Remain.
I never said they would - actually what I said was that Corbyn is euro-conflicted - the essential element of internationalism inherent in the EU is highly attractive, but its implementation less so to him (effectively not because it is international, which he likes, but because he perceives it not to be socialist) - indeed the quotes from Corbyn that you 'quote-mined' seem to imply this. His issue isn't EU in theory, but EU in practice.
-
Again you seem to have been puzzled why Labour haven't changed policy, I've given you a reason
They have changed policy - don't forget that just over 18 months ago Labour supported remaining in the UK, a policy supported by the vast majority of its MPs, the vast majority of its members and activists and the vast majority of its voters.
They now have a policy that isn't supported by the vast majority of its MPs, the vast majority of its members and activists and the vast majority of its voters.
Actually this has plenty of time to run, as (I gather) Labour's actual policy is to keep all options open.
-
Absolutely - it's how left wing politicians think in my (rather extensive) experience.
Nope - see above - I really don't think you have spent much time in the company of Labour party activists/members and those of the more extreme left (e.g. SWP) - if you had you would get it.
I never said they would - actually what I said was that Corbyn is euro-conflicted - the essential element of internationalism inherent in the EU is highly attractive, but its implementation less so to him (effectively not because it is international, which he likes, but because he perceives it not to be socialist) - indeed the quotes from Corbyn that you 'quote-mined' seem to imply this. His issue isn't EU in theory, but EU in practice.
With quote mine slur I'll leave you to it. 🙄
-
With quote mine slur I'll leave you to it. 🙄
Why did you not quote the full thing rather than a string of partial quote interspersed with multiple ... and [.] - whatever the latter means. Also I note no link to the original source. Classic quote miners techniques.
-
Why did you not quote the full thing rather than a string of partial quote interspersed with multiple ... and [.] - whatever the latter means. Also I note no link to the original source. Classic quote miners techniques.
Actually your 'quote' isn't a quote at all, but some kind of mash up.
So this is what Corbyn actually said - in full in the debate on the Matricht Treaty in 1993:
"I have listened with great care to what my hon. Friend has said about article 2 and its social objectives. Does he concede that the whole basis of the Maastricht treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability? That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom--or any other Government-- would wish to carry out. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the imposition of a bankers' Europe on the people of this continent will endanger the cause of socialism in the United Kingdom and in any other country?"
Note that the first part (starting 'Does he concede ...') is framed as a question, but your amended quote implies it to be a statement which is disingenuous. Note the section I have emphasised, which you failed to include at all. This makes it clear that Corbyn's issue isn't with the EU in theory, but that its practical implementation is, in his view, not consistent with furthering socialism across Europe (which is in itself entirely consistent with a classic internationalism agenda).
-
Why did you not quote the full thing rather than a string of partial quote interspersed with multiple ... and [.] - whatever the latter means. Also I note no link to the original source. Classic quote miners techniques.
I got it from wiki I'd find you the link but can't be arsed in playing point scoring games.
In my opinion Brexit is more likely with Corbyn and Co running the Labour party.
-
I quite like Stephen Law.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/big-picture-labour-vs-pragmatic-labour.html
-
Farage warming to a second referendum.
-
Farage warming to a second referendum.
Indeed - there really is a head of steam developing here, and given that any further referendum (not a second one but the first on a specific deal) cannot happen until the final deal is known, probably 2021-ish then there is plenty of time for that head of steam to develop irresistible momentum.
-
Aaron Banks as well.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/millionaire-brexit-backer-aaron-banks-11835287
-
Of course the true divide is Mrs Brown's Boys
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/from-brexit-to-mrs-brown-britains-bitter-division-is-no-laughing-matter-2rt7glbcr
-
Aaron Banks as well.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/millionaire-brexit-backer-aaron-banks-11835287
I a way I think this was always going to happen.
Remainers always had a clear objective - staying in the EU so were a well defined group based on their views. Leavers on the other hand were a broad church with a massive range of views on what Brexit should look like brought together only on the theoretical notion that we wouldn't be in the EU.
So once plans begin to firm up (any plan) there will be a sizeable block of Leavers who become disillusioned as the proposed brexit isn't their flavour of brexit. And so we are seeing a strange alignment of groups who don't like the proposed brexit plan (as it develops) and see a referendum as a way out in differing directions.
-
So Nige misspoke or maybe he didn't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42665369
-
If there was a second referendum I think it might go the remainer's way, as people begin to realise that leaving the EU may well put up the cost of living.
-
If there was a second referendum I think it might go the remainer's way, as people begin to realise that leaving the EU may well put up the cost of living.
I think that is a distinct possibility - not least due to demographic shift - by 2021 (assuming that is when another referendum takes place based on a final deal) a block of older voters (heavily Leave last time) will have died and replaced by a block of new voters - those attaining the age of 18 since 24th June 2016, who are likely to be heavily for remain.
-
If there was a second referendum I think it might go the remainer's way, as people begin to realise that leaving the EU may well put up the cost of living.
That might not really be on offer. If the referendum is on the final deal, it might be that or no deal. Any second referendum that has Remain as a possibility, needs further negotiation to have been held with the EU and for them to agree a Stay deal, agreed by all 27 members.
-
I think that is a distinct possibility - not least due to demographic shift - by 2021 (assuming that is when another referendum takes place based on a final deal) a block of older voters (heavily Leave last time) will have died and replaced by a block of new voters - those attaining the age of 18 since 24th June 2016, who are likely to be heavily for remain.
And if it's Remain, dependent on that even making sense I.e. having an agreed deal with the EU for staying, epwhch would have to be negotiated up front as well before the referendum, but by a similar margin to thee first, do we gave another soon?
-
That might not really be on offer. If the referendum is on the final deal, it might be that or no deal. Any second referendum that has Remain as a possibility, needs further negotiation to have been held with the EU and for them to agree a Stay deal, agreed by all 27 members.
I am really not sure that deal vs no-deal is actually a possibility albeit that many politicians claim as such.
There are far too many issues where there simply isn't a 'no deal' default - these issues have to be sorted and there has to be some kind of agreement.
Examples being:
1. Future payment on financial obligations
2. Status of many EU citizens in the UK and vice versa - particularly kids born here but not actually UK citizens for example.
3. Virtually every regulation etc that has come in after the UK joined and where there isn't an obvious fall back position - I think aviation was one case regularly mentioned.
The whole deal vs no deal seems entirely focussed on trade, but this is one one of many, many issues that have to be hammered out, most of which don't have the kind of suggested WTO fall back position. So these areas would fall into a kind of regulatory/legalistic limbo without a deal, which may indeed be incompatible with international law (e.g. on citizen's rights).
Some have also suggested that a range of deal options could be proposed - but this again, I think, is fantasy - the EU will only negotiate a single deal - that is all that will be on the table - we wont be able to pick and mix between Norway vs Canada etc.
So theoretically you cold have a deal vs no deal referendum, but the latter would be undeliverable (except on trade) so isn't actually a viable option.
-
And since I think the same applies to a Remain referendum then both seem unlikely. In order to her a Remain deal the govt would have to openly have negotiations with the EU for Remain. This seems likely to break up the govt. Now we might then have an election which produces some coalition committed to a similar stay in negotiation but that is a big if. The movement of strpeam you were referring to earlier needs to move a damn sight faster and cleared for this to be a possibility.
-
And since I think the same applies to a Remain referendum then both seem unlikely. In order to her a Remain deal the govt would have to openly have negotiations with the EU for Remain. This seems likely to break up the govt. Now we might then have an election which produces some coalition committed to a similar stay in negotiation but that is a big if. The movement of strpeam you were referring to earlier needs to move a damn sight faster and cleared for this to be a possibility.
But there is a difference between something that is perfectly possible (even if unlikely, although I'm not sure it would be) - in other words EU agreeing to allow the UK back, based on a referendum result and something which I don't think is actually deliverable in principle - a no deal solution (not just no deal on trade, but actually no deal).
But on the former it depends on what happens over the next couple of years. It is quite possible that the EU may agree to or even require an extension of the 2 year post article 50 period to include the transitional period, while a final deal is sorted. I'm not sure the government would be in any position to object as otherwise they'd crash into limbo in March 2019. As it now seem increasingly clear that article 50 may be revoked by the country triggering it (including by the guy who actually drafted it), that would provide a very simply mechanism for a remain vs deal referendum at the point a deal has been agreed.
-
And since I think the same applies to a Remain referendum then both seem unlikely. In order to her a Remain deal the govt would have to openly have negotiations with the EU for Remain. This seems likely to break up the govt. Now we might then have an election which produces some coalition committed to a similar stay in negotiation but that is a big if. The movement of strpeam you were referring to earlier needs to move a damn sight faster and cleared for this to be a possibility.
Of course alternatively, if we were to have left, it might be simply a deal vs re-join referendum, which would be very straightforward.
-
I think that's a rosy tinted view of the politics and legal hassles. I think there is a chance that the EU might go along with the approach but I can for see problems from some members. In addition I can see any legal questions on this being challenged thoroughly by the leave supporters and despite what the drafter of the clause says, he isn't making the decision.
But all of this ignores what happens to the party of govt, and indeed the party of opposition if they try and change Brexit to mean another referendum.
-
Of course alternatively, if we were to have left, it might be simply a deal vs re-join referendum, which would be very straightforward.
wouldn't that depend on the deal we left on, and whatever deal we renegotiated? And surely we wouldn't yourlogic needs second referendum after any new deal was agreed?
-
wouldn't that depend on the deal we left on, and whatever deal we renegotiated? And surely we wouldn't yourlogic needs second referendum after any new deal was agreed?
We don't actually need a referendum for any of these scenarios - the government, with parliamentary approval is constitutionally able to agree a deal or even to decide to remain.
The point is more political - as a deal emerges it is likely that it will not have majority support in the country (we are already seeing this in polls where a strong majority believe the deal will be bad) - so the government can take the hit for forcing through something that most people don't want (albeit don't agree on what they want as an alternative), so to delegate the decision to the electorate would make political sense.
Likewise I cannot see how we could remain without another referendum - while we could in theory, it would be political suicide, but were a referendum (say in 2020 or 2021) to vote to remain (or rejoin) that would clearly trump a referendum in 2016.
And there is a further problem - were a major party to call for a referendum, it would be very difficult for other parties not to follow suit - effectively they'd be saying that they don't like democracy while doesn't go down very well.
-
Aaron Banks as well.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/millionaire-brexit-backer-aaron-banks-11835287
Interesting that he is talking about a 'true brexit'.
I think it is dawning on the uber-brexit headbangers that what will ultimately be negotiated will retain hugely close ties between the UK and the EU and will therefore require the Uk to remain under many of the EU regulatory arrangements plus also to continue to contribute financially.
What did they expect? What I don't think they realise is that if only 52% voted for all the flavours of brexit combined (in some pollyAnna-ish cake and eat it fashion) there is nowhere near a majority for their uber-extreme form of brexit. Indeed (the most important point) unlikely to be a majority for any specific type of brexit.
-
I think for any of Tory or Labour to call for another referendum could easily make the other party obliged to say no. I cannot see the Tory party doing it because that would provoke nights of long, middle and short sharp knives. The Labour party could possibly call for one but if anything that would strengthen the Tories resolve and position into saying they are the only party for the UK. Even if they lose some votes in Parliament , I think they might walk an election.
The idea that there is going to be a rapid and constant flow to Remain seems unlikely to me even with demographics.
-
Interesting that he is talking about a 'true brexit'.
I think it is dawning on the uber-brexit headbangers that what will ultimately be negotiated will retain hugely close ties between the UK and the EU and will therefore require the Uk to remain under many of the EU regulatory arrangements plus also to continue to contribute financially.
What did they expect? What I don't think they realise is that if only 52% voted for all the flavours of brexit combined (in some pollyAnna-ish cake and eat it fashion) there is nowhere near a majority for their uber-extreme form of brexit. Indeed (the most important point) unlikely to be a majority for any specific type of brexit.
I think the idea that Bremain as you portray it as consistent is untrue. You seem to be judging the two choices in the last referendum as two entirely different things. Yes, there was division amongst the Leavers but there was too amongst the Stayers, some who wanted a wholesale reform of the EU,some who saw it as merely a 7/10 and only marginally better than Leave.
-
I cannot see the Tory party doing it because that would provoke nights of long, middle and short sharp knives.
But the Tories remain massively split on brexit - most tory MPs supported remain, and are hardwired to think that the economy is the most important thing - exactly the area most at threat. There is currently an uneasy truce (mainly to stop the government collapsing), but all those remain Tories haven't actually changed there mind - they are just being quiet.
The tories called to first referendum to lance the boil. All hell will break out once an actually deal is on the table. If it is all soft and fluffy, the right wing nutters will be on the war-path. If it is super hard, the majority of the tory party will be opposed. So what to do - throw the decision to the country to lance the boil again.
-
But the Tories remain massively split on brexit - most tory MPs supported remain, and are hardwired to think that the economy is the most important thing - exactly the area most at threat. There is currently an uneasy truce (mainly to stop the government collapsing), but all those remain Tories haven't actually changed there mind - they are just being quiet.
The tories called to first referendum to lance the boil. All hell will break out once an actually deal is on the table. If it is all soft and fluffy, the right wing nutters will be on the war-path. If it is super hard, the majority of the tory party will be opposed. So what to do - throw the decision to the country to lance the boil again.
But do most Tory MPs support Remain now? It would appear not and many are from constituencies heavily for Leave. I think the Tory party as a beast cares about power not the economy and see the economy as a way to retain power. The public needs to turn rapidly against Brexit or any deal for the numbers not to tell the vast majority of Tories to support the govt. And yes, they could try and make the same mistake of lancing the boil with a referendum but now they have an example of why that won't necessarily work.
-
I think the idea that Bremain as you portray it as consistent is untrue. You seem to be judging the two choices in the last referendum as two entirely different things. Yes, there was division amongst the Leavers but there was too amongst the Stayers, some who wanted a wholesale reform of the EU,some who saw it as merely a 7/10 and only marginally better than Leave.
I disagree - for remainers they know what being in the EU looks like and (regardless of their reservations) they preferred that 'known' to being outside of the EU. That hasn't changed.
While there were of course difference of opinion amongst remain voters they know what it was that they were voting to stay in. On the leaver side there were people voting on the basis of what they thought brexit would be like - despite the fact that they had no idea and one person's view (e.g. Daniel Hannon) would be completely incompatible with another's view (e.g. Nigel Farage).
Use this as an analogy. Imagine someone asks you whether you'd like chocolate mouse for pudding or ice cream in a restaurant. Now if you choose chocolate mouse you know exactly what you are getting and have indeed eaten it in that restaurant many times before. By contrast no-one will tell what flavour of ice cream until you've made the choice, but kind of pretend it is whatever flavour you'd like. But when you choose ice cream you discover that there is only one flavour possible. And when it is revealed as vanilla, many people realise that that's not what they wanted and would have preferred chocolate mouse had they known. If revealed as pistachio, those with certain allergies get really hacked off - if revealed as rum and raison those who don't drink are incensed.
-
But do most Tory MPs support Remain now?
Privately, yes I'm sure that most actually do - if they felt that remaining in the EU was the right thing in 2016, why would they now think it to be the wrong thing.
The only thing that would change their mind would be bowing to the view of the electorate - but if there were another referendum, that argument is gone. And in any case that rarely changes convictions - while politicians might accept that the view of the electorate needs to be respected it rarely actually changes minds on matters - were it to do so the opposition having lost a general election would simply accept the winning party's manifesto - but they don't because on principle they don't agree with it.
I very much doubt that many MPs (on any side) have actually changed their mind on whether EU membership is best for the UK or not.
Actually it is pretty easy to pick those politicians who are coming out with the 'party line' but aren't actually convinced - their lack of conviction is obvious. So
-
I disagree - for remainers they know what being in the EU looks like and (regardless of their reservations) they preferred that 'known' to being outside of the EU. That hasn't changed.
While there were of course difference of opinion amongst remain voters they know what it was that they were voting to stay in. On the leaver side there were people voting on the basis of what they thought brexit would be like - despite the fact that they had no idea and one person's view (e.g. Daniel Hannon) would be completely incompatible with another's view (e.g. Nigel Farage).
Use this as an analogy. Imagine someone asks you whether you'd like chocolate mouse for pudding or ice cream in a restaurant. Now if you choose chocolate mouse you know exactly what you are getting and have indeed eaten it in that restaurant many times before. By contrast no-one will tell what flavour of ice cream until you've made the choice, but kind of pretend it is whatever flavour you'd like. But when you choose ice cream you discover that there is only one flavour possible. And when it is revealed as vanilla, many people realise that that's not what they wanted and would have preferred chocolate mouse had they known. If revealed as pistachio, those with certain allergies get really hacked off - if revealed as rum and raison those who don't drink are incensed.
No, that's a shockingly bad analogy and one I suspect you think works because you like the EU. There are people who don't want the chocolate mousse because they don't like chocolate but hate ice cream more. Some who don't like mousse but hate ice cream more. Some who like neither mousse or chocolate but hate that some people who like ice cream seem a bit scary. Claiming remain as any form more united is simply you trying to do down those you disagree with because of your tribalism.
-
Privately, yes I'm sure that most actually do - if they felt that remaining in the EU was the right thing in 2016, why would they now think it to be the wrong thing.
The only thing that would change their mind would be bowing to the view of the electorate - but if there were another referendum, that argument is gone. And in any case that rarely changes convictions - while politicians might accept that the view of the electorate needs to be respected it rarely actually changes minds on matters - were it to do so the opposition having lost a general election would simply accept the winning party's manifesto - but they don't because on principle they don't agree with it.
I very much doubt that many MPs (on any side) have actually changed their mind on whether EU membership is best for the UK or not.
Actually it is pretty easy to pick those politicians who are coming out with the 'party line' but aren't actually convinced - their lack of conviction is obvious. So
Not sure why you selected the single part of my post and left out the rest of it as it would seem to me that you have removed a substantial part of what followed as an argument. And even leaving that aside the Tory MPs in 2916 are not the same as now, and I could also argue that many of those in 2916 sounded somewhat unconvinced about Staying but thought that was the govt line.
-
Farridge just wanted to be on the telly.
-
Farridge just wanted to be on the telly.
And maybe not for this (though that was just those evil Eurocrats)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/12/nigel-farage-eu-salary-docked-claim-misspent-public-funds#img-1
-
Not sure why you selected the single part of my post and left out the rest of it as it would seem to me that you have removed a substantial part of what followed as an argument. And even leaving that aside the Tory MPs in 2916 are not the same as now, and I could also argue that many of those in 2916 sounded somewhat unconvinced about Staying but thought that was the govt line.
Actually there are very few new Tory MPs compared to 2016, partly because the Tories lost seats. No idea the make up of the new-comers re: remain vs leave.
And yes you are correct there will be some that toed the party line to support remain in 2016 but didn't really believe it - however I doubt there would have been many as the tories really did give free reign at all levels for their MPs to support either remain or leave - hence very high profile cabinet members being leading leave campaigners.
But the broader point is that MPs wont actually change their personal view - I suspect very few really think differently in terms of their personal opinion on whether the UK is better in or out of the EU now compared to before the referendum.
-
Actually there are very few new Tory MPs compared to 2016, partly because the Tories lost seats. No idea the make up of the new-comers re: remain vs leave.
And yes you are correct there will be some that toed the party line to support remain in 2016 but didn't really believe it - however I doubt there would have been many as the tories really did give free reign at all levels for their MPs to support either remain or leave - hence very high profile cabinet members being leading leave campaigners.
But the broader point is that MPs wont actually change their personal view - I suspect very few really think differently in terms of their personal opinion on whether the UK is better in or out of the EU now compared to before the referendum.
I think that's probably true but MPs get caught in expressing opinions and votes. And stopping something you have said is right to happen because it was voted for is going to be a Farronesque volte face, and one that pretty well all of the govt and shadow front benches would need to do for your scenario.
Again if there was a huge move towards a new referendum, not anything like we have seen so far, then I think your position becomes tenable but it hasn't happened so far. (By huge I think it means past 60 % consistently)
-
I think that's probably true but MPs get caught in expressing opinions and votes. And stopping something you have said is right to happen because it was voted for is going to be a Farronesque volte face, and one that pretty well all of the govt and shadow front benches would need to do for your scenario.
Again if there was a huge move towards a new referendum, not anything like we have seen so far, then I think your position becomes tenable but it hasn't happened so far. (By huge I think it means past 60 % consistently)
The direction of travel is important in determining where we might be in, say 12 months time. Depending on how the question is asked some surveys have found a strong majority for another referendum, others have found a majority against. But what is consistent is the direction of travel - a pretty rapid shift towards support for another referendum.
What is also interesting are the trends in the yougov polling which has been asking whether the UK was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU. They have been asking this regularly since June 2016 using an identical question. For months hardly anything moved, with a small majority for 'right to vote to leave. But since August there has been a progressing shift - 'right to vote to leave' has been behind ever since this point, which Jan 2018 showing the biggest margin in favour of 'wrong to vote to leave' yet.
Opinion, having been static for a long while directly after the referendum, is now very clearly on the move.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42669293
I see that horrible man Farage has had £35K deducted by the EU.
-
Claiming remain as any form more united is simply you trying to do down those you disagree with because of your tribalism.
Incorrect. The 48% that voted Remain all wanted the same thing: stay in the EU under the current terms. Many of them had ideas about how the EU could be reformed but they all wanted the core deal: stay in the EU.
Since the referendum, if opinion polls are to be believed there are more Remainers. Presumably this is a combination of people who voted Leave finding out about the harsh realities and people who voted Leave not getting the deal they want. However, if they have changed their minds to Remain, they are now in favour of the same deal that all the other Remainers want: stay in the EU.
The claim that there are many varieties of Remainers is bullshit. There his only one possibility with Remain but many possibilities with Leave and it's time the Leavers faced up to that. Well, it's past time.
-
Interesting article in the Glasgow Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15892185.Iain_Macwhirter__Forget_Brexit__England_could_yet_end_up_exiting_EU_alone/
-
Not supporting Brexit is appeasement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/22/brexit-appeasement-cbi-gets-big-decisions-wrong-just-point/
-
Not supporting Brexit is appeasement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/22/brexit-appeasement-cbi-gets-big-decisions-wrong-just-point/
Can't read entire article but your post seems to be wrong.
I suppose I shouldn’t be so puzzled. When one reflects on the EU-funded CBI’s record over the years, it seem to have got an enormous number of decisions wrong.
The predecessor to the CBI, the FBI, (Federation of British Industries) supported appeasement and in 1939
-
Can't read entire article but your post seems to be wrong.
In what way is the post wrong? The bit quoted draws tge equivalency.
-
In what way is the post wrong? The bit quoted draws tge equivalency.
The equivalency is in the error not the position. Otherwise the following is valid:-
Not supporting Scottish Independence is being against being in NATO.
-
The equivalency is in the error not the position. Otherwise the following is valid:-
Not supporting Scottish Independence is being against being in NATO.
Sorry, not getting what you are saying here. The article draws the equivalence. I am merely pointing that out. Your statement has no similar context.
-
'a mistake, not a disaster' Good old Dave
-
Sorry, not getting what you are saying here. The article draws the equivalence. I am merely pointing that out. Your statement has no similar context.
Appeasement is shorthand for a position on an issue, i.e. that we should not to go War with Germany in the 1930's.
Here is the headline of the article:-
On Brexit, as on appeasement, the CBI gets the big decisions wrong.
So your statement 'Brexit is appeasement' is nonsense.
Its effectively saving 'being pro-remain is the same as not wanting to go to war with Germany in the 1930's' they are separate issues how can they be the same?
I could equally say the CBI was for the Euro so all pro-remain are for the Euro, which clearly they are not.
-
Appeasement is shorthand for a position on an issue, i.e. that we should not to go War with Germany in the 1930's.
Here is the headline of the article:-
On Brexit, as on appeasement, the CBI gets the big decisions wrong.
So your statement 'Brexit is appeasement' is nonsense.
Its effectively saving 'being pro-remain is the same as not wanting to go to war with Germany in the 1930's' they are separate issues how can they be the same?
I could equally say the CBI was for the Euro so all pro-remain are for the Euro, which clearly they are not.
Again you seem to miss that the equivalency is what IDS does in the article. That you disagree with it just means you disagree with IDS. I do as well
-
Again you seem to miss that the equivalency is what IDS does in the article. That you disagree with it just means you disagree with IDS. I do as well
No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.
That you disagree makes you wrong.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42805485
That explains everything about dear Boris! ;D
-
No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.
That you disagree makes you wrong.
When are Brexiteers going to front up with the costs and benefits of Brexit? I'm afraid Brexit is always going to look dodgy. Good to see Rees Mogg appearing but if it's another handwaving performance....forget it.
-
Historical parallels for Brexit
For Brexitters Dunkirk, WW2
For Remainers Rise and fall of the Weimar republic
-
No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.
That you disagree makes you wrong.
Why does IDS bring up appeasement at all if he is not drawing a parallel between supporting Remain and appeasement?
IDS is a backstabbing traitorous shit. This is exactly the kind of article I would expect him to write. He can't articulate a good reason in favour of his position so he libels his opponents.
-
IDS is a backstabbing traitorous shit.
I take exception to this.......he is not a shit he is a cockwomble.
-
Why does IDS bring up appeasement at all if he is not drawing a parallel between supporting Remain and appeasement?
IDS is a backstabbing traitorous shit.
I strongly object to this. This is grossly insulting to backstabbing traitorous shits.
-
Why does IDS bring up appeasement at all if he is not drawing a parallel between supporting Remain and appeasement?
I'm not explaining it again.
IDS is a backstabbing traitorous shit. This is exactly the kind of article I would expect him to write. He can't articulate a good reason in favour of his position so he libels his opponents.
In claiming that he has libeled you yourself have committed libel. :)
-
I'm not explaining it again.
Please point out where you explained it the first time. And don't point to any of your lawyer-speak posts. This isn't a court of law.
In claiming that he has libeled you yourself have committed libel. :)
He published a view that I am like the appeasers of Hitler. That is defamation. It might not stand up in a court of law since he didn't mention me by name, but we all know what he was doing and this isn't a court of law.
I know you wrote what you wrote with your tongue in your cheek but there is a serious point: some Brexiteers are trying to invent a narrative in which people who disagree with them are somehow unpatriotic appeasers of Johnny Foreigner.
-
Please point out where you explained it the first time. And don't point to any of your lawyer-speak posts. This isn't a court of law.
You replied to the post that explained it. Have no idea what lawyer speak is.
He published a view that I am like the appeasers of Hitler. That is defamation. It might not stand up in a court of law since he didn't mention me by name, but we all know what he was doing and this isn't a court of law.
Only in that he thinks you are wrong on your view of Brexit. I like dogs, Hitler liked dogs that does not mean everyone who likes dogs is like Hitler. If you report that I did mean that then you are misrepresenting me (lying).
As I recall he didn't claim that everyone who is against Brexit would favour appeasement anyway.
I know you wrote what you wrote with your tongue in your cheek but there is a serious point: some Brexiteers are trying to invent a narrative in which people who disagree with them are somehow unpatriotic appeasers of Johnny Foreigner.
I think your knee must be sore you jerked it so hard.
-
Does anyone know if Rees Mogg has found the support and cojones to stand for prime minister yet?
-
Does anyone know if Rees Mogg has found the support and cojones to stand for prime minister yet?
Update
Poll for next leader of the Conservative Party
Rees Mogg 21%
Boris Johnson 16%
Gove 14%
Sooty Only joking.
-
Update
Poll for next leader of the Conservative Party
Rees Mogg 21%
Boris Johnson 16%
Gove 14%
Sooty Only joking.
Sooty definitely, the other three would wreck the country! Gove made a mess of the education system. >:(
-
Sooty definitely, the other three would wreck the country! Gove made a mess of the education system. >:(
Probably agree. At least with Sooty you know Harry Corbett is operating him and you know how.
With Gove and Boris you never know who's operating who.
-
Probably agree. At least with Sooty you know Harry Corbett is operating him and you know how.
With Gove and Boris you never know who's operating who.
A robot with a hand up their rear ends! ;D
-
A robot with a hand up their rear ends! ;D
You got it!
-
I like dogs, Hitler liked dogs that does not mean everyone who likes dogs is like Hitler.
If I posted an article saying "Jakswan likes dogs just like Hitler did" you don't think that is me drawing a derogatory parallel between you and Hitler?
-
If I posted an article saying "Jakswan likes dogs just like Hitler did" you don't think that is me drawing a derogatory parallel between you and Hitler?
Not if it was in the context in a debate over if cats were better than dogs no.
I'm not sure that analogy works either since Hitler didn't support appeasement as such.
-
Mmm
http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-nhs-brexit-free-trade-deal-donald-trump-2018-2?r=US&IR=T
-
Not if it was in the context in a debate over if cats were better than dogs no.
I'm not sure that analogy works either since Hitler didn't support appeasement as such.
And what relevance would it have in the debate other than to say people who are like dogs are like Hitler, just as IDS drew the equivalence opposing Brexit is like appeasement?
-
Mmm
http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-nhs-brexit-free-trade-deal-donald-trump-2018-2?r=US&IR=T
Fuck.
-
And the results are in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42977967
It’s pretty grim, i’m sorry to say.
-
And what relevance would it have in the debate other than to say people who are like dogs are like Hitler,
If you made the statement everyone who likes dogs is good person.
just as IDS drew the equivalence opposing Brexit is like appeasement?
Since this is about the fourth time you have done this I think you are now wilfully misrepresenting IDS. Not repeating myself again.
-
If you made the statement everyone who likes dogs is good person.
Since this is about the fourth time you have done this I think you are now wilfully misrepresenting IDS. Not repeating myself again.
What on earth has your first sentence got to do with anything?
Disagreeing with you is not misrepresenting IDS - and repetition wold be pointless because you haven't actually made any argument.
What purpose do you think IDS was trying to achieve by mentioning appeasement?
-
What on earth has your first sentence got to do with anything?
Disagreeing with you is not misrepresenting IDS - and repetition wold be pointless because you haven't actually made any argument.
What purpose do you think IDS was trying to achieve by mentioning appeasement?
On Jan 24th I wrote, you have not responded to this post.
No, IDS says the CBI gets the big decisions wrong, e.g. on appeasement, not that pro-remain is appeasement, which is what you reported.
That you disagree makes you wrong.
It is misrepresentation to report that IDS claims pro-remain is appeasement.
Comparing something does not mean you think its the same, very simple concept, carry on being obtuse if you like but I'm done.
-
And the results are in...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42977967
It’s pretty grim, i’m sorry to say.
Project fear 2.0. :)
-
On Jan 24th I wrote, you have not responded to this post.
It is misrepresentation to report that IDS claims pro-remain is appeasement.
Comparing something does not mean you think its the same, very simple concept, carry on being obtuse if you like but I'm done.
I didn't say that IDS said pro remain is appeasement rather that it is the equivalent of appeasement. It's bizarre to claim a track record with something that a different organisation said 80 years ago with the vast majority of people involved in a current decision not even being born. The only reason to do it is to draw the equivalence.
-
The article in the Telegraph is behind its paywall but this gives a flavour of it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/02/nick-timothy-telegraph-george-soros-anti-semitic
-
Project fear 2.0. :)
Given that what we have seen already is pretty well exactly what was predicted following a vote to leave then it is more project reality. What we are seeing now are the likely downturn in growth under various scenarios compared to what would have been achieved had we voted to remain. And we have already seen a significant slowing in growth in the UK since June 2016, while the global economy is booming. The vote (not even Brexit itself) has turned the UK from one of the fastest growing developed nations to one of the slowest growing.
All the predictions are turning into reality.
-
Given that what we have seen already is pretty well exactly what was predicted following a vote to leave then it is more project reality. What we are seeing now are the likely downturn in growth under various scenarios compared to what would have been achieved had we voted to remain. And we have already seen a significant slowing in growth in the UK since June 2016, while the global economy is booming. The vote (not even Brexit itself) has turned the UK from one of the fastest growing developed nations to one of the slowest growing.
All the predictions are turning into reality.
That appears to be the case.
-
I didn't say that IDS said pro remain is appeasement rather that it is the equivalent of appeasement.
Erm.
Not supporting Brexit is appeasement
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/22/brexit-appeasement-cbi-gets-big-decisions-wrong-just-point/
Don't disagree with the rest of your post.
-
Given that what we have seen already is pretty well exactly what was predicted following a vote to leave then it is more project reality. What we are seeing now are the likely downturn in growth under various scenarios compared to what would have been achieved had we voted to remain. And we have already seen a significant slowing in growth in the UK since June 2016, while the global economy is booming. The vote (not even Brexit itself) has turned the UK from one of the fastest growing developed nations to one of the slowest growing.
All the predictions are turning into reality.
All the predictions were if we voted to leave the EU then we would be better off than we are now.
-
All the predictions were if we voted to leave the EU then we would be better off than we are now.
So what - the key (as you well know) is the comparison between options. In all cases we will be worse off leaving (including if we reaming in the single market) compared to remaining in the EU. And the harder the Brexit the worse off we become in comparison.
-
The article in the Telegraph is behind its paywall but this gives a flavour of it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/02/nick-timothy-telegraph-george-soros-anti-semitic
It seems that for some supporters of Brexit being a Remainer justifies pretty much any kind of attack that they choose.
-
All the predictions were if we voted to leave the EU then we would be better off than we are now.
How are brexiteers coming on with the fund to compensate anyone who loses out due to Brexit?
-
Project fear 2.0. :)
These are the pro Brexit government’s own predictions.
-
Project fear 2.0. :)
Is it project fear that the fund has tanked against other currencies - nope that is reality
Is it project fear that we have slowed from just about the fasting growing developed nation to just about the slowest - nope that is reality
Is it project fear that our credit rating has been significantly downgraded - nope that is reality.
And that is just caused by the vote to leave - that is all before the economy feels the real chilling effects of actually no longer being part of the largest trading block on the planet - and of course will no longer benefit from the huge number of existing trade deals we already have with countries all over the globe, that will be wiped out when we leave (unless we remain in the single market/customs union).
-
So what - the key (as you well know) is the comparison between options. In all cases we will be worse off leaving (including if we reaming in the single market) compared to remaining in the EU. And the harder the Brexit the worse off we become in comparison.
What is key was up to voters to decide, all reports suggested that we would grow slower if we left EU but we would still grow. Both major political parties are pro-brexit until that changes we are leaving.
-
Open and transparent - note the first few hours there was only the even numbered pages available
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/a-country-in-a-filing-cabinet/
-
Both major political parties are pro-brexit until that changes we are leaving.
Support for Brexit amongst the vast majority of the current crop of MPs is a mile wide and an inch deep. The is a small rump (perhaps 100, almost exclusively Tory MPs) where brexit is an inch wide and a mile deep.
Problem is that the other 550 or so don't personally support brexit, they merely feel obligated to go along with it due to the referendum. They were pro-EU prior to the referendum (their actual position), now unconvincingly claim to be pro-brexit (they actually aren't) and can easily be turned (and would probably be delighted to be able to be turned) back to their true colours of being pro-EU. That would probably require a decision to hold a referendum on the final deal (and there is major momentum of public opinion in that direction), but once there is a chink in the armour the whole edifice of MP support for brexit will begin to crumble.
-
There we are then.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/09/northern-ireland-will-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says
-
Lessons from history.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/nov/14/oil.julianglover
-
There we are then.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/09/northern-ireland-will-stay-in-single-market-after-brexit-eu-says
That's telling 'em. I guess the EU are trying to hurry things along, and maybe put a bomb under the UK govt. You can either have no Irish/N. Irish border, or you can leave the single market. Not both.
-
Support for Brexit amongst the vast majority of the current crop of MPs is a mile wide and an inch deep. The is a small rump (perhaps 100, almost exclusively Tory MPs) where brexit is an inch wide and a mile deep.
Problem is that the other 550 or so don't personally support brexit, they merely feel obligated to go along with it due to the referendum. They were pro-EU prior to the referendum (their actual position), now unconvincingly claim to be pro-brexit (they actually aren't) and can easily be turned (and would probably be delighted to be able to be turned) back to their true colours of being pro-EU. That would probably require a decision to hold a referendum on the final deal (and there is major momentum of public opinion in that direction), but once there is a chink in the armour the whole edifice of MP support for brexit will begin to crumble.
Credit to you such certainty in your predictions not phased by your track record in this regard. :)
-
Interesting article from Alex Massie - behind pay wall but accessible if you haven't coughed up by registering.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/brexit-s-losses-may-be-independence-s-gains-pdhf23ssv
-
all reports suggested that we would grow slower if we left EU but we would still grow.
There are still plenty of poor people. The NHS is still in crisis. The deficit is still pretty big. All of these issues will improve faster with more growth.
We also have twenty seven enemies instead of twenty seven allies and we are no longer part of the World's biggest community of nations. What's not to love?
-
Apparently Boris is going to use a speech today to reassure all those who aren't Brexit enthusiasts and who think that it is an impending disaster and should be stopped: so we can all breathe a sign of relief and be reassured that all will be well - after all, Boris says so!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43045553
-
Apparently Boris is going to use a speech today to reassure all those who aren't Brexit enthusiasts and who think that it is an impending disaster and should be stopped: so we can all breathe a sign of relief and be reassured that all will be well - after all, Boris says so!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43045553
Isn't Boris wonderful? ;D ;D ;D Every time I see the guy on TV, I inch to get out my hair clippers. ;D
-
There are still plenty of poor people. The NHS is still in crisis. The deficit is still pretty big. All of these issues will improve faster with more growth.
There will always be issues come remain / leave - May / Corbyn, are you saying any decisions should only ever taken which result in more growth?
We also have twenty seven enemies instead of twenty seven allies and we are no longer part of the World's biggest community of nations. What's not to love?
So according to you the 'EU' are friends the rest of the world enemies?
-
There will always be issues come remain / leave - May / Corbyn, are you saying any decisions should only ever taken which result in more growth?
But the issues will be more difficult to solve as we will have less money in the UK economy, meaning less funding for services are, unless we raise tax or borrow more, both of which will also have negative effects on the broader economy and/or personal finances.
-
But the issues will be more difficult to solve as we will have less money in the UK economy, meaning less funding for services are, unless we raise tax or borrow more, both of which will also have negative effects on the broader economy and/or personal finances.
No there will be more money in the UK economy than now, the predictions are that there will be less then there could have been if we remain in EU.
Predictions like these.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
Lets not run the debate again, the way to remain in the EU is another vote on the deal, that is what your 'side' are campaigning for and your biggest barrier to that happening is the Labour leadership. Until you win that battle the war is lost.
-
And Alex Massie on Boris's speech
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/boriss-brexit-vision-is-an-answer-to-a-non-existent-problem/
-
There will always be issues come remain / leave - May / Corbyn, are you saying any decisions should only ever taken which result in more growth?
No but you are exchanging growth and hence wealth and hence a better place to live for a nebulous ideal. It's fine by me if you want to do that with your own money,, but you are doing it with everybody's.
So according to you the 'EU' are friends the rest of the world enemies?
I don't know where you got that idea. We were in a cooperative organisation of twenty eight nations. Now we've put the boot in the other twenty seven don't like us anymore. I thought that was obvious.
-
No there will be more money in the UK economy than now, the predictions are that there will be less then there could have been if we remain in EU.
Predictions like these.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors
Lets not run the debate again, the way to remain in the EU is another vote on the deal, that is what your 'side' are campaigning for and your biggest barrier to that happening is the Labour leadership. Until you win that battle the war is lost.
That's from last January. I've already published a link containing the latest predictions from the government (which supports Brexit) and it's grim.
-
No but you are exchanging growth and hence wealth and hence a better place to live for a nebulous ideal. It's fine by me if you want to do that with your own money,, but you are doing it with everybody's.I don't know where you got that idea. We were in a cooperative organisation of twenty eight nations. Now we've put the boot in the other twenty seven don't like us anymore. I thought that was obvious.
You need lessons in how democracy works.
I think the 27 how a more mature attitude towards Brexit than you, if not we should leave anyway.
-
That's from last January. I've already published a link containing the latest predictions from the government (which supports Brexit) and it's grim.
It is, of course, true that predictions aren't perfect. The problem with the Brexiteers is that they assume that not only are they wrong, but they are wrong in one direction only. In other words that things will be better than predicted. Given that most predictions work on the basis of the middle case of a range of probably outcomes, it is just as likely that the prediction will be wring in the other direction - in other words that things will be worse than predicted.
The Brexiteers use that past 12 months or so to claim that predictions are wrong. But that is totally incorrect - the predictions were always based on positive (or rather negative) change from the base case where we voted to remain, and ultimately remained. And without doubt the trajectory of the economy has nose dived in comparison with how it was pre the vote. We were one of the fastest growing developed economies, we are now just about the slowest.
The reason why things haven't been so terrible in absolute terms is because the global economy has been booming in the past year or so - we should have been reaping the benefits - instead, because of the brexit vote (not even the actual effect of brexit yet) our economy is bumping along the bottom, being left behind by virtually all other developed countries.
-
It is, of course, true that predictions aren't perfect. The problem with the Brexiteers is that they assume that not only are they wrong, but they are wrong in one direction only. In other words that things will be better than predicted. Given that most predictions work on the basis of the middle case of a range of probably outcomes, it is just as likely that the prediction will be wring in the other direction - in other words that things will be worse than predicted.
Do you want to add the phrase 'some Brexiteers' or cite every Brexiteer?
You paint a picture that those that voted to leave are dogmatic, yet as I recall you stated 'there are zero arguments for leaving', makes you something of a hypocrite.
-
Do you want to add the phrase 'some Brexiteers' or cite every Brexiteer?
You paint a picture that those that voted to leave are dogmatic, yet as I recall you stated 'there are zero arguments for leaving', makes you something of a hypocrite.
Unfortunately Boris has owned the consequences of Brexit on behalf of his side.
-
yet as I recall you stated 'there are zero arguments for leaving',
When exactly did I say this - noting your direct quotes. Please evidence or retract.
makes you something of a hypocrite.
Given that you haven't given any evidence that I ever said that how can you then claim I am a hypocrite.
-
When exactly did I say this - noting your direct quotes. Please evidence or retract.
Given that you haven't given any evidence that I ever said that how can you then claim I am a hypocrite.
It was my recollection happy to withdraw and apologise when you tell me what you think the best argument for leaving is.
Also you are standing by:-
It is, of course, true that predictions aren't perfect. The problem with the Brexiteers is that they assume that not only are they wrong, but they are wrong in one direction only.
Ok my Mum voted for Brexit can you cite her please?
-
It was my recollection ...
I don't recollect ever having said anything of that nature - indeed it doesn't sound like the kind of comment I'd make.
... happy to withdraw and apologise when you tell me what you think the best argument for leaving is.
There are, of course, all sorts of arguments that have been posited to support leaving. I haven't heard any that I've found at all convincing, but of course some are better (or rather less bad) than others.
Perhaps the most credible is the concept of bringing back decision making closer to the people who are affected by that decision. Problem is that even this argument is very weak in practice rather than theory. The key issue being that the UK has a significant democratic deficit and is just about the most centralised democracy in Europe. Actually the EU is underpinned by the concept of subsidiarity, something that the UK has never accepted.
So were the UK to either be highly decentralised, or planned to become, then the argument might have some credibility to it. But as it is the loss of the checks and balances within the EU creates a much greater issue of democratic and governance deficit. So actually the issue is a failure of the UK rather than one of the EU.
Over to you - best arguments for remaining please.
-
It is, of course, true that predictions aren't perfect. The problem with the Brexiteers is that they assume that not only are they wrong, but they are wrong in one direction only.
Ok my Mum voted for Brexit can you cite her please?
The term I used was Brexiteer, not just someone who voted to leave. Sure I didn't define Brexiteer, but it is no more congruent with all leave voter than the term Remoaner is congruent with all remain voters.
So in my view a Brexiteer is someone who vocally supports leaving the EU, basically as an act of faith, and refuses to acknowledge the possibility of any downsides, raised particularly by experts. Likely to be the same people who routinely use the terms 'Remoaner' and 'Project Fear'. Brexiteers are characterised by a kind of evangelical approach based on faith rather than reason or facts. So if you Mum refuses to acknowledge the possibility of any downside, then she is indeed included in my statement. Perhaps, on the other hand, she is much more realistic - perhaps accepting and worried about destabilising and negative effects that are already happening, just as predicted, and the likely ongoing negative effects of brexit as it actually happens. In which case she wouldn't be included.
But the kind of evangelical, act of faith statements one might expect from a Brexiteer might include continually parroting out nonsense about the 'economy still being bigger after brexit', while refusing to acknowledge that the comparison is just that, a comparison between the economic state under brexit compared to what would have happened if we remained. No idea who might come out with pointless comments of that nature regularly.
-
I don't recollect ever having said anything of that nature - indeed it doesn't sound like the kind of comment I'd make.
There are, of course, all sorts of arguments that have been posited to support leaving. I haven't heard any that I've found at all convincing, but of course some are better (or rather less bad) than others.
Perhaps the most credible is the concept of bringing back decision making closer to the people who are affected by that decision. Problem is that even this argument is very weak in practice rather than theory. The key issue being that the UK has a significant democratic deficit and is just about the most centralised democracy in Europe. Actually the EU is underpinned by the concept of subsidiarity, something that the UK has never accepted.
So were the UK to either be highly decentralised, or planned to become, then the argument might have some credibility to it. But as it is the loss of the checks and balances within the EU creates a much greater issue of democratic and governance deficit. So actually the issue is a failure of the UK rather than one of the EU.
Over to you - best arguments for remaining please.
I stand corrected apologies, best argument to remain is the economic one.
-
I stand corrected apologies, best argument to remain is the economic one.
The difficulty I have with too many Brexiteers is a lack of honesty and also actually a lack of guts to stand up and be counted for what they consider to be their principles.
I would have more respect if they would have the guts to say 'yes I accept that we will be worse off individually and as a nation leaving the EU than remaining, but I think it is worth it'. At least that would be honest and principled - I'd very, very strongly disagree, but a least that would engender some degree of respect. But that isn't what I am hearing - what I am hearing is head in the sands refusal to accept the possibility of any downsides and a patronising dismissal of experts, and those who might be concerned, regardless of how they voted.
-
The difficulty I have with too many Brexiteers is a lack of honesty and also actually a lack of guts to stand up and be counted for what they consider to be their principles.
I would have more respect if they would have the guts to say 'yes I accept that we will be worse off individually and as a nation leaving the EU than remaining, but I think it is worth it'. At least that would be honest and principled - I'd very, very strongly disagree, but a least that would engender some degree of respect. But that isn't what I am hearing - what I am hearing is head in the sands refusal to accept the possibility of any downsides and a patronising dismissal of experts, and those who might be concerned, regardless of how they voted.
Sure we might be worse off but In think it is worth it. It cuts both ways on the other side remaniacs paint a picture of doom, I've said before if Cameron had said look it's not perfect, economy wont be as healthy overall I suggest remain, then I think remain would have won.
I think there is a hardcore on both sides, seemed to me remain, instead of calm argument did exactly what you have done, 'I, Davey don't respect these people', frankly who cares about who you respect.
-
Sure we might be worse off but In think it is worth it. It cuts both ways on the other side remaniacs paint a picture of doom, I've said before if Cameron had said look it's not perfect, economy wont be as healthy overall I suggest remain, then I think remain would have won.
I think there is a hardcore on both sides, seemed to me remain, instead of calm argument did exactly what you have done, 'I, Davey don't respect these people', frankly who cares about who you respect.
Brexit represents the quickest and most punishing way back to the heyday of the class system.
-
It cuts both ways on the other side remaniacs paint a picture of doom
Sorry - there is no equivalence whatsoever. Firstly I disagree that remainers are painting a picture of doom.
But secondly, and crucially, the concerns of those you describe as remainiacs, for example on the economy, have an extremely strong evidence base. As far as I am aware every one of the countless forecasts by all sorts of organisations indicates we will be worse off leaving than remaining. Remainers base their concerns on facts and evidence. The Brexiteers 'we will be fine' fantasy is based not on fact or evidence, but on faith - indeed many have actively chosen to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with their dogma.
To use an analogy - remainers are like those with concerns over climate change (clearly evidence based), brexiteers are like climate change deniers.
-
Sure we might be worse off ...
might, surely you mean will.
Indeed we are already worse off as since Brexit our growth (for example in 2017) has been so weak that we just about the the bottom of the heap of developed economies, while before the vote we were close to the top.
But if you are now accepting we will be worse off why have you spent the past year continually denying that we will be worse off, by deliberately ignoring that fact that it is the comparison rather than the absolute which is key.
In think it is worth it.
What on earth would be 'worth it' about no longer being part of arguably the most successful cooperative international organisation on the planet, that would justify being poorer individually and as a nation (which of course means less investment into services etc unless we pay more tax or borrow more).
-
Sorry - there is no equivalence whatsoever. Firstly I disagree that remainers are painting a picture of doom.
Well its subjective but 'putting a bomb under our economy' is quite doom like.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/06/david-cameron-brexit-would-detonate-bomb-under-uk-economy
But secondly, and crucially, the concerns of those you describe as remainiacs, for example on the economy, have an extremely strong evidence base. As far as I am aware every one of the countless forecasts by all sorts of organisations indicates we will be worse off leaving than remaining. Remainers base their concerns on facts and evidence. The Brexiteers 'we will be fine' fantasy is based not on fact or evidence, but on faith - indeed many have actively chosen to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit with their dogma.
Yes I would define remainiacs as those that keep saying the same things over and over like the campaign is still going on. If you don't want Brexit to happen then another referendum should be their focus.
To use an analogy - remainers are like those with concerns over climate change (clearly evidence based), brexiteers are like climate change deniers.
As I said I can see both sides, I would support another vote and be in favour of Norway type deal and could quite easily have voted the other way. Had the remain campaign been conducted differently I think it would have turned out differently.
-
might, surely you mean will.
Indeed we are already worse off as since Brexit our growth (for example in 2017) has been so weak that we just about the the bottom of the heap of developed economies, while before the vote we were close to the top.
But if you are now accepting we will be worse off why have you spent the past year continually denying that we will be worse off, by deliberately ignoring that fact that it is the comparison rather than the absolute which is key.
They are forecasts, read my signature, all forecasts have predicted that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU, had they predicted recession I might have voted differently. What is key is up to the voter to decide not for you to dictate.
What on earth would be 'worth it' about no longer being part of arguably the most successful cooperative international organisation on the planet, that would justify being poorer individually and as a nation (which of course means less investment into services etc unless we pay more tax or borrow more).
Bringing back decision making closer to the people who are affected by that decision.
-
They are forecasts, read my signature, all forecasts have predicted that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU, had they predicted recession I might have voted differently. What is key is up to the voter to decide not for you to dictate.
There you go again with the meaningless 'predicted that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU' - over what timescale , using what baseline etc. The key is the comparison between the two scenarios - leave and remain.
And actually you are incorrect - several of the predictions suggested there may be a recession caused by brexit - in other words 2 quarters of negative growth. And there may still be seeing as we haven't actually left yet. In fact had it not been for the UK economy being buoyed up by a booming global economy through 2017 we could already have seen one caused just by the uncertainty over the vote to leave, as growth in the first 2 quarters of 2017 was just 0.2% and 0.3% even riding on the coattails of a global boom. The average of the G20 countries was 0.8 and 0.9%. We are now at the bottom of the G7 in terms of growth rate.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/09/lack-of-migrant-workers-left-food-rotting-in-uk-fields-last-year-data-reveals
-
There you go again with the meaningless 'predicted that we will be richer than we are now if we leave the EU' - over what timescale , using what baseline etc. The key is the comparison between the two scenarios - leave and remain
Again what is key is up to the voter to not for you to dictate.
-
Again what is key is up to the voter to not for you to dictate.
where is Prof D trying to 'dictate' here?
-
Again what is key is up to the voter to not for you to dictate.
What are you on about - last time I looked whether the economy is doing better or worse outside the EU compared to being a member isn't determined by a vote. What planet are you on?
-
You need lessons in how democracy works.
No,, really I don't. Democracy is not having a vote and then deciding it is set in stone for all time.
I think the 27 how a more mature attitude towards Brexit than you, if not we should leave anyway.
Can you explain why having a mature attitude towards Brexit is incompatible with regarding the uK as a political enemy?
-
No,, really I don't. Democracy is not having a vote and then deciding it is set in stone for all time.
Indeed - the whole point about democracy is that you can make a choice and later decide to change your mind. That's why we have elections every 5 years or so.
-
What are you on about - last time I looked whether the economy is doing better or worse outside the EU compared to being a member isn't determined by a vote. What planet are you on?
Many forecasts predicted that growth would be slower if we left EU, but that we would still grow.
So it can spun two ways:-
1. If we leave the EU we will be poorer compared to remain.
2. If we leave the EU we will still be richer than we are now.
Both a factually correct statements but are spun to win an argument, clearly you think the first is 'key' I think the second is 'key' and we both voted accordingly.
I did not claim a vote had anything directly to do with the performance of the economy.
-
No,, really I don't. Democracy is not having a vote and then deciding it is set in stone for all time.
If I vote a certain way I'm not doing anything with your money which is what you claimed.
Can you explain why having a mature attitude towards Brexit is incompatible with regarding the uK as a political enemy?
Why would the EU regard the UK as being a political enemy?
-
If I vote a certain way I'm not doing anything with your money which is what you claimed.
If you vote in a particular way and that results in changes in policies which make people poorer then that is, in part, your responsibility. You own that decision and you own the consequences that arise from that decision.
-
If I vote a certain way I'm not doing anything with your money which is what you claimed.
No I didn't,, I claimed you were doing it with everybody's money.
We will all be relatively less wealthy as a result of Brexit than if we stayed. There will be people living on the streets who would otherwise have been housed. There will be people not getting NHS treatment who would otherwise have received that treatment. The reason why these things will be happening is because 52% of voters thought saying fuck you to the EU was a reasonable use of billions of pounds.
Why would the EU regard the UK as being a political enemy?
Because we have deserted them. We're the kid that left in a strop taking our ball with us because we didn't get exactly our way. If you think the other EU nations will be disposed to be nice to us in the future, you must be very naive.
-
No I didn't,, I claimed you were doing it with everybody's money.
We will all be relatively less wealthy as a result of Brexit than if we stayed. There will be people living on the streets who would otherwise have been housed. There will be people not getting NHS treatment who would otherwise have received that treatment. The reason why these things will be happening is because 52% of voters thought saying fuck you to the EU was a reasonable use of billions of pounds.
It's actually worse than that - all 65 million people in the UK will be affected, on the basis of the votes of just 17 million, or just 26% of the population.
That is why the government must act in the best interests of the 65 million, not just the 17 million - even less so the smaller number again of hard brexiteers.
-
I find it hard to stomach that the future security of my kids has been put hugely at risk because of the lies told by brexiters on both the right and the left.
-
Just read this:
In 2016 our then Prime Minister David Cameron caved in to pressure from his backbenchers to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU. This was a question of immense complexity involving sophisticated economic ramifications, the full extent of which became only too apparent later in the year when prodigal regiments of lawyers and civil servants had to be employed to cope with the administrative and legal load. If ever there was a matter for lengthy parliamentary debate and cabinet discussion heavily informed by advice from highly qualified experts, it was membership of the EU. Could there be a question less suited to a single plebiscite decision? And yet we were told to mistrust experts (‘You, the voter, are the expert here’) by politicians who presumably would demand an expert surgeon to remove their appendix or an expert pilot to fly their plane. So the decision was handed over to non-experts like me, even people whose stated motives for voting included ‘Well, it’s nice to have a change,’ and ‘Well, I preferred the old blue passport to the European purple one.’ For the sake of short-term political manoeuvring within his own party, David Cameron played Russian roulette with the long-term future of his country, of Europe, even of the world.
And so, to the precautionary principle. The referendum was about a major change, a political revolution whose pervasive effects would persist for decades if not longer. A huge constitutional change, the sort of change where, if ever, the precautionary principle should have been paramount. When it comes to constitutional amendments, the United States requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Arguably that bar is set a bit too high, but the principle is sound. David Cameron’s referendum, by contrast, asked for only a simple majority on a single yes/no question. Did it not occur to him that so radical a constitutional step might merit stipulation of a two-thirds majority? Or at least 60 per cent? Perhaps a minimum voter turnout to make sure such a major decision was not taken by a minority of the electorate? Maybe a second vote, a fortnight later, to make sure the populace really meant it? Or a second round a year later, when the terms and consequences of withdrawal had become at least minimally apparent? But no, all Cameron demanded was anything over 50 per cent in a single yes/no vote, at a time when opinion polls were yo-yo-ing up and down and the likely result was changing day by day. It is said that a leftover statute of British common law stipulates that ‘no idiot shall be admitted to parliament’. You’d think at least the stricture might apply to Prime Ministers.
-- Dawkins, R (2017). Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. Transworld. Kindle Edition.
-
I find it hard to stomach that the future security of my kids has been put hugely at risk because of the lies told by brexiters on both the right and the left.
Spot on. I have a personal stake since my kids are now "mixed race" thanks to Brexiteer bigoted shit.
Our kids both have UK Passports. Ukip can fuck off. And YES I have given Ukip people a hard time when they campaigned on our Market Square.
-
If you vote in a particular way and that results in changes in policies which make people poorer then that is, in part, your responsibility. You own that decision and you own the consequences that arise from that decision.
If you fail to persuade the majority to vote in a particular way and that results in changes in policies which make people poorer then that is, in part, your responsibility. You own that decision and you own the consequences that arise from that decision.
-
No I didn't,, I claimed you were doing it with everybody's money.
Don't see how that changes anything.
We will all be relatively less wealthy as a result of Brexit than if we stayed. There will be people living on the streets who would otherwise have been housed. There will be people not getting NHS treatment who would otherwise have received that treatment. The reason why these things will be happening is because 52% of voters thought saying fuck you to the EU was a reasonable use of billions of pounds.
So next time we will check in with your first to see if its ok to vote a certain way?
Because we have deserted them. We're the kid that left in a strop taking our ball with us because we didn't get exactly our way. If you think the other EU nations will be disposed to be nice to us in the future, you must be very naive.
Neither naive or stupid enough to think that your analogy is representative of how nation states work.
-
It's actually worse than that - all 65 million people in the UK will be affected, on the basis of the votes of just 17 million, or just 26% of the population.
That is why the government must act in the best interests of the 65 million, not just the 17 million - even less so the smaller number again of hard brexiteers.
The Govt / parliament have invoked article 50 the only way to stop Brexit is another referendum and that ain't happening until at least the Labour leadership changes policy.
-
So next time we will check in with your first to see if its ok to vote a certain way?
People were telling you that these would be the consequences. Leavers heard them. Leavers chose to ignore them. Some of them did it because they thought it was a price worth paying. Some of them did it because they were told not to listen to experts by the Leave campaigners. Either way the responsibility is on the Leave voters.
Neither naive or stupid enough to think that your analogy is representative of how nation states work.
Honestly, do you think our relations with the EU member states are better or worse than they were in May 2016?
-
the only way to stop Brexit is another referendum
The government does not need another vote to stop Brexit. The referendum was not legally binding. However, it would be politically very difficult.
-
People were telling you that these would be the consequences. Leavers heard them. Leavers chose to ignore them. Some of them did it because they thought it was a price worth paying. Some of them did it because they were told not to listen to experts by the Leave campaigners. Either way the responsibility is on the Leave voters.
Honestly, do you think our relations with the EU member states are better or worse than they were in May 2016?
No in a democracy the responsibility is on everyone, it is your responsibility to come up with persuasive arguements, you failed some you bear the burden.
Who told anyone to not listen to experts, who you are misrepresenting now?
-
The government does not need another vote to stop Brexit. The referendum was not legally binding. However, it would be politically very difficult.
That's right - constitutionally and legally the government can stop bret without a referendum, just as they could have enacted brexit without a referendum, or indeed decided to ignore a referendum result. However this would be very difficult to justify politically. However it could easily be achieved politically through another referendum (which wouldn't be a second referendum as the question would be different, being about whether to accept a specific brexit deal vs remaining).
-
No in a democracy the responsibility is on everyone, it is your responsibility to come up with persuasive arguements, you failed some you bear the burden.
The arguments were made. The evidence was there. I did the best to make sure I understood all the evidence and facts. And now you are claiming it is my fault that the Leave voters didn't think for themselves too.
Stop trying to absolve leave voters of the blame. In the unlikely event that it all turns out fine, I'm sure there won't be much "everybody was responsible" talk. This is on the leave voters.
-
The arguments were made. The evidence was there. I did the best to make sure I understood all the evidence and facts. And now you are claiming it is my fault that the Leave voters didn't think for themselves too.
Stop trying to absolve leave voters of the blame. In the unlikely event that it all turns out fine, I'm sure there won't be much "everybody was responsible" talk. This is on the leave voters.
In a democracy the rules are if you want an outcome you have to persuade the majority. Suggesting the majority can't think for themselves, can't understand facts and then blaming them for the result, sounds like the first step all dictators take.
-
This doesn't bode well for any form of rational policy
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/uk-hits-skilled-worker-visa-cap-third-month-home-office-refuses-applications
-
In a democracy the rules are if you want an outcome you have to persuade the majority.
Not in our democracy they aren't. You merely have to persuade a large enough minority.
-
In a democracy the rules are if you want an outcome you have to persuade the majority.
The rules in our democracy are normally that. if you want a certain outcome, you have to vote a party into power that is sympathetic to implementing it.
But if that's they way you want it, you have to agree that the Leavers failed to persuade the majority too. Only about a third of the electorate voted for Brexit.
Suggesting the majority can't think for themselves, can't understand facts and then blaming them for the result, sounds like the first step all dictators take.
Well claiming that people who didn't want Brexit and expressed their displeasure by voting against it are to blame really doesn't look much like thinking to me.
Look, if you turn out to be right and everything is hunky dory in five years time you can come back and tell me "I told you so" and you can take the credit (your fellow leavers certainly will). However, even the pro-Brexit government's own figures tell us that everything isn't going to be hunky dory.
-
The rules in our democracy are normally that. if you want a certain outcome, you have to vote a party into power that is sympathetic to implementing it.
But if that's they way you want it, you have to agree that the Leavers failed to persuade the majority too. Only about a third of the electorate voted for Brexit.
Persuade the majority of those that vote then then, the point still stands.
Well claiming that people who didn't want Brexit and expressed their displeasure by voting against it are to blame really doesn't look much like thinking to me.
Agreed, blaming voters is silly idea.
Look, if you turn out to be right and everything is hunky dory in five years time you can come back and tell me "I told you so" and you can take the credit (your fellow leavers certainly will). However, even the pro-Brexit government's own figures tell us that everything isn't going to be hunky dory.
Huh are you deluded? I'm interested in what you think and why you think it as it helps me form my own view on issues, if you think in 5 years time I'm going to be looking for some sort of approval or 'yeah i win', lol who cares about that?
-
Agreed, blaming voters is silly idea.
The voters that vote for a bad idea are very much to blame unless they were persuaded by lies.
Huh are you deluded? I'm interested in what you think and why you think it as it helps me form my own view on issues, if you think in 5 years time I'm going to be looking for some sort of approval or 'yeah i win', lol who cares about that?
I think you will. If this debate is on going in five years and everything is going fine, you'll be telling us we were wrong to be doubters. I would have no issue with you doing that.
However, no matter what happens over the next five years, we have still destroyed our relationship with thew other EU member states and that is reason enough in itself to be sad about what is happening.
-
The voters that vote for a bad idea are very much to blame unless they were persuaded by lies.
I think you will. If this debate is on going in five years and everything is going fine, you'll be telling us we were wrong to be doubters. I would have no issue with you doing that.
However, no matter what happens over the next five years, we have still destroyed our relationship with thew other EU member states and that is reason enough in itself to be sad about what is happening.
All you can do is vote so if I were you I'd blame politicians who are accountable to you by virtue of your vote. If you blame voters who cares?
I see centre left politicians in Labour are happy that JC is going to be in favour of customs union (not the customs union). weird I think everyone is in favour of a customs union?
-
weird I think everyone is in favour of a customs union?
The hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the (or a) customs union at all.
-
The hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the (or a) customs union at all.
Citation required, from all of them.
-
Citation required, from all of them.
I don't need to, as it is self defining.
A hard Brexiteer is, by definition, someone who favours a hard Brexit.
A defining feature of a hard Brexit is that we leave the customs union (or a customs union that effectively achieves the same thing as the customs union).
Therefore by definition hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the UK being part of the (or a) customs union.
It isn't rocket science.
-
I don't need to, as it is self defining.
A hard Brexiteer is, by definition, someone who favours a hard Brexit.
A defining feature of a hard Brexit is that we leave the customs union (or a customs union that effectively achieves the same thing as the customs union).
Therefore by definition hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the UK being part of the (or a) customs union.
It isn't rocket science.
As far as I know some that you would describe as being hard would favour a customs arrangement, which is a customs union. In fact its the Govts position to have a customs arrangement so Labour and Tories are almost on the same page, calling it Customs Union or arrangement is spin.
-
As far as I know some that you would describe as being hard would favour a customs arrangement, which is a customs union. In fact its the Govts position to have a customs arrangement so Labour and Tories are almost on the same page, calling it Customs Union or arrangement is spin.
Totally agree. May will suggest a custom arrangement exactly like Corbyns union and people will accept it as a good idea.
The rebels will vote against Soubry and it will be Corbyn who will be in the Keech.
-
Totally agree. May will suggest a custom arrangement exactly like Corbyns union and people will accept it as a good idea.
The rebels will vote against Soubry and it will be Corbyn who will be in the Keech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460
-
Except it isn't, is it. Boris?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43210156
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460
LBC commentators now waxing lyrical about their love of crisps!!! You couldn't make it up.
-
LBC commentators now waxing lyrical about their love of crisps!!! You couldn't make it up.
Do they go with the jam that we will make?
-
Do they go with the jam that we will make?
Oh that and smock wearing. In Brexit Britain the one with the worst broadband deal will be village idiot. It's all for the tourists and the deal we will strike with them to chuck apple cores at us.
-
As far as I know some that you would describe as being hard would favour a customs arrangement, which is a customs union. In fact its the Govts position to have a customs arrangement so Labour and Tories are almost on the same page, calling it Customs Union or arrangement is spin.
It's not the same at all. In a customs union there is effectively no border in respect of the movement of goods. A customs arrangement might be a union or it might be some lesser deal.
-
Boris blunders again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43215286
-
Mrs May doing what she does best, shifting the blame.
Headline in The Times:
Don't break up Britain, May warns the EU.
Yes because yet again the UK government has no responsibility whatsoever for the mucking fuddle we find ourselves in.
-
Is the May/Johnson relationship running the country at the moment a follie a deux?
-
Mrs May doing what she does best, shifting the blame.
Headline in The Times:
Don't break up Britain, May warns the EU.
Yes because yet again the UK government has no responsibility whatsoever for the mucking fuddle we find ourselves in.
Quite astonishing. The UK has decided to leave the EU, therefore it is the UK's responsibility to ensure that this is done without breaking up the UK. Given that the EU wanted us to remain part of the EU, I cannot see how the EU bears any responsibility if the UK break up due to leaving the EU.
Bottom line - stop shirking your responsibilities.
-
Mrs May doing what she does best, shifting the blame.
Headline in The Times:
Don't break up Britain, May warns the EU.
Yes because yet again the UK government has no responsibility whatsoever for the mucking fuddle we find ourselves in.
Yep. This is a crate of cans of worms the Tory shambles are trying to ignore.
Even if by some miracle as yet unforseen they, and their DUP partners in bribery manage to cobble a solution, just wait till Holyrrod wades in and rejects it!
-
I love it and am sad about it
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16058987.Patrick_Harvie_urged_to_be_respectful_after_branding_two_Tory_MPs__expensively_educated_idiots_/
-
I love it and am sad about it
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16058987.Patrick_Harvie_urged_to_be_respectful_after_branding_two_Tory_MPs__expensively_educated_idiots_/
He wan't wrong.
-
I would suggest it never was
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/boris-johnson-is-a-joke-that-isn-t-funny-anymore-1.3408977
-
May sweeps things under the carpet again.
-
I would suggest it never was
I would suggest that it was until he gained high political office.
-
I would suggest that it was until he gained high political office.
Nah, the basic joke is about mistreating people.
-
May sweeps things under the carpet again.
Rather she has created a vacuum of rhetoric
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43250035
-
Conservatives committed to probable unemployment. Labour committed to its avoidance.Speaking to a brexiter who says there's always been times of unemployment and the coming one will be blamed on Brexit.
I told him that's like pushing people into traffic and then claiming people get run over all the time.
-
60% of councils say their regions will be adversely affected by Brexit....
Still waiting for good news from the Brexit side So far only play up play up and play the game from Johnson.
-
I think it's fairly obvious that the government as currently constituted will be unable to agree an acceptable deal that the EU will agree to. We're headed for the no deal option and nothing can stop it short of the the Tories being deposed from power and Labour growing some balls.
-
It's not the same at all. In a customs union there is effectively no border in respect of the movement of goods. A customs arrangement might be a union or it might be some lesser deal.
It sounds like you are saying 'its not the same, it might be the same'.
Does anyone know the Labour position, we are leaving the customs union to join a new one between EU and UK?
Meaning we can't negotiate any new trade deals.
-
I think it's fairly obvious that the government as currently constituted will be unable to agree an acceptable deal that the EU will agree to. We're headed for the no deal option and nothing can stop it short of the the Tories being deposed from power and Labour growing some balls.
There’s going to have to be another vote, either a GE or a vote on the deal that forces the govt’s hand.
-
Meaning we can't negotiate any new trade deals.
But we wouldn't need to with large parts of the world as the EU already has those deals in place which we would benefit from.
And we would be able to negotiate new deals alongside the EU, who due to their economic power will always be able to strike better deals than the UK could alone.
-
There’s going to have to be another vote, either a GE or a vote on the deal that forces the govt’s hand.
Walk me through that how is it going to come about?
You know how certain Davey is about how Brexit will be bad news, everyone to the right of Nick Clegg thinks that Corbyn will be a disaster to such a scale that will make Brexit bad news irrelevant.
-
But we wouldn't need to with large parts of the world as the EU already has those deals in place which we would benefit from.
And we would be able to negotiate new deals alongside the EU, who due to their economic power will always be able to strike better deals than the UK could alone.
So fast forward 4 years the Trump nightmare a memory and democrat gets in, TTIP gets back on the agenda, the UK doesn't want to open up the NHS to US companies but the EU does the deal anyway.
Doing deals is not about economic power its about doing a deal right for your economy, in fact you could argue its easier to do a free trade deal the smaller you are.
-
So fast forward 4 years the Trump nightmare a memory and democrat gets in, TTIP gets back on the agenda, the UK doesn't want to open up the NHS to US companies but the EU does the deal anyway.
Doing deals is not about economic power its about doing a deal right for your economy, in fact you could argue its easier to do a free trade deal the smaller you are.
We wont be in any position to be negotiating any better trade deals with anyone for a long, long time as we will be playing catch up to try to recreate the current trade deals that we currently enjoy as part of the EU (with both EU countries and many, many other countries across the globe) which will be wiped out on the day we leave the EU, unless we remain in the single market/customs union.
-
Walk me through that how is it going to come about?
You know how certain Davey is about how Brexit will be bad news, everyone to the right of Nick Clegg thinks that Corbyn will be a disaster to such a scale that will make Brexit bad news irrelevant.
How irrelevent can losing your Job be?
-
We wont be in any position to be negotiating any better trade deals with anyone for a long, long time as we will be playing catch up to try to recreate the current trade deals that we currently enjoy as part of the EU (with both EU countries and many, many other countries across the globe) which will be wiped out on the day we leave the EU, unless we remain in the single market/customs union.
You seem to have evaded the question.
-
FT reports that US to offer UK a worse deal on air transport access than it already has with the EU.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/05/airbus-may-leave-uk-unless-there-is-urgent-clarity-on-brexit-trade
-
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/05/airbus-may-leave-uk-unless-there-is-urgent-clarity-on-brexit-trade
How very capitalist of you!
-
How very capitalist of you!
Vauxhall chief gives Brexit warning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43300201
-
You seem to have evaded the question.
Let's revisit your question:
'So fast forward 4 years the Trump nightmare a memory (hypothetical 1) and democrat gets in (hypothetical 2), TTIP gets back on the agenda (hypothetical 3), the UK doesn't want to open up the NHS to US companies (hypothetical 4) but the EU does the deal anyway (hypothetical 5).'
So you are asking me my views on a scenario based on 5, yup count them, 5 hypotheticals. Completely pointless. But to answer your pointless 5 hypotheticals scenario - if we felt strongly about it, we could leave the customs union at that point or negotiate an opt out to those area we don't like (as is already the case for customs union members). And anyhow, your hypotheticals are misplaced as the concerns about TTIP are about opening up service provision while the customs union is about goods.
-
Let's revisit your question:
'So fast forward 4 years the Trump nightmare a memory (hypothetical 1) and democrat gets in (hypothetical 2), TTIP gets back on the agenda (hypothetical 3), the UK doesn't want to open up the NHS to US companies (hypothetical 4) but the EU does the deal anyway (hypothetical 5).'
So you are asking me my views on a scenario based on 5, yup count them, 5 hypotheticals. Completely pointless. But to answer your pointless 5 hypotheticals scenario - if we felt strongly about it, we could leave the customs union at that point or negotiate an opt out to those area we don't like (as is already the case for customs union members). And anyhow, your hypotheticals are misplaced as the concerns about TTIP are about opening up service provision while the customs union is about goods.
It not beyond the realms of possibility that the EU negotiate a deal that we don't want to be part of. In any event according to you we will just negotiate an opt out, how many other countries that are members of the customs union have opt-outs?
-
how many other countries that are members of the customs union have opt-outs?
In effect, pretty well all of them.
The EU member states can effectively veto a deal, so that precludes anything they will not accept being foisted on them.
As far as I am aware there are only 4 separate non-EU states that are part of the customs union, but as far as I can see pretty well all have opt-outs. Examples include Turkey (opt out on food, agriculture, government procurement), Andorra (opt out on agriculture) and San Marino (opt out on coal and steel).
So that means that of 32 states 31 have opt outs or the ability to veto a decision.
If San Marino can get an opt out on coal and steel and Turkey can on Government procurement, it seems more than plausible that the UK could on the NHS (albeit once again it isn't really relevant as the customs union is about goods, not service provision).
-
In effect, pretty well all of them.
The EU member states can effectively veto a deal, so that precludes anything they will not accept being foisted on them.
As far as I am aware there are only 4 separate non-EU states that are part of the customs union, but as far as I can see pretty well all have opt-outs. Examples include Turkey (opt out on food, agriculture, government procurement), Andorra (opt out on agriculture) and San Marino (opt out on coal and steel).
So that means that of 32 states 31 have opt outs or the ability to veto a decision.
If San Marino can get an opt out on coal and steel and Turkey can on Government procurement, it seems more than plausible that the UK could on the NHS (albeit once again it isn't really relevant as the customs union is about goods, not service provision).
Apparently Turkey was to be excluded from TTIP anyway so maybe my point was moot.
I'm comfortable with Customs Union and single market as long as political union ends.
-
Two 'big' speeches and little effect on the polling
-
Apparently Turkey was to be excluded from TTIP anyway so maybe my point was moot.
Indeed it was and even more so as the concerns over TTIP were about access as service provider, which isn't part of the customs union in any case as it isn't about goods.
-
Potential Brexit developments, announced over the last couple of days:
Possible withdrawal of Airbus wing manufacture from Bristol and North Wales. This would result in the loss of world-class aviation engineering capability from the UK.
Possible closure of Vauxhall production plant at Ellesmere Port. Since Vauhall is now part of Peugeot SA this should come as no surprise.
Ryanair and Lufthansa making noises about withdrawing services.
Stunts or genuine threats?
-
So fast forward 4 years the Trump nightmare a memory and democrat gets in, TTIP gets back on the agenda, the UK doesn't want to open up the NHS to US companies but the EU does the deal anyway.
Well with our veto we could stop that...
... oh wait, we won't have one by then.
Well done Brexiteers. You've fucked us over again.
-
Potential Brexit developments, announced over the last couple of days:
Possible withdrawal of Airbus wing manufacture from Bristol and North Wales. This would result in the loss of world-class aviation engineering capability from the UK.
Possible closure of Vauxhall production plant at Ellesmere Port. Since Vauhall is now part of Peugeot SA this should come as no surprise.
Ryanair and Lufthansa making noises about withdrawing services.
Stunts or genuine threats?
Airbus and Vauxhall are genuine threats. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Vauxhall were to move out even if we miraculously stay in the EU, because they are, as you say, part of a French company now.
Ryanair and Lufthansa will not leave unless people suddenly stop wanting to travel by air. However, Bexit will lead to an uptick in air travel because UK driving licences will no longer be valid in the mainland EU.
Well done Brexiteers, your small minded insularity fucks us over again.
-
Gary Younge in Ippy's favourite newspaper. Worth reading despite that ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/09/brexit-eu-democratic-britain?CMP=fb_gu
-
Time to boycott French products?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/11/normandy-advert-to-seduce-post-brexit-uk-firms-banned
-
Liam Fox and the EU up a tree....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/brexiteer-liam-fox-will-fight-trumps-steel-tariffsworking-closely-with-eu/13/03/
-
At least with Brexit we will save lots of money.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/13/uk-save-money-brexit-obr-divorce-bill
Oh, not until 2064 you say?
Brexiteers fucking it up with style.
-
The power of Wetherspoon's
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/932782/Brexit-News-Wetherspoon-Brexit-News-Tim-Martins-Brussels-trade-war
-
Although at 1.40, Euroland is very tempting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-43430964
-
It looks as if UK has conceded on most points in the transition deal, e.g., fishing, freedom of movement, divorce payment, primacy of EU law. If this is correct, Mrs May and Davis have an interesting way of doing business - sound tough, but give in on most things. If this is correct, we might be heading for an EEA-lite deal in the end. But not called 'European' for fear of upsetting the Ultras.
-
It looks as if UK has conceded on most points in the transition deal, e.g., fishing, freedom of movement, divorce payment, primacy of EU law. If this is correct, Mrs May and Davis have an interesting way of doing business - sound tough, but give in on most things. If this is correct, we might be heading for an EEA-lite deal in the end. But not called 'European' for fear of upsetting the Ultras.
Even an Irish Sea border seems likely - rather than the N. Ireland/Republic border - despite May having stated categorically that that will not happen.
-
Even an Irish Sea border seems likely - rather than the N. Ireland/Republic border - despite May having stated categorically that that will not happen.
Perhaps the Maybot has calculated that the DUP won't react badly and pull the plug on their cosy wee arrangement provided that Stormont remains mothballed, since this effectively removes Sinn Fein from devolved political governance in NI, especially since Sinn Fein don't use their Westminster seats (for now at least).
Or perhaps she is just useless and NI will be a problem no matter what.
-
Perhaps the Maybot has calculated that the DUP won't react badly and pull the plug on their cosy wee arrangement provided that Stormont remains mothballed, since this effectively removes Sinn Fein from devolved political governance in NI, especially since Sinn Fein don't use their Westminster seats (for now at least).
Or perhaps she is just useless and NI will be a problem no matter what.
I think your final sentiment is highly likely, though I have some sympathy with May's predicament, since she was landed with a situation with which she was not completely sympathetic in the first place. Arlene not reacting badly? I'm sure she wouldn't be averse to using that old threat (beloved of both the IRA and Loyalists) "We know where you live...."
-
I think your final sentiment is highly likely, though I have some sympathy with May's predicament, since she was landed with a situation with which she was not completely sympathetic in the first place. Arlene not reacting badly? I'm sure she wouldn't be averse to using that old threat (beloved of both the IRA and Loyalists) "We know where you live...."
Disagree, anything May has been landed with, while not necessarily her choice of outcome, is because of her actions.
-
We will be lucky to see any benefits of Brexit at all, it seems everyone in power is so against it by the time finishing amending what the people really wanted it, we might as well stayed in any way..
Such a pity that Britain has proved itself to be so undemocratic...
-
Interesting intervention by Jack McConnell - former Labour first minister of Scotland and now member of the HOL. He broadly agrees with the Scottish government on the Westminster power grab of matters devolved from Brussels which should - but won't - go to Holyrood. The Stooshie over NI isn't settled; now for the stooshie over Scotland. Anyone got popcorn?
-
Such a pity that Britain has proved itself to be so undemocratic...
Is this a reference to the claim that a measure which won the approval of 37% of the electorate was "overwhelmingly" supported?
-
Is this a reference to the claim that a measure which won the approval of 37% of the electorate was "overwhelmingly" supported?
....or could it be that two of the constituet parts of this failed union are being dragged out of the EU against the will of the majority who live there?
-
....or could it be that two of the constituet parts of this failed union are being dragged out of the EU against the will of the majority who live there?
It could be both, of course.
-
Leaving aside the hypocrisy, this is an illustration of why there is no point in satire on politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43484031
-
Leaving aside the hypocrisy, this is an illustration of why there is no point in satire on politics.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43484031
Anybody throwing fish into the Thames must be in ''a bad place'' IMHO.
-
Is this a reference to the claim that a measure which won the approval of 37% of the electorate was "overwhelmingly" supported?
It was a democratic vote in or out, cameron promised to action the vote which ever way it went, when we voted Brexit, like the coward he has always been he resigned and allowed the blocking to begin...
the good news is 2 years on the sky hasn't fallen in yet...
-
This may not be the last
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/23/owen-smith-sacked-from-labour-party-frontbench
-
This may not be the last
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/23/owen-smith-sacked-from-labour-party-frontbench
Makes Jezza look like a little man.
-
It was a democratic vote in or out, cameron promised to action the vote which ever way it went, when we voted Brexit, like the coward he has always been he resigned and allowed the blocking to begin...
the good news is 2 years on the sky hasn't fallen in yet...
We haven't left yet. At least I agree with your low opinion of Cameron. (There's no such verb as "to action", by the way.)
Yet another good reason to stay in Europe. https://www.facebook.com/AmericaVersusbyattn/videos/1793066711001580/
We will be lucky to see any benefits of Brexit at all, it seems everyone in power is so against it by the time finishing amending what the people really wanted it, we might as well stayed in any way..
Getting your excuses in first, eh? You should be a politician!
...what the people really wanted...
34.73% of the people, actually - and that's just the electorate. The total population is another matter.
-
the good news is 2 years on the sky hasn't fallen in yet...
The sky hadn't fallen in but the economy is really struggling.
Before the referendum we were one of the fastest growing developed economies. We are now the slowest growing of the G20 countries.
-
It was a democratic vote in or out, cameron promised to action the vote which ever way it went, when we voted Brexit, like the coward he has always been he resigned and allowed the blocking to begin...
Cameron had no intention of leaving the EU. Legally, the referendum was "advisory". Its purpose was not determine continued membership of the EU but to silence the small number of paleolithic throwbacks making a lot of noise in the Conservative Party. He resigned because he had been shown to be an incompetent party leader. (Like his three immediate predecessors in that role his sole qualification was that his name wasn't Ken Clarke.)
The Maybot thought that if she said "let's do Brexit" then the majority of UKRAPPers would vote Conservative.
-
the good news is 2 years on the sky hasn't fallen in yet...
The denial is strong in this one...
-
Can the referendum be called democratic if it is found that one side committed electoral fraud (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43527924)?
For the moment, this is a theoretical question, but if the electoral commission finds Vote Leave did cheat, does that not mean the fig leaf of democracy that the Brexiteers cling to is an illusion?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-43537451/stormy-daniels-i-was-threatened
I suspect there is some truth to this woman's story. Trump seemed unable to keep it in his pants if the allegations about his past sexual misconduct are factual.
-
Cameron had no intention of leaving the EU. Legally, the referendum was "advisory". Its purpose was not determine continued membership of the EU but to silence the small number of paleolithic throwbacks making a lot of noise in the Conservative Party. He resigned because he had been shown to be an incompetent party leader. (Like his three immediate predecessors in that role his sole qualification was that his name wasn't Ken Clarke.)
The Maybot thought that if she said "let's do Brexit" then the majority of UKRAPPers would vote Conservative.
Heard a lot of this rewrite of history, almost all parties supported the referendum especially after UKIP won in 2014.
-
Heard a lot of this rewrite of history, almost all parties supported the referendum especially after UKIP won in 2014.
Jakswan - it is you that is rewriting history.
At the 2015 General election the only parties with a pledge for an in/out referendum on membership of the EU were the Tories and UKIP. Labour did indicate that were there to be proposals for powers to be transferred to the EU in the future then that would be subject a referendum - but that is a completely different matter to pledging a referendum on the current situation.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-43537451/stormy-daniels-i-was-threatened
I suspect there is some truth to this woman's story. Trump seemed unable to keep it in his pants if the allegations about his past sexual misconduct are factual.
You might be on the wrong thread...
-
Jakswan - it is you that is rewriting history.
At the 2015 General election the only parties with a pledge for an in/out referendum on membership of the EU were the Tories and UKIP. Labour did indicate that were there to be proposals for powers to be transferred to the EU in the future then that would be subject a referendum - but that is a completely different matter to pledging a referendum on the current situation.
Labour mostly voted for the European Union Referendum Act 2015. You might support another vote (unlike Labour leadership) if that passes and we have the vote and remain wins, anyone who says we only stayed because of a small bunch of moderates wanted it would be dishonest.
-
Labour mostly voted for the European Union Referendum Act 2015. You might support another vote (unlike Labour leadership) if that passes and we have the vote and remain wins, anyone who says we only stayed because of a small bunch of moderates wanted it would be dishonest.
And what if the position was reversed if there was another referendum?
-
The democratic credentials of the referendum are now looking even more shaky.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43558876
-
Labour mostly voted for the European Union Referendum Act 2015.
You claimed that almost all parties supported the referendum as far back as May 2014, when UKIP won the largest vote share in the European Parliamentary election. That is simply untrue as in the General Election in May the following year just the Tories, UKIP and DUP had an in/out referendum in their election manifesto. Those parties that didn't support an in/out referendum on the EU include Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid plus most of the Northern Ireland parties.
So your statement that: 'almost all parties supported the referendum especially after UKIP won in 2014' is flat out wrong. If you had said 'especially after the Tory election win in 2015' perhaps you'd have a point, but you didn't - you claimed support back to 2014.
You might support another vote (unlike Labour leadership) if that passes and we have the vote and remain wins, anyone who says we only stayed because of a small bunch of moderates wanted it would be dishonest.
Could you rephrase please so that this makes sense.
-
You claimed that almost all parties supported the referendum as far back as May 2014, when UKIP won the largest vote share in the European Parliamentary election. That is simply untrue as in the General Election in May the following year just the Tories, UKIP and DUP had an in/out referendum in their election manifesto. Those parties that didn't support an in/out referendum on the EU include Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid plus most of the Northern Ireland parties.
So your statement that: 'almost all parties supported the referendum especially after UKIP won in 2014' is flat out wrong. If you had said 'especially after the Tory election win in 2015' perhaps you'd have a point, but you didn't - you claimed support back to 2014.
Could you rephrase please so that this makes sense.
Pedantry 101.
-
Pedantry 101.
Or just pointing out your obvious and elementary error.
The choice is yours.
-
Or just pointing out your obvious and elementary error.
The choice is yours.
I stick with pedantry since there was no error on my part.
-
I stick with pedantry since there was no error on my part.
There was a very clear error on your part as it is clear that following the 2014 European parliamentary election most parties did not support an in/out referendum, as was apparent from their 2015 General Election manifestos, contrary to your claim - so your statement was flat out wrong.
And I don't think that pointing out clearly incorrect statements is pedantry.
-
There was a very clear error on your part as it is clear that following the 2014 European parliamentary election most parties did not support an in/out referendum, as was apparent from their 2015 General Election manifestos, contrary to your claim - so your statement was flat out wrong.
And I don't think that pointing out clearly incorrect statements is pedantry.
Let me rephrase then.
Almost all parties supported the Referendum Bill especially in light of the fact that UKIP won in 2014.
Was it abundantly clear that is what I meant, no, was I saying that all most political parties supported a vote in 2014, no.
You could have asked for clarification but no, jumped to a conclusion so you could claim I made an error.
Could be considered misrepresentation but lets leave it all go because this sort of debate about nothing bores me senseless.
-
Almost all parties supported the Referendum Bill especially in light of the fact that UKIP won in 2014.
Nope still wont do.
As far as I am aware not a single party changed its position on an in/out referendum un light of the result of the 2014 European Parliamentary election. I could be wrong, but I think the onus is on you to name one as you are the person making the claim that somehow the 2014 European Parliamentary election was critical in terms of parties supporting a referendum.
The facts are that prior to the 2015 General Election most parties did not support a referendum, and those that did were already pledged to holding a referendum prior to the 2014 European Parliamentary election.
-
Nope still wont do.
Actually wrong again.
As far as I am aware not a single party changed its position on an in/out referendum un light of the result of the 2014 European Parliamentary election. I could be wrong, but I think the onus is on you to name one as you are the person making the claim that somehow the 2014 European Parliamentary election was critical in terms of parties supporting a referendum.
Its not a claim its opinion, no onus on me sonny.
The facts are that prior to the 2015 General Election most parties did not support a referendum, and those that did were already pledged to holding a referendum prior to the 2014 European Parliamentary election.
Ahhh facts, you get the onus.
So please list the parties and cite their opposition to a refendum, please note quoting their manifesto's won't do since you need to prove 'did not support'.
Going to be tricky since in 2015 the majority of parties actually voted through parliment (with a massive majority) the EU Referendum Bill.
Davey so far wrong on Brexit, wrong on art50 getting through Parliament, wrong on there being an early election, wrong on DUP supporting staying in single market, so far wrong on Labour changing policy on another referendum.
This list keeps getting longer, will we add another today? :)
-
More evidence that Vote Leave broke the rules.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43680969
-
David Davis shows he's a bit confused
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/how-dare-david-davis-blame-sinn-fein-for-the-irish-border-mess/
-
Unity in Scotland - apart from the Tories who are lying about the idea that this is just an SNP position.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43951071
-
Not to worry: it is all going smoothly (not).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43951405
-
Stephen Baker. Would you buy a second hand car from this man?
-
Two alarming misconceptions gleaned from LBC.
That we have already left europe
All we want to do is leave europe, none of the rest of it, just leave Europe.
Britain will be like the couple where one partner will drag the other out of something they have invested in on emotional grounds.
-
Customs partnership-flawed
Maximum facilitation-science and financial fiction in that Brexiteers want it but they don't want to pay for it.
-
Shit approaching fan.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/06/justine-greening-warns-young-voters-wont-forgive-damaging-brexit-deal
-
The big news is probably the extent of the Labour rebellion, but I find something rather funny about the Duke of Wellington giving the government a kicking over Europe.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-eu-withdrawal-bill-house-lords-peers-deal-vote-customs-union-a8341706.html
-
The big news is probably the extent of the Labour rebellion, but I find something rather funny about the Duke of Wellington giving the government a kicking over Europe.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-eu-withdrawal-bill-house-lords-peers-deal-vote-customs-union-a8341706.html
The European union that the First Duke of Wellington stopped was somewhat less democratic than the current one.
-
The Daily Mail wants shot of the House of Lords. That's a bit socialist isn't it?
Could anyone remind me the name given to right wing nationalist parties which want socialist policies?
-
So it turns out that Leave.eu was cheating during the referendum campaign (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44080096).
Where does that leave the democratic vote? Can people stop treating it as though it was God's word dictated from on high?
-
Can people stop treating it as though it was God's word dictated from on high?
I don't think that they are. In the case of the Maybot, I believe that pretending it might be so is the device she is using to maintain her position in the Conservative Party. Johnson, too, sees his best chance of becoming leader and hence PM as being to placate the neanderthal throwbacks in the party. In May's case it is about survival, in Johnson's it is the ultimate proof of the Peter Principle.
Both of them are putting the interests of the Conservative Party above those of the nation.
-
So it turns out that Leave.eu was cheating during the referendum campaign (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44080096).
Where does that leave the democratic vote? Can people stop treating it as though it was God's word dictated from on high?
Sorry, Jeremyp, I see that you were perhaps making a more general statement than my reply would suggest. Do you think that it is the relative infrequency of referendum in our political history that may be responsible for this? In spite of the fact that the referendum was legally advisory only, was inadequately prepared for by both sides, would not have been considered conclusive in those democracies in which referendums are customary and which, from a probability theory viewpoint produced an unclear result, there were numbers involved. And where there are numbers there is absolute certainty.
Absence of rational thought.
-
Miliband pops up
-
Government send the first ever and probably the most junior minister from the Bwexit ministry.
As everything to do with getting Kent ready for the big day It's too little too late. Everything that is apart from the contempt May has for the region.
Charlie Elphicke not nearly pushy enough. The Tories can expect to lose Dover next time round.
-
It looks likely, not that there was ever much doubt, that Holyrood will refuse consent for all or part of the EU withdrawal bill: Westminster may choose to forge ahead anyway but this adds yet another complication to the ever-escalating insanity of Brexit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44108200
-
It looks likely, not that there was ever much doubt, that Holyrood will refuse consent for all or part of the EU withdrawal bill: Westminster may choose to forge ahead anyway but this adds yet another complication to the ever-escalating insanity of Brexit.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15599.msg732250#new
Not completely convinced that was the link you intended.
-
Not completely convinced that was the link you intended.
Well spotted: I was wondering how long it would be before someone spotted the deliberate mistake :)
I've amended the post.
-
Dispute about returned powers.
First time ive heard talk of the UK single market....sounds like an English Gammon invention.
''We want out of the UK single market''
-
So all the parties other than the Tories vote the same way but it's all the SNP according to the Tories... That's called lying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44113864
-
So all the parties other than the Tories vote the same way but it's all the SNP according to the Tories... That's called lying.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-44113864
Yep.
I also note certain MSM outlets are using this as an "SNP Bad" story, when it is actually a case of parties getting together to defend Scotland's parliament....well, the parties that matter, anyway.....
-
Do any Brexit voters here actually give a shit about this?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/16/from-royal-table-to-empty-fields-asparagus-farmer-faces-bust-over-brexit
-
Do any Brexit voters here actually give a shit about this?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/16/from-royal-table-to-empty-fields-asparagus-farmer-faces-bust-over-brexit
Of course not. We've all got to make sacrifices to satisfy their petty nationalism. We voted for it remember.
-
Of course, Michael
http://www.cityam.com/286131/michael-gove-brexit-has-made-uk-more-welcoming-immigrants
-
I particularly like this bit:
"The whole point about the backstop [announced last week] is that it’s intended not to be implemented, but it’s there just in case."
Isn't that what was thought about Article 50?
Look where that got us.
-
Meanwhile Thunderbirds are go!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44221524
-
Meanwhile Thunderbirds are go!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44221524
He ain't no Brains, even if May's a puppet.
-
Remoaners can always rely on the BBC for support, in the BBC's usual way, a little bit here another little bit there.
Regards ippy
-
Remoaners can always rely on the BBC for support, in the BBC's usual way, a little bit here another little bit there.
Regards ippy
Everybody complains that the BBC is biased against them, which suggests to me that, broadly speaking, it is unbiased.
-
Remoaners can always rely on the BBC for support, in the BBC's usual way, a little bit here another little bit there.
Regards ippy
What has that to do with Johnson making a statement about a private plane?
-
Remoaners can always rely on the BBC for support, in the BBC's usual way, a little bit here another little bit there.
Regards ippy
Nonsense. The BBC did little to challenge the lies of Farage and his ilk, instead taking refuge in the thought that impartiality means treating every strange thought as if it has equal weight.
-
What has that to do with Johnson making a statement about a private plane?
If you don't see the connection, I'm not going to explain it to you; perhaps the BBC should start publishing a thesis about how to say good morning, so that it's understood by all when they make a statement like that.
Regards ippy
-
Nonsense. The BBC did little to challenge the lies of Farage and his ilk, instead taking refuge in the thought that impartiality means treating every strange thought as if it has equal weight.
'The BBC did little obvious to challenge the lies of Farage and his ilk, instead taking refuge in the thought that impartiality means treating every strange thought as if it has equal weight'.
Regards ippy
-
If you don't see the connection, I'm not going to explain it to you; perhaps the BBC should start publishing a thesis about how to say good morning, so that it's understood by all when they make a statement like that.
Regards ippy
Typical Brexshiteer whining. Why don't you get on with making the thing a success (and good luck with that) instead of coming on here tilting at windmills.
-
'The BBC did little obvious to challenge the lies of Farage and his ilk, instead taking refuge in the thought that impartiality means treating every strange thought as if it has equal weight'.
Regards ippy
If I even knew what you thought adding "obvious" achieved I'd bother responding. As I can't. Jog on.
-
If you don't see the connection, I'm not going to explain it to you; perhaps the BBC should start publishing a thesis about how to say good morning, so that it's understood by all when they make a statement like that.
Regards ippy
thank you for highlighting that you can't make the connection.
-
Max Fac to cost £20 billion pounds a year.
-
The cost is beginning to mount up
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/22/brexit-vote-cost-uk-mark-carney-bank-of-england
-
Apologies
Earlier on I referred to max fac the £20 billion fiasco customs device from Johnson and Rees Mogg.
I was of course referring to Max Fuc...The £20 billion fiasco customs device from Johnson and Rees Mogg.
-
I know my food bills have rocketed. Trying to buy fresh fruit especially is often a struggle. But farmers don’t have the labour so I guess that puts up the prices of the stuff that isn’t left to rot. I’ve heard some farmers list a third of their crops last year due to labour shortages.
-
It'll be fine. Bwexit will make Fenwick Grand again.
-
An interesting, innovative and readily understood approach to outlining the complexities of Brexit.
Subterraneanly inspired!
brexitmapping.com (http://brexitmapping.com)
-
So, suddenly, immediately. the Orange Haired Idiot imposed a 25% increased tariff onto steel and aluminium (a word he is incapable of spelling or pronouncing properly) from China, Mexico, Canada and the EU. Two of these entities, China and the EU, are larger economies than the USA.
The apparent belief of the paleolithic throwback puppeteers who control the Maybot is that a "free" UK will be able to make its own trade agreements when it is no longer a member of the EU. Do they really believe that they have a greater chance than the EU of getting favourable agreements when they are negotiating with an economy whose GDP is more than six times as large as their own? And when its chief executive believes that he is a master at doing "deals" (and, apparently, has written a book about his abilities) but who also seems to have no concept of strategy?
-
aluminium (a word he is incapable of spelling or pronouncing properly)
To be fair to him that is a problem with English as spoken and used by Americans generally and not specific to the Trumpster.
Rest of your post spot on!
-
Two of these entities, China and the EU, are larger economies than the USA.
Measured in terms of GDP, both are smaller than the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
-
The quoted message below was tweeted by the intellectual colossus that is Nadine Dorries MP.
'David Davis is ex SAS He’s trained to survive. He’s also trained to take people out.'
-
The quoted message below was tweeted by the intellectual colossus that is Nadine Dorries MP.
'David Davis is ex SAS He’s trained to survive. He’s also trained to take people out.'
FFS. Playground stuff. I despair.
-
Minister resigns over Brexit 'strategy'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44453540
Resignation letter below
http://www.phillip-lee.com/uncategorized/ministerial-resignation-statement/
-
Now that Trump has removed all nuclear weapons from North Korea We can look forward to that trade deal with the US that will completely compensate us for leaving the EU.
-
Has May fucked over the remainer rebels.....and if she has wouldn't that give non tories the majority in any no confidence vote against May?
-
Has May fucked over the remainer rebels.....and if she has wouldn't that give non tories the majority in any no confidence vote against May?
No, since the amendments failed. In addition no doubt the Labour leavers would not vote in a no confidence vote.
-
So 15 minutes to debate the devolution amendment, only one speaker, the govt one, no debate on the Irish border, and Labour abstained in it.
-
No, since the amendments failed. In addition no doubt the Labour leavers would not vote in a no confidence vote.
But according to Buckland what Grieve, Soubry, Wollaston et ce
got was apromise merely to discuss.
Since it appears they've been bunkoed what recourse do they have?
-
But according to Buckland what Grieve, Soubry, Wollaston et ce
got was apromise merely to discuss.
Since it appears they've been bunkoed what recourse do they have?
Even were they to have the numbers and I don't think they have, they would be outweighed by Labour leavers not voting no confidence as it would put Brexit at risk - there were between 5 and 6 voting with the govt last night on different amendments. That aside if they weren't able to vote against the govt last night with the offer of a promise, I can't see how you think it likely that they would vote a no confidence in their own govt. Clarke and Soubry might, but the others don't seem to have the form for that.
-
Even were they to have the numbers and I don't think they have, they would be outweighed by Labour leavers not voting no confidence as it would put Brexit at risk - there were between 5 and 6 voting with the govt last night on different amendments. That aside if they weren't able to vote against the govt last night with the offer of a promise, I can't see how you think it likely that they would vote a no confidence in their own govt. Clarke and Soubry might, but the others don't seem to have the form for that.
Right , so they may well have been fucked over by May.
-
Right , so they may well have been fucked over by May.
They may have been, I was answering your follow up question about whether it would create a majority against May in a no confidence vote.
-
For, against and neither. There are broad churches and then there are broken ones.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44474661
-
Can I intervene at this point and say I really don't understand what is happening. :-[
-
If you think you do, you don't.
-
Somebody needs to stop this madness now, and even the likes of Teresa May must surely realise that there can be no 'good' Brexit since it has made fanatics out of some otherwise reasonable people. Of course it was never meant to happen anyway, the referendum was just supposed to sideline the lunatic Tory fringe - but as a result they were given a set of keys and then they decided they'd rather like to open an asylum, and we've all been admitted.
The Labour party are a joke - John Smith would never have allowed them to abandon being a credible opposition.
Where do we go from here I wonder?
-
Somebody needs to stop this madness now, and even the likes of Teresa May must surely realise that there can be no 'good' Brexit since it has made fanatics out of some otherwise reasonable people. Of course it was never meant to happen anyway, the referendum was just supposed to sideline the lunatic Tory fringe - but as a result they were given a set of keys and then they decided they'd rather like to open an asylum, and we've all been admitted.
The Labour party are a joke - John Smith would never have allowed them to abandon being a credible opposition.
Where do we go from here I wonder?
I fear Brexit may have done for the Labour party after all since anti Corbyn elements keen to leave him high and dry have no desire to actually run a party vis Umanna, Cooper, Burnham, Khan, Jarvis. It was just the final stage in wiping out any benefits accrued in the 20th century by the Conservatives.
Cameron did start the major assault on public services and workers rights after all Brexit just fast tracks that.
-
I fear Brexit may have done for the Labour party after all since anti Corbyn elements keen to leave him high and dry have no desire to actually run a party vis Umanna, Cooper, Burnham, Khan, Jarvis. It was just the final stage in wiping out any benefits accrued in the 20th century by the Conservatives.
Cameron did start the major assault on public services and workers rights after all Brexit just fast tracks that.
Or Jeremy's just screwed it up.
-
Or Jeremy's just screwed it up.
Jeremy is what has held the whole thing together.
The screwing up has been done by those who liked Labour when it was successful but let it go fuck when that had worn of.
Which branch of the Labour party is anywhere near capable or interested enough to fight an election in 2022 let alone an earlier one?
-
Jeremy is what has held the whole thing together.
I like Corbyn but on Brexit he has been abysmal. Just tell me what his policy is today. And then tell me again tomorrow, because it will have changed. Take the weekend off and come back on Monday and tell me what his policy is then. And repeat.
On this one issue Corbyn is very similar to Mrs May. He is trying too hard to get a concensus, when that is not an option with Brexit. It just is not.
-
I like Corbyn but on Brexit he has been abysmal. Just tell me what his policy is today. And then tell me again tomorrow, because it will have changed. Take the weekend off and come back on Monday and tell me what his policy is then. And repeat.
On this one issue Corbyn is very similar to Mrs May. He is trying too hard to get a concensus, when that is not an option with Brexit. It just is not.
I think his approach has been better than May's which is what I expect at the moment since now we are at the stage where Europe is now hostile. I believe that if Jeremy had to replace May in the next three months we would be far better of as a country than we look as if we are going to be even if Brexit were to roll on.
Chukka or any of his ilk leave no impression that they would want to be PM.
-
I think his approach has been better than May's which is what I expect at the moment since now we are at the stage where Europe is now hostile. I believe that if Jeremy had to replace May in the next three months we would be far better of as a country than we look as if we are going to be even if Brexit were to roll on.
Chukka or any of his ilk leave no impression that they would want to be PM.
Of course we'd be better as a country. But thats not really much of an ask, you could put a donkey in No. 10 and we would be better off in terms of leadership.
However, we need someone to articulate clearly what they expect Brexit to look like. No politician I can think of has done this, granted thats mainly because it is such a clusterfuck that it is not possible. But still, a vague clue would be appreciated.
-
Of course we'd be better as a country. But thats not really much of an ask, you could put a donkey in No. 10 and we would be better off in terms of leadership.
However, we need someone to articulate clearly what they expect Brexit to look like. No politician I can think of has done this, granted thats mainly because it is such a clusterfuck that it is not possible. But still, a vague clue would be appreciated.
Yes it is a clusterfuck and i'm afraid that interest in candiduture for leadership is inversly proportional to loud and clear positioning on Brexit vis Mogg and Umanna.
-
I think Trent is right, that it's actually impossible to articulate a clear view of Brexit, since so many incompatible things are being subsumed into it. It's clearly impossible for companies to stop exporting and importing with the EU, but as a third country, we can expect some kind of non-tariff barriers. These could become severe, if there are checks on lorries, cargoes, drivers, provenance, and so on. If each lorry takes a few minutes, result, chaos at Dover, or standstill.
So they are trying to find a way round this, without staying in the single market. Hence Mrs May's talk of frictionless trade, but nobody can really describe this, without being in the EEA, and in addition, why would the EU accept it? It does sound like leaving the gym, but asking to use the pool every morning.
The Ultras are supposedly looking for a crash out, not a deal, resulting in tax haven status, with heavy deregulation. This is another right wing fantasy, and one result might be cancelling social services.
Maybe in the end, there will be a deal, but they are leaving it very late. They have got into something that nobody understands, and nobody can find a way out of. Of course, the EEA provides a solution, but that has now become ideologically unpleasant for the right wing.
-
Not sure if the by election today will really be anything more than a damp squib but who knows in this febrile climate. I am tempted by Charles Carey's description
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44480767
-
The Ultras are supposedly looking for a crash out, not a deal, resulting in tax haven status, with heavy deregulation. This is another right wing fantasy, and one result might be cancelling social services.
That's a Tory fantasy full stop.
-
Well, Tory fantasies are being peddled by a toxic press, which is campaigning against the single market and freedom of movement. In fact, staying in the EEA would enable the UK to take its time, and work out, slowly, various kinds of deals. But the right wing have said no, so we are stuck. I think quite a lot of people are realizing that crashing out with no deal could be catastrophic, but supposedly, that's what the Ultras want.
-
Well, Tory fantasies are being peddled by a toxic press, which is campaigning against the single market and freedom of movement. In fact, staying in the EEA would enable the UK to take its time, and work out, slowly, various kinds of deals. But the right wing have said no, so we are stuck. I think quite a lot of people are realizing that crashing out with no deal could be catastrophic, but supposedly, that's what the Ultras want.
I think everyone knows that the Conservative party want hard brexit with the exception of a few remainers who May seems perfectly content and safe to fuck over.
-
Rees Mogg company decamps to Ireland citing Brexit
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jacob-rees-mogg-scm-ireland-city-move-eu-withdrawal-dublin-a8398041.html
-
As expected May fucks over the rebels.
-
And? Given that they up anything on the Meaningful Vote for a pess of mottage, how confident are you that they will vote to bring down the govt? And what about the Labour MPs who will vote to save the govt?
-
I think Trent is right, that it's actually impossible to articulate a clear view of Brexit,
Rubbish.
Brexit should not be happening. We should stay in the EU.
There you go, I just articulated a clear view on Brexit.
-
Rubbish.
Brexit should not be happening. We should stay in the EU.
There you go, I just articulated a clear view on Brexit.
Well, of course. I thought you knew that I think that is a given. The point is that wishing for this is useless.
Some kind of 'leaving the EU' will happen, however much I think it is the single most stupid thing the people of our countries have enabled.
What would be really useful is a pointer to what it actually will be like. And a unified answer came there none from any of the main parties or anyone else for that matter, and I think that was the point wigginhall was getting at.
-
What would be really useful is a pointer to what it actually will be like. And a unified answer came there none from any of the main parties or anyone else for that matter, and I think that was the point wigginhall was getting at.
This has been the whole problem from the start. Nobody actually thought about what kind of leaving we would want until after the referendum. In fact, I doubt if many of the leave voters even considered what options there were and which one they would want.
In retrospect, what we should have done was have an open debate about what to do and only start the leave proceedings when some sort of consensus was arrived at.
-
Not sure if the by election today will really be anything more than a damp squib but who knows in this febrile climate. I am tempted by Charles Carey's description
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44480767
Impressive list of candidates.
-
Some kind of 'leaving the EU' will happen, however much I think it is the single most stupid thing the people of our countries have enabled.
Indeed. And the most stupid aspect of the whole tragedy ... it is being done - primarily - for party management purposes. Theresa May will - in her own lifetime - find herself in modern history textbooks described as the most stupid prime minister since Eden (the garden, that is, not heart-throb Anthony).
-
Indeed. And the most stupid aspect of the whole tragedy ... it is being done - primarily - for party management purposes. Theresa May will - in her own lifetime - find herself in modern history textbooks described as the most stupid prime minister since Eden (the garden, that is, not heart-throb Anthony).
I disagree - she will be remembered as the most stupid prime minister since ... David Cameron. Don't forget the whole brexit debacle is entirely his fault. He was the one who caved in to his own party right wing and promised a referendum on something he and his government didn't want to change, on an issue that even as late as 2015 was a significant issue for less than one in ten of the population.
-
So apart from it being not a Brexit benefit, and needing an as yet undescribed tax rise, and not really enough to raise spending on terms of demand, May's announcement is great?
-
I disagree - she will be remembered as the most stupid prime minister since ... David Cameron. Don't forget the whole brexit debacle is entirely his fault. He was the one who caved in to his own party right wing and promised a referendum on something he and his government didn't want to change, on an issue that even as late as 2015 was a significant issue for less than one in ten of the population.
His hand was forced by procedural changes. It may have happened anyway, but those left him with far less room to move.
-
His hand was forced by procedural changes. It may have happened anyway, but those left him with far less room to move.
I'm not sure what procedural changes forced his hand - there was no obligation to hold a referendum - he chose to call one.
-
I have always considered Cameron to be a fool rather than an idiot.
May is patently out of her depth. She has leaped into Brexit without understanding what it means, how it can be managed, what its effects will be, what it will look like and without any stated objectives. She even calls a general election - and loses ... though not as badly as the other party leaders. She then behaves as though she has had a great victory.
And as for holding hands with Donald Trump ...
-
The HoL send the problem that TM tried to fudge, and she couldn't even get that right, back to the HoC.
Pity we have a Labour party that is split since, with just a few Tory rebels, they could defeat the government on this: that would be interesting!.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44518702
-
Indeed. And the most stupid aspect of the whole tragedy ... it is being done - primarily - for party management purposes. Theresa May will - in her own lifetime - find herself in modern history textbooks described as the most stupid prime minister since Eden (the garden, that is, not heart-throb Anthony).
'Twas Cameron who got us into this mess, with his cynical and wholly unnecessary referendum. May just inherited it. She is nevertheless remarkably incompetent.
-
Grieve amendment defeated 319 - 303. Grieve voting with govt.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-44521613
-
May just inherited it. She is nevertheless remarkably incompetent.
I think that you are letting May off the hook, here. She is certainly "remarkably incompetent", but she is also dangerously stupid.
She is putting party interest before the national interest. She has it in her head that she can capture the permanent support of the 3.88 million people who voted for UKIP then the Conservative Party will remain the party of government in perpetuity. Her every move is concerned with increasing the size of her party's vote - wherever the support comes from.
The consequences of this action do not concern her. She has no children - she has no reason to be concerned about the future.
-
The UK Foreign Secretary
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16310206.EU_diplomats_reveal_Boris_Johnson_said__f__k_business__over_Brexit_fears/
-
Two years on from the morning after, and we appear to know less.
-
Fascinating article on the Brexit heist
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash
-
Curiouser and curiouser... Brexit, Dark Money and the DUP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44624299
-
Perhaps there won’t be an EU to stay in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44632471
-
Perhaps there won’t be an EU to stay in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44632471
The EU is, like democracy, the worst of all possible systems, other than all the other systems.
-
Hot news, the British government continues to negotiate with itself! What a feat of auto-eroticism. In other news, a deal may be reached in October. Take your time.
-
If the EU is concerned about excessive immigration from nearby African countries then isn't it being hypocritical to say Britain should accept unlimited freedom of movement from nearby European countries?
-
Regarding the Irish border issue, would there be a similar problem for Spain and Portugal if one or the other country decided to leave the EU? Or France and Germany, or any country with a land border?
-
If the EU is concerned about excessive immigration from nearby African countries then isn't it being hypocritical to say Britain should accept unlimited freedom of movement from nearby European countries?
No
-
Regarding the Irish border issue, would there be a similar problem for Spain and Portugal if one or the other country decided to leave the EU? Or France and Germany, or any country with a land border?
Yes.
-
If the EU is concerned about excessive immigration from nearby African countries then isn't it being hypocritical to say Britain should accept unlimited freedom of movement from nearby European countries?
I don't get the parallel. The EU is a trading organization with certain rules, one of which concerns free movement of goods, capital, labour and services. How does this connect with African countries? Of course, when we leave the EU, we are no longer bound by those rules.
-
I don't get the parallel. The EU is a trading organization with certain rules, one of which concerns free movement of goods, capital, labour and services. How does this connect with African countries? Of course, when we leave the EU, we are no longer bound by those rules.
Yes, the difference is we don't have similar free movement agreements with Africa. But it must be conceivable that at some point an EU member state would find it had more EU immigration than it could handle, and that would outweigh the benefits of the agreement. In that scenario, being forced by the EU to accept unlimited immigration wouldn't be much different from the EU having boatloads of people from across the Mediterranean.
So I guess I'm saying, if the EU is so happy to impose unlimited migration on one member, it shouldn't have a problem accepting unlimited numbers from other continents.
-
It still doesn't follow. If a group of countries accept free movement between themselves, why would they extend that to another group?
You can draw an analogy with Ireland, whose citizens have been allowed to live, work, and vote in the UK. Does this mean that we should extend this to citizens of Iceland? Rather unlikely, except in time of war.
-
Yes, the difference is we don't have similar free movement agreements with Africa. But it must be conceivable that at some point an EU member state would find it had more EU immigration than it could handle, and that would outweigh the benefits of the agreement. In that scenario, being forced by the EU to accept unlimited immigration wouldn't be much different from the EU having boatloads of people from across the Mediterranean.
So I guess I'm saying, if the EU is so happy to impose unlimited migration on one member, it shouldn't have a problem accepting unlimited numbers from other continents.
The EU is a group with common aims, and reciprocal arrangements over an array of things. It doesn't have those arrangements with African states.
-
Wtf are we doing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44672873
-
Going insane.
-
The European Medicines Agency is based in London ... at present!
-
Why wasn't this on the side of the big red bus?
-
It is surely clear to all that the hard right, by which I mean Gove, Boris, Rees-Mogg and Davis, are intent on creating a situation where we crash out with no deal at all. This, whether you voted leave or remain, is basic suicide by a nation state and is not in the best interest of the people of the UK. That May knows this, and is desperately trying to cobble some kind of compromise together in her weakened position, is even more depressing. We are, as others have noted previously, fucked.
-
And the thing is that I'm not convinced that Gove or Johnson really care personally. Davis and Rees Mogg may be unpleasant fuckers but they are at least sticking to their principles.
-
It does seem insane that a right wing cabal has hijacked the Brexit vote, as if it was for hard Brexit. It wasn't. Actually, no deal is literally impossible, as it would mean that trade would stop dead, no flights, driving licenses invalid. This is obviously unreal. It looks like a series of mini-deals will happen, on aviation, services, well, hopefully. The Tories don't really want empty supermarket shelves. And of course, Labour are carrying May's bags for her.
-
Some interesting reports that Trump wants to sabotage the EU, as it is a commercial rival. So he offers Macron a big trade deal if France leaves. It's getting weird, as Putin also is supposed to be sabotaging EU, and likes Trump. Gulp.
-
Unite on Brexit.
http://www.unitetheunion.org/campaigning/events/fifth-unite-policy-conference-2018/upc2018---executive-council-statement-on-brexit/
-
Nice to know it's been taken seriously by our parliamentarians.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/05/brexit-impact-papers-viewing-requests-made-by-just-6-of-mps-and-peers
-
It's all quite odd right now, as May's deal looks unpopular with Tory grass roots, and with the EU. Possible solutions then might be no deal, leading to economic harm, or a closer link to the single market. This would be seen as too soft by the Ultras, but would they really bring down May, and risk an election? Well, they might.
-
I think with a few tweaks the EU might go for this in order to avoid no deal. Whether that can be then be sold to the party, not sure.
-
Kuenssberg reporting that the Ultras are starting to table amendments to block govt legislation. Sounds like war. (Twitter).
-
Commons was suspended because the white paper hasn't been distributed to MPs. Then restarted even though no one has time to read it, though it has been given to journalists before MPs in breach of protocol. Farcical.
-
Just been reading about the advice to stockpile tinned food. No more European veg, its tinned carrots instead. Thanks a bunch.
-
Just been reading about the advice to stockpile tinned food. No more European veg, its tinned carrots instead. Thanks a bunch.
Or rather, tinned :D
-
What about tinned Gammon?
-
Are posters implying that Increasingly Atheist Britain is going to turn into some kind of shitpot?
-
Are posters implying that Increasingly Atheist Britain is going to turn into some kind of shitpot?
Lead by a vicars daughter, and Mogg is a fervent Catholic.
-
Just been reading about the advice to stockpile tinned food. No more European veg, its tinned carrots instead. Thanks a bunch.
They are apparently quite easy to grow not that I have ever tried. We'll all be having kitchen gardens in the future. I quite like that idea as long as I'm retired by then but the novelty might wear off.
What about tinned Gammon?
Never even heard of that :o. There's no shortage of British pig meat though so I don't see the need (for meat eaters).
-
They are apparently quite easy to grow not that I have ever tried. We'll all be having kitchen gardens in the future. I quite like that idea as long as I'm retired by then but the novelty might wear off.
'We'll all'?... Where the hell do you think these 'kitchen gardens' will be given that most families can barely afford to buy a flat, that renting won't allow them that option, and that new builds have gardens like pocket handkerchiefs?
That's without considering the time that is needed, or the skill (I've tried growing veg and not done hugely well). The only option then is to pay someone to do it for you.
So, an option for the affluent retired, but families will no longer be able to give their kids fresh produce.
-
They are apparently quite easy to grow not that I have ever tried. We'll all be having kitchen gardens in the future. I quite like that idea as long as I'm retired by then but the novelty might wear off.
Never even heard of that :o. There's no shortage of British pig meat though so I don't see the need (for meat eaters).
Vlad is referring to this usage
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15619.msg732881#msg732881
-
Lead by a vicars daughter, and Mogg is a fervent Catholic.
That's two....
-
That's two....
Do stop being a pillock over this. Religion nor secularism played little part in the referendum, whereas racism....
-
Do stop being a pillock over this.
what
Farage
Mogg
Hannan
Johnson
Davis
Hoey
Redwood
Fox
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab
Gove
17 Million Gammons
And I'm being a pillock over this?
-
Do stop being a pillock over this. Religion nor secularism played little part in the referendum, whereas racism....
It was Nearly Sane who played the religion card.
-
It was Nearly Sane who played the religion card.
In response to #1855 from what I can see.
-
In response to #1855 from what I can see.
Shit is not supposed to happen in the atheist population otherwise what is the cause of celebration for the increasingly atheist population?
-
Shit is not supposed to happen in the atheist population otherwise what is the cause of celebration for the increasingly atheist population?
There's much to celebrate if it means fewer people spouting the poisonous and dangerous crap that you come out with about people being 'dark' and 'evil' simply for not holding the same beliefs that you do and challenging you on them.
-
'We'll all'?... Where the hell do you think these 'kitchen gardens' will be given that most families can barely afford to buy a flat, that renting won't allow them that option, and that new builds have gardens like pocket handkerchiefs?
That's without considering the time that is needed, or the skill (I've tried growing veg and not done hugely well). The only option then is to pay someone to do it for you.
So, an option for the affluent retired, but families will no longer be able to give their kids fresh produce.
Alright! Point taken, I didn't think it out that far, should have said "Some of us will have kitchen gardens in the future". I did say I'd never tried it but I know lots of people who've grown runner beans, tomatoes, onions, carrots and other stuff - e.g. potatoes and asparagus - in a small garden. As well as fruit. Yes, I agree impossible for people in flats with no outside space and you're probably right that it takes a lot of skill and dedication, I wouldn't know. Maybe I'll find out in the future.
It's also possible to buy fruit and veg grown here which will mean only when in season, I do when I can. Great big gooseberries and rhubarb spring to mind, better than from supermarkets. On the edge of London there are plenty of farms and small shops stock their produce as well as farmer's markets.
It may not come to that though, let's hope. I haven't yet given up hope of Brexit not happening.
I fail to see what any of this (Brexit) has to do with religion or lack of. Agree with Trent.
-
There's much to celebrate if it means fewer people spouting the poisonous and dangerous crap that you come out with about people being 'dark' and 'evil' simply for not holding the same beliefs that you do and challenging you on them.
Crap!
-
Crap!
Yes, well done. You talk crap. We're getting somewhere.
-
what
Farage
Mogg
Hannan
Johnson
Davis
Hoey
Redwood
Fox
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab
Gove
17 Million Gammons
And I'm being a pillock over this?
Just listing objectionable people doesn't really advance your argument very far.
Although quite what a particularly unappetizing version of pork has to do with anything I'm sure I don't know.
You constantly try to make a link between secularism / atheism / antitheism as a reason for all things bad happening in the world - one of those things being BREXIT in your opinion. I am saying there is no that is; zero, zilch, proof; that this is the case.
There is evidence for other things causing people to vote in a certain way. Religion, or lack thereof, or any of the above listed are not amongst those reasons.
I love you but sometimes you are seriously hard work.
-
It was Nearly Sane who played the religion card.
Nope, Vlad raised it with his 'increasingly Atheist' post.
-
There's much to celebrate if it means fewer people spouting the poisonous and dangerous crap that you come out with about people being 'dark' and 'evil' simply for not holding the same beliefs that you do and challenging you on them.
Lol
People who talk about dark and evil are poisonous and dangerous.
I'm afraid around here words like dark and evil are joke words and the real power to insult and undermine is in thewords Poisonous and Dangerous.
You are just upping the Anti.
-
I fail to see what any of this (Brexit) has to do with religion or lack of. Agree with Trent.
It does in terms of voter demographics. Non religious people were far more likely to vote remain, religious people far more likely to vote leave.
So in the same manner that people have suggested that the old have screwed the young (and actually the country overall) by tipping the vote for leave, you can make the same argument that the religious have screwed the non religious (and actually the country overall) by tipping the vote for leave.
-
And the old are also more likely to be religious.
-
It does in terms of voter demographics. Non religious people were far more likely to vote remain, religious people far more likely to vote leave.
So in the same manner that people have suggested that the old have screwed the young (and actually the country overall) by tipping the vote for leave, you can make the same argument that the religious have screwed the non religious (and actually the country overall) by tipping the vote for leave.
Yes but the point is things are meant to get better in an increasingly atheist situation.
It's not happening here.
Brexit is an English thing and as Paxman has pointed out Religion has never actually been that big in England.
-
And the old are also more likely to be religious.
True
-
Lol
People who talk about dark and evil are poisonous and dangerous.
I'm afraid around here words like dark and evil are joke words and the real power to insult and undermine is in thewords Poisonous and Dangerous.
You are just upping the Anti.
I asked you on another thread if you realise how scary you sound. Do you? I wonder what it is that has made you so fundamentalist?
-
Yes but the point is things are meant to get better in an increasingly atheist situation.
If the decision had been left to the non religious we wouldn't be leaving and we wouldn't be in this turmoil.
-
Brexit is an English thing ...
Really - I thought Wales voted Leave too.
-
... Religion has never actually been that big in England.
But big enough to deliver a minority of the population who are old, socially conservative, backward looking and religious (no doubt you know exactly the type of people I'm talking about) who are the core leave demographic. And it only took 1.3 million (2% of the population) to swing the vote to leave.
-
I asked you on another thread if you realise how scary you sound. Do you? I wonder what it is that has made you so fundamentalist?
Don't you realise how scary you sound?
Of course not.
The 'non religious' often think are right and more righteous than religious people at which you will quote your non threatening religious friends who you probably like because they are almost like you but they actually have no effect on your campaigning anti Christianity.
-
Yes but the point is things are meant to get better in an increasingly atheist situation.
It's not happening here.
Brexit is an English thing and as Paxman has pointed out Religion has never actually been that big in England.
Ah, so they are the wrong type of religious.
-
Don't you realise how scary you sound?
Of course not.
The 'non religious' often think are right and more righteous than religious people at which you will quote your non threatening religious friends who you probably like because they are almost like you but they actually have no effect on your campaigning anti Christianity.
I don’t think that ordinary people are ‘dark’ and ‘evil’ for disagreeing with my religious beliefs. But there is a frightening absence of compassion and empathy in the hearts of those who do.
What would you say the correct course of action should be against evil people such as those you encounter on this forum?
-
Ah, so they are the wrong type of religious.
The most pro-leave religious group by a country mile were CofE/Anglicans with a 60:40 split toward leave. The non religious were 57:43 in favour of remain.
-
The most pro-leave religious group by a country mile were CofE/Anglicans with a 60:40 split toward leave. The non religious were 57:43 in favour of remain.
What about non-Christian religious groups? I know that my Jewish friends voted leave.
As an aside, my older relatives did too; all Anglicans, although not practicing.
-
What about non-Christian religious groups? I know that my Jewish friends voted leave.
As an aside, my older relatives did too; all Anglicans, although not practicing.
Muslims voted heavily to remain; Jews mildly in favour of leave; RC and Church in Scotland mildly remain; other Christian mildly leave; other non christian fairly strongly remain.
Details here
http://www.brin.ac.uk/2017/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/
-
Muslims voted heavily to remain; Jews mildly in favour of leave; RC and Church in Scotland mildly remain; other Christian mildly leave; other non christian fairly strongly remain.
Details here
http://www.brin.ac.uk/2017/how-religious-groups-voted-at-the-2016-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership/
Thank you. It's interesting, isn't it, how strongly Anglicanism is bound up with nationalism.
-
Thank you. It's interesting, isn't it, how strongly Anglicanism is bound up with nationalism.
Not entirely sure it is nationalism per se. I think it is tied to groups who are old and socially conservative, and likely politically conservative too. It is more about being backward looking, perceiving some fantasy golden period when everything was great.
I suspect the is also an element of loss of power and control - don't forget that for decades the establishment and elite were conservative Anglicans, and there will have been a perception amongst those in that demographic, even if not themselves elite, that they were part of the group that 'ran things' and made the decisions, which largely aligned with that way of thinking.
Fast forward to today and that elite power block is diminishing, we accept much greater diversity, we don't automatically show defence to the kay establishment blocks (CofE, Monarchy, Conservative party). That must be tough for people brought up in a world where there simply assumed they were part of that ruling establishment.
-
Not entirely sure it is nationalism per se. I think it is tied to groups who are old and socially conservative, and likely politically conservative too. It is more about being backward looking, perceiving some fantasy golden period when everything was great.
I suspect the is also an element of loss of power and control - don't forget that for decades the establishment and elite were conservative Anglicans, and there will have been a perception amongst those in that demographic, even if not themselves elite, that they were part of the group that 'ran things' and made the decisions, which largely aligned with that way of thinking.
Fast forward to today and that elite power block is diminishing, we accept much greater diversity, we don't automatically show defence to the kay establishment blocks (CofE, Monarchy, Conservative party). That must be tough for people brought up in a world where there simply assumed they were part of that ruling establishment.
I agree with some of that. IME of Anglicanism the pews are most definitely full of conservatives, but the leadership isn't - Runcie wasn't, and Rowan Williams definitely wasn't, and nor are many senior Anglican bishops and thinkers. But I don't think you can escape the strength of the attachment to 'the way we do things' - everything from liturgy to afternoon tea to the (in some places) unhealthy obsession with the church buildings themselves. From my perspective in having experienced the rural church, I really do think that identifying with the church is a way of identifying as English. I think you are right that there is a 'harking back' to a golden era, but in rural areas that era hasn't really ended in many ways and they want to hang onto it. And what they are trying to both hang onto and recapture is a form of Englishness that is encapsulated by going to church in their Sunday best.
-
I agree with some of that. IME of Anglicanism the pews are most definitely full of conservatives, but the leadership isn't - Runcie wasn't, and Rowan Williams definitely wasn't, and nor are many senior Anglican bishops and thinkers.
I'm not sure I agree with that - while Runcie, Williams etc might seem less socially conservative than many rank and file Anglicans they don't when considered in a broader societal perspective. In broader society you wouldn't need to be thought of as way at the radical thinking end societally to have moved comfortably to a place where it is completely accepted that there should be equality on the basis of gender and sexuality, yet the CofE is still struggling with both, and neither Runcie nor Williams really addressed the issues properly.
Effectively the leadership of the CofE comes across as achingly establishment, and seeing their main remit as preserving the established social order, not rocking the boat.
Now you can, of course, claim that Runcie and Williams came over all radical and liberal when telling broader society and government how to act. But frankly I'm not really interested in what people tell others to do - you tell whether someone is socially conservative by how they run their own organisation, and I can't see anything other than establishment social conservatism in any of the recent ABofCs - sure some were even more extreme in their social conservatism (e.g. Carey) but not one could be considered socially liberal or radical.
-
Brexit only acceptable with compensation of Brexit loss by top tax payers and companies.
If Brexit is a success the lower the tax for top tax payers if it is a failure the more punitive the tax.
Or make Brexit something we have to pay subscription for. Cost it up then only do it if there are enough subs.
£1000 per year
-
Brexit only acceptable with compensation of Brexit loss by top tax payers and companies.
If Brexit is a success the lower the tax for top tax payers if it is a failure the more punitive the tax.
Or make Brexit something we have to pay subscription for. Cost it up then only do it if there are enough subs.
£1000 per year
Why would not apply that to remain?
-
Is this principle, or positioning from Greening?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154
-
Is this principle, or positioning from Greening?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44840154
A bid for a proper referendum taking the complexities of the situation into account.
Johnson himself at one stage proposed two referendums where the EU had time to respond to the first which would unlike the Cameron ballot paper have signalled just what we wanted from remain or leave.
-
A bid for a proper referendum taking the complexities of the situation into account.
Johnson himself at one stage proposed two referendums where the EU had time to respond to the first which would unlike the Cameron ballot paper have signalled just what we wanted from remain or leave.
Do we know? There are least 3 positions in the govt currently and one of them, Hard Brexit, still isn't clear to me. Further her line seems to be that it should be a referendum because Parliament is split, it's not clear to me that the country isn't just as split.
-
Do we know? There are least 3 positions in the govt currently and one of them, Hard Brexit, still isn't clear to me. Further her line seems to be that it should be a referendum because Parliament is split, it's not clear to me that the country isn't just as split.
Perhaps things would normalise if we got straight to the root of the problem which is English Nationalism.
This would involve England removing itself from the UK or to put it in a way suitable for local consumption 'get rid of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The trouble is that England would then not have, in it's own eyes, territorial 'possessions'.
-
Perhaps things would normalise if we got straight to the root of the problem which is English Nationalism.
This would involve England removing itself from the UK or to put it in a way suitable for local consumption 'get rid of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The trouble is that England would then not have, in it's own eyes, territorial 'possessions'.
And the Welsh?
-
And the Welsh?
They want Brexit and I'm sure would stick with England were push come to shove.
-
They want Brexit and I'm sure would stick with England were push come to shove.
So it's not just about English nationalism then.
-
So it's not just about English nationalism then.
I'm afraid it is with welsh Brexiters as useful idiotry.
-
I'm afraid it is with welsh Brexiters as useful idiotry.
You do like branding large numbers of the population don't you? By the way what about those in Scotland and NI that voted leave?
-
So if May has acceded to the demands of the European Research Group, the Chequers agreement is surely dead.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/may-concedes-on-erg-amendments-effectively-killing-off-chequers-plan/16/07/
-
Yes, if it's correct, May is showing her subservience to the hard Brexiteers, and increasing the chances of no deal, since the Chequers deal has gone. Maybe those reports of stockpiling of tinned food, etc., are not so far-fetched. Spam and baked beans, anyone?
-
Surely this undermines all those who lauded the Chequers deal? Hammond must be wondering about his position.
-
Grieve suggesting we will have to stay in EU. Along with Greening's 2nd referendum idea, the Tory remainers are fighting back..
-
Grieve suggesting we will have to stay in EU. Along with Greening's 2nd referendum idea, the Tory remainers are fighting back..
The bleeding of support to UKIP and drop of 6% in the polls for the Tories will undoubtedly worried May but the numbers at least would seem to back up Greening, that anything in parliament is going to be on a knife edge,
-
Grieve suggesting we will have to stay in EU. Along with Greening's 2nd referendum idea, the Tory remainers are fighting back..
Let's hope the fuck so.
-
Is Rees-Mogg the king now? Will he allow food rationing to come in slowly?
-
Is Rees-Mogg the king now? Will he allow food rationing to come in slowly?
Nadine Dorries was tweeting that people keep coming up to her saying that if a charismatic leader were to start a new party, they would vote for him or her.
-
and a slight mea culpa, well more someone twisted my arm up my back really quite hard and got me to say Turkey people smell of poo and wee culpa, from the bold Michael.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/16/michael-gove-admits-leave-was-wrong-to-fuel-immigration-fears
-
I am coming across people who are panicking about getting their medication after Brexit, in case borders are shut to pharmaceuticals, in the event of no deal. They are probably over-reacting, but it seems incredible that such ideas are around. I don't know if they are legitimate worries.
-
Nadine Dorries was tweeting that people keep coming up to her saying that if a charismatic leader were to start a new party, they would vote for him or her.
Sounds like a plan. Then the loons can fuck off out of government. Can we find a way of doing the same with Corbyn?
-
I am coming across people who are panicking about getting their medication after Brexit, in case borders are shut to pharmaceuticals, in the event of no deal. They are probably over-reacting, but it seems incredible that such ideas are around. I don't know if they are legitimate worries.
Yes, doctor's leaders have voiced exactly this concern. Apparently the NHS is already planning for a no deal because of the shortages that it will produce. I believe that cancer treatment is one area that will be hit because of how the chemicals used are produced and regulated.
-
Struggling to see how this doesn't make the backstop Irish solution that they agreed with the EU illegal?
-
Govt trying to bring recess forward from next Tuesday presumably to avoid what might happen post a Boris speech.
Looks like Labour will vote against the 4 ER amendments, though not sure the Tory Remainers will vote against all of them
-
Yes, some talk that the govt could lose on the erg amendments, which they have accepted. Am I going mad, or is it just Brexit at work?
-
Hasn't the woman got any dignity at all allowing herself to become Mogg's ''Punk''
She should resign given her record anyway and let the ERG expose themselves and do their own dirty work.
The tory party can't be saved now.
-
I have to report that Dennis Skinner has taken up appearing in drag.
Sorry - my apologies, hadn't got my glasses on. Apparently it was Anna Soubry letting rip at Rees Mogg over inherited wealth.
-
She rocks.
-
Labour rebels trump Tory rebels
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44854597
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992
It's official. One of the Leave campaigns cheated in the referendum. I think it, the result and all the crap that has happened since should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992
It's official. One of the Leave campaigns cheated in the referendum. I think it, the result and all the crap that has happened since should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
I hope so. But somehow I doubt it. I can't even think how the process for that will work. Could it be declared void because of electoral interference?
-
I hope so. But somehow I doubt it. I can't even think how the process for that will work. Could it be declared void because of electoral interference?
I doubt it from a breach like this, though I suspect case law on such matters to be fairly short.
Another interesting Twitter thread on this - No brooches involved
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeterKGeoghegan/status/1019124850454155269
-
I doubt it from a breach like this, though I suspect case law on such matters to be fairly short.
Yes, this is my feeling too.
But if put together with the lies - the money for the NHS for example, when actually PHE are talking about the possibility of contingency plans in case no deal brings us to the point of collapse - could that work? Different cases, maybe not...
-
I hope so. But somehow I doubt it. I can't even think how the process for that will work. Could it be declared void because of electoral interference?
No, but if a new government (or even this one) decided to bring a halt to Brexit and Brexiteers played the "democratic referendum" card again, this is another justification for the new government to ignore it.
Each story like this, together with the passing of time reduces the relevance of the referendum to the political calculus. At the moment, the main Remain politicians are still running scared of the "democratic decision", but there will come a point when they realise it doesn't matter anymore.
-
No, but if a new government (or even this one) decided to bring a halt to Brexit and Brexiteers played the "democratic referendum" card again, this is another justification for the new government to ignore it.
Each story like this, together with the passing of time reduces the relevance of the referendum to the political calculus. At the moment, the main Remain politicians are still running scared of the "democratic decision", but there will come a point when they realise it doesn't matter anymore.
I think that we are running out of time though. I agree, the whole thing now just seems so mad - with Gove's new comments too - but then most of the world seems mad right now.
That said, I seriously hope that you are right.
-
I think that we are running out of time though. I agree, the whole thing now just seems so mad - with Gove's new comments too - but then most of the world seems mad right now.
That said, I seriously hope that you are right.
I think I am right, but I agree that we are running out of time.
-
It would appear in last night's vote won by 3 votes, neither Vince Cable or Tim Farron voted because the Lib Dem whips didn't think it was going to be close. They had thought that Labour was going to abstain,
-
It would appear in last night's vote won by 3 votes, neither Vince Cable or Tim Farron voted because the Lib Dem whips didn't think it was going to be close. They had thought that Labour was going to abstain,
I suppose one of the few good things that can be said for the anachronistic, highly visible, division voting system is that it is possible for an alert politician to see how much attention each division lobby is attracting and thus tailor one's own vote accordingly. Vince Cable and Tim Farron might be more alert in future.
-
I suppose one of the few good things that can be said for the anachronistic, highly visible, division voting system is that it is possible for an alert politician to see how much attention each division lobby is attracting and thus tailor one's own vote accordingly. Vince Cable and Tim Farron might be more alert in future.
Or they could just have voted against it anyway. The division lobby doesn't work here because they had left the building.
ETA - about a couple of hours before the vote, I'd posted on here that according to Twitter it looked as if Labour were not abstaining so I don't see how the Lib Dem whips weren't quite as switched on. In addition surely it's important to vote in favour of one of the few things that you have as a an attempt at a USP?
-
Brexit plan just pining for the fjords, says Fox
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44857687
-
Vote Leave Conservatives should be expelled from the party. And those labour party vote Leavers should be expelled from theirs.
-
Vote Leave Conservatives should be expelled from the party. And those labour party vote Leavers should be expelled from theirs.
Why? The manifesto they were elected on supported Leave
-
Why? The manifesto they were elected on supported Leave
But the organisation they subscribed to has been referred to the police for electoral malpractice. They have therefore failed the electoral commissions standards.
-
But the organisation they subscribed to has been referred to the police for electoral malpractice. They have therefore failed the electoral commissions standards.
That then applies to most MPs then since nearly all parties recently have been found guilty of various breaches. Since however, your suggestion isn't the law, it's specious.
-
But the organisation they subscribed to has been referred to the police for electoral malpractice. They have therefore failed the electoral commissions standards.
I think you would be more sensible to suggest that those on the board shouldn't be in the cabinet.
-
Let's see if this attempt to stay in customs Union past 2019 goes through - presumably a bring out your dead (and Farron and Cable) moment given last night's vote. And yet another reason why Sinn Fein's 'principle' is nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44857687
-
Mmm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/17/japan-eu-trade-deal-light-in-darkness-amid-trumps-protectionism?CMP=fb_gu
-
There seems to be confusion between the customs union, and a customs union. Just watching TV news, and people are switching between them. Important, because the union is in the EU, a union isn't.
Further confusion over no deal, hailed by some as paradise, by others as economic catastrophe. How do we actually understand this?
-
As dead Mike Read, might have said, runaround now!
-
It also seems that soft Brexit has less support in the Commons than has been estimated. I don't know whether this means that Rees-Mogg has the whip-hand or not.
-
Seen it suggested that the official names of votes for the vote Farron and Cable missed actually has 304 votes rather than 305. If so, and there was a miscount, then had they been there to vote against it would have been tied. So tradition would give the Speaker the casting votes, and tradition would have Speaker vote against the govt. So if that is the case the govt would (and I mean would not wouldn't) have lost
-
1 vote off govt for 30 days from 04 Sep
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-dup-mp-ian-paisley-12939955
-
Seen it suggested that the official names of votes for the vote Farron and Cable missed actually has 304 votes rather than 305. If so, and there was a miscount, then had they been there to vote against it would have been tied. So tradition would give the Speaker the casting votes, and tradition would have Speaker vote against the govt. So if that is the case the govt would (and I mean would not wouldn't) have lost
I know. And the government had a vote that they shouldn't have used because they'd paired someone (can't remember who) with Jo Swinton, who is on maternity leave.
Ffs. I can't get my head around teh LibDems not turning up even if they did think it was a formality.
-
I know. And the government had a vote that they shouldn't have used because they'd paired someone (can't remember who) with Jo Swinton, who is on maternity leave.
Ffs. I can't get my head around teh LibDems not turning up even if they did think it was a formality.
It was Brandon Lewis who voted because of a 'mistake'. That vote was 307 vs 301, and Farron and Cable did vote. Note there was a plan to cover proxy votes for MPs on maternity/paternity leave but it seems to have been held up by the Leader of the House, Leadsom.
-
Vince and Tim turned up? That was good of them.
-
What about the Labour MPs voting with the govt? I think they would have lost without them.
-
What about the Labour MPs voting with the govt? I think they would have lost without them.
Labour have been such a fucking shower on this.
-
Labour have been such a fucking shower on this.
They at least voted against as a party for once. Those that voted for are just the same as Tories who voted against.
-
They at least voted against as a party for once. Those that voted for are just the same as Tories who voted against.
It was too little, too late though. The Lib Dems screwed up but they did have a point where they said that they were expecting yet more abstentions.
-
It was too little, too late though. The Lib Dems screwed up but they did have a point where they said that they were expecting yet more abstentions.
I knew they weren't abstaining from following twitter, why couldn't the Lib Dem whips whose job it is to know stuff manage that? Why not vote against it anyway as leader and ex leader to show what you believe in?
-
I knew they weren't abstaining from following twitter, why couldn't the Lib Dem whips whose his it is to know stuff manage that? Why not vote against it anyway as leader and ex leader to show what you believe in?
Not going to argue with that.
-
Mrs May said today that 70 technical notices will be published in August and Sept, dealing with a no deal scenario, and helping businesses and households. One wag said they haven't been written yet, so some poor sod will have his summer ruined.
But anyway, stockpiling spam, beans and cornflakes for 3 months should see you to Christmas, then move to Ireland. What's the problem?
-
Mrs May said today that 70 technical notices will be published in August and Sept, dealing with a no deal scenario, and helping businesses and households. One wag said they haven't been written yet, so some poor sod will have his summer ruined.
But anyway, stockpiling spam, beans and cornflakes for 3 months should see you to Christmas, then move to Ireland. What's the problem?
Yes it seems that to survive and justify an option that leads to Hard Brexit will demand second world war logistics, timing, social cooperation which even then couldn't dispel the hardship. The trouble is all that ended in the welfare state, labour governments, tory parties well to the left of Rees Moggism and the post war political concensus.
-
There is some talk that the EU are soft-peddling on the Chequers proposals, as they don't want to endanger Mrs May's govt, by being too brutal. It's plausible, as UK elections right now would mess up negotiations, but then everything seems plausible. Maybe we will sign a trade deal with Tierra Del Fuego.
-
May wants the EU to abandon the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to, and is lying about not having agreed to this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border
-
May wants the EU to abandon the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to, and is lying about not having agreed to this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border
I think there are only two workable solutions to the Irish border problem:
1. hard border as per our border with the rest of the EU
2. The UK stays in the EFTA,, or the customs union, at least.
The EU back stop solution is pie in the sky unless NI effectively becomes independent of the rest of the UK. While that is an option, it's not workable because of opposition to the idea from within NI itself and the UK.
I think the EU knows the back stop solution is unworkable and I think they are just putting it forward to try to highlight the realities of the situation to the British government. The lack of awareness of the government is making me really angry. Everything that's happened since the referendum has been absolutely shambolic.
-
I think there are only two workable solutions to the Irish border problem:
1. hard border as per our border with the rest of the EU
2. The UK stays in the EFTA,, or the customs union, at least.
The EU back stop solution is pie in the sky unless NI effectively becomes independent of the rest of the UK. While that is an option, it's not workable because of opposition to the idea from within NI itself and the UK.
I think the EU knows the back stop solution is unworkable and I think they are just putting it forward to try to highlight the realities of the situation to the British government. The lack of awareness of the government is making me really angry. Everything that's happened since the referendum has been absolutely shambolic.
That the backstop may be unworkable due to UK politics isn't something that changes the fact that it was signed up to by the UK govt and has now been reneged on. Either they shouldn't have agreed it, or they should stick with it.
-
Overall, there seem to be two solutions available on Brexit. Either the single market, or no deal. May is trying to concoct a kind of half single market, but the EU will not accept this, as it smashes the single market.
On no deal, there are very different predictions, ranging from it making little difference, to blocked borders and ports, shortages of food and medicines, and grounded planes. I would have thought the latter would produce an election, but ironically it might not change much, as Corbyn seems hostile to single market. Another possibility is an emergency settlement.
Some people are getting nervous about shortages of medicines, I think the food thing is still a joke, isn't it?
-
Overall, there seem to be two solutions available on Brexit. Either the single market, or no deal. May is trying to concoct a kind of half single market, but the EU will not accept this, as it smashes the single market.
But that's the EU being unreasonable. The free-trade-in-goods-only part of the Chequers plan sorts the problem of the Irish border, so May can say she isn't breaking the agreement she signed up to regarding that.
On no deal, there are very different predictions, ranging from it making little difference, to blocked borders and ports, shortages of food and medicines, and grounded planes. I would have thought the latter would produce an election, but ironically it might not change much, as Corbyn seems hostile to single market. Another possibility is an emergency settlement.
Some people are getting nervous about shortages of medicines, I think the food thing is still a joke, isn't it?
Again, the EU's responsibility, not ours.
-
On second thoughts, might the responsibility lie with the Irish themselves? (referring to both Northern and Southern Irish?)
-
I know very little about Irish history. Can I assume it revolves around religious differences (Catholic v Protestant beliefs)?
-
That's very funny saying that the EU are being unreasonable, for sticking with the agreements, which the UK are opting out of.
-
I know very little about Irish history. Can I assume it revolves around religious differences (Catholic v Protestant beliefs)?
Not really. It may revolve around social divides with religion as Flags of Convenience but it is not about religious belief
-
On second thoughts, might the responsibility lie with the Irish themselves? (referring to both Northern and Southern Irish?)
For what? May agreeing to something and then going back on it?
-
But that's the EU being unreasonable. The free-trade-in-goods-only part of the Chequers plan sorts the problem of the Irish border, so May can say she isn't breaking the agreement she signed up to regarding that.
Again, the EU's responsibility, not ours.
Nope, there was the agreement to have the backstop previously agreed with the EU. The Chequers agreement allowed for that but the changes out forward to the White Paper by the ERG means it doesn't work. So may agreed to something, for cabinet agreement for a form of words that worked with it, then some cabinet ministers and a few nonentities resigned, so she then accepted amendments which screwed up the agreement with the EU and The Chequers paper for that bit. So how is that the Eu's fault?
-
Overall, there seem to be two solutions available on Brexit. Either the single market, or no deal. May is trying to concoct a kind of half single market, but the EU will not accept this, as it smashes the single market.
On no deal, there are very different predictions, ranging from it making little difference, to blocked borders and ports, shortages of food and medicines, and grounded planes. I would have thought the latter would produce an election, but ironically it might not change much, as Corbyn seems hostile to single market. Another possibility is an emergency settlement.
Some people are getting nervous about shortages of medicines, I think the food thing is still a joke, isn't it?
No, she concocted a deal on the Chequers paper that the EU might have gone with as even with the political difficulties of the backstop, it was still in play. The ERG amendments removed the backstop and May and the govt lied that it made no difference but have now come out saying the backstop that they agreed to is off the table.
-
Yes, I agree that the govt have sabotaged their own proposals, but I thought that there were noises off, that Chequers is not on for the EU. But probably there could be a poker style last minute deal.
-
Yes, I agree that the govt have sabotaged their own proposals, but I thought that there were noises off, that Chequers is not on for the EU. But probably there could be a poker style last minute deal.
Oh, there were definitely noises of but the backstop was still workable. I think the EU would have accepted some compromises and maybe had the Chequers doc 'clarified' in some ways but the ERG amendment blew apart the earlier agreement totally.
-
Mogg rools!
-
Saying that Lewis didn't know is arguable, but Smith did know about this and the other cases where he was refused by his own MPs. Either the PM is so incompetent that she doesn't know what is already clear, or she is lying, yet again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44897844
-
That's very funny saying that the EU are being unreasonable, for sticking with the agreements, which the UK are opting out of.
So why did we bother to try for a deal if they are so obviously going to reject what the UK wants? Why not go straight to WTO rules or accept single market etc?
No, she concocted a deal on the Chequers paper that the EU might have gone with as even with the political difficulties of the backstop, it was still in play. The ERG amendments removed the backstop and May and the govt lied that it made no difference but have now come out saying the backstop that they agreed to is off the table.
Did they agree to a customs border down the irish sea as a backstop?
-
So why did we bother to try for a deal if they are so obviously going to reject what the UK wants? Why not go straight to WTO rules or accept single market etc?
Did they agree to a customs border down the irish sea as a backstop?
No, that was the EU's preferred interpretation, but the alternative, their chosen and suggested alternative, was that they mainrained EU tariffs until further work would be done. The ERG amendments that they agreed to following the Chequers (which spell check keeps on suggesting Cheaters for) agreement, meant that was off the table to. So now there is no backstop in the UK plan.
As to your first question driven as already pointed out this wasn't what the UK agreed to, or what the Chequers document said, why is it the EU's fault that they aren't agreeing to something that the govt itself didn't agree to fill last week?
-
My hovercraft is full of eels
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-paper-german-translation-white-chequers-deal-a8454561.html
-
May wants the EU to abandon the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to, and is lying about not having agreed to this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border
Could you remind me what ideas she signed up to, and when? That's confusing me.
-
Could you remind me what ideas she signed up to, and when? That's confusing me.
Covered in the recent replies on this thread from me. Just reread.
-
Covered in the recent replies on this thread from me. Just reread.
By ' the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to' do you mean ideas in the Chequers plan? Sorry for being dumb.
-
By ' the ideas about the back stop that she had signed up to' do you mean ideas in the Chequers plan? Sorry for being dumb.
No, the backstop was an agreement with the EU, that there was still discussion over, again reread earlier posts. The Chequers plan was still in line with that discussion, the ERG amendment accepted by the govt which broke the Chequers plan is one of the issues. Again all of that is covered in earlier posts. Can you please just reread them and then ask about things you don't get rather than ask for things already covered?
BTW it would be good when I ask questions in posts that you don't ignore them and just ask more questions. I am sure you don't mean to be rude but given that I am attempting to answer your questions, that you seem not to even recognise any of mine makes it feel as if you are not interest in participating in discussion.
-
Something that is worth bearing in mind when referring to WTO rules, is that it is not as simple as we simply fall into those rules as some kind of trade deal backstop. This article is from 2016, but there has not been as far as I can find out, any attempt to clarify this matter on the part of the UK government, or anybody else for that matter. There could be considerable opposition from other countries within the WTO to plans to accommodate the UK. See here:
https://www.ictsd.org/opinion/nothing-simple-about-uk-regaining-wto-status-post-brexit
-
My hovercraft is full of eels
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-paper-german-translation-white-chequers-deal-a8454561.html
Even my kids know not to rely on google translate.
-
No, the backstop was an agreement with the EU, that there was still discussion over, again reread earlier posts. The Chequers plan was still in line with that discussion, the ERG amendment accepted by the govt which broke the Chequers plan is one of the issues. Again all of that is covered in earlier posts. Can you please just reread them and then ask about things you don't get rather than ask for things already covered?
BTW it would be good when I ask questions in posts that you don't ignore them and just ask more questions. I am sure you don't mean to be rude but given that I am attempting to answer your questions, that you seem not to even recognise any of mine makes it feel as if you are not interest in participating in discussion.
Gotcha. I do apologize - I ended up reading about how Ireland first came to be split - I figured that underlies it all. As I understand it, you are talking about the 'joint report' from December, which I've now downloaded. I now get how the amendments to the chequers plan might break the agreements in the joint report (which I haven't yet properly read).
Regarding your question about it being the EU's fault - yes it looks like I'm wrong there.
It might be better to say Northern Ireland must choose between two blocks (Britain and European Union) that have conflicting interests.
-
That the backstop may be unworkable due to UK politics isn't something that changes the fact that it was signed up to by the UK govt and has now been reneged on.
The UK government seems to be signing up to any number of unworkable ideas at the moment. One might almost suspect they do not know what they are doing.
Either they shouldn't have agreed it, or they should stick with it.
Yes, it's a mess, isn't it.
-
But that's the EU being unreasonable.
No it isn't. And, in fact, if we have open trade with the EU, it is in our best interests to have open borders for workers too, otherwise British companies will be hamstrung by not having access to the same side labour market as EU countries.
The free-trade-in-goods-only part of the Chequers plan sorts the problem of the Irish border, so May can say she isn't breaking the agreement she signed up to regarding that.
So goods can move across the border freely but not people. How's that going to work out?
-
No it isn't. And, in fact, if we have open trade with the EU, it is in our best interests to have open borders for workers too, otherwise British companies will be hamstrung by not having access to the same side labour market as EU countries.
So goods can move across the border freely but not people. How's that going to work out?
Theoretically the UK is unique among the EU countries because the English language is so widely used. This could mean that more people will want to work here than in other member countries. So the UK needs an immigration cap, but the EU won't agree to that.
Allowing workers to come to the UK for a limited time, and/or capping the number of workers, would mean goods could move across the border.
-
Theoretically the UK is unique among the EU countries because the English language is so widely used. This could mean that more people will want to work here than in other member countries. So the UK needs an immigration cap, but the EU won't agree to that.
Allowing workers to come to the UK for a limited time, and/or capping the number of workers, would mean goods could move across the border.
More people want to work here because their are jobs available. These range from unskilled but hard effort jobs such as picking crops, to highly skilled jobs in the NHS. The 'cap' that you mention has prevented workers from coming here to do both, meaning crops are rotting, farms are going bust and the NHS is short of staff which is impacting on patient care.
-
Trump has been saying things about Brexit and Britain....
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/21/opinions/britain-turmoil-opinion-intl/index.html
Some people feel he is right....
-
Theoretically the UK is unique among the EU countries because the English language is so widely used. This could mean that more people will want to work here than in other member countries.
Aren’t we the lucky ones.
Unfortunately, you are wrong and Rhiannon is right: people come here because there are jobs available for them. If the jobs go, so do the fopreigners.Do you remember the 80’s? Back then, immigration was negative because there were no jobs and British people went elsewhere e.g. Germany. People forget that free movement of Labour goes in both directions.
-
Trump has been saying things about Brexit and Britain....
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/21/opinions/britain-turmoil-opinion-intl/index.html
Some people feel he is right....
About what? If you mean “Britain’s in turmoil”, yes he is right but everybody already knows that. Congratulating Trump on that is like congratulating him for saying the sky is blue.
I know you’re probably a bit removed from what is going on here, so it is understandable you are not completely in touch. Brexit has turned into an utter shit storm.
-
Aren’t we the lucky ones.
Unfortunately, you are wrong and Rhiannon is right: people come here because there are jobs available for them. If the jobs go, so do the fopreigners.Do you remember the 80’s? Back then, immigration was negative because there were no jobs and British people went elsewhere e.g. Germany. People forget that free movement of Labour goes in both directions.
I agree people come here because of job availability. That doesn't negate my point about the english language, though - and it also leads to disproportionate immigration when relatives and friends are brought over, eventually putting more pressure on schools, nhs etc. In truth, british born workers are becoming less fit (obesity crisis) so brexit could improve overall health.
-
I agree people come here because of job availability. That doesn't negate my point about the english language, though - and it also leads to disproportionate immigration when relatives and friends are brought over, eventually putting more pressure on schools, nhs etc. In truth, british born workers are becoming less fit (obesity crisis) so brexit could improve overall health.
That's one of the most original arguments I've seen for Brexit. It's also one of the most ludicrous, but hats off for imagination there.
-
I agree people come here because of job availability. That doesn't negate my point about the english language, though - and it also leads to disproportionate immigration when relatives and friends are brought over, eventually putting more pressure on schools, nhs etc. In truth, british born workers are becoming less fit (obesity crisis) so brexit could improve overall health.
I don't mean to be unkind but you are not getting it. The very people who voted for Brexit in some areas are the same ones who will not, definitely will not, get out of bed to pick strawberries or lettuce or any other crop, in say, Lincolnshire. Preferring instead to sit on the sofa in the morning watching Jeremy Kyle. Now to an extent I can see their point, it is low paid back breaking work. But the availability of foreign workers prepared to accept lower pay is what brings your relatively cheap fruit & veg to your local Tesco's (other supermarkets are available). Are any of us prepared to pay more for our fruit & veg when so many people have been squeezed for the last 8 years of austerity?
What's that I hear you say, crude stereotype?
Maybe, but I have for a long time maintained that stereotypes exist for a reason.
-
I don't mean to be unkind but you are not getting it. The very people who voted for Brexit in some areas are the same ones who will not, definitely will not, get out of bed to pick strawberries or lettuce or any other crop, in say, Lincolnshire. Preferring instead to sit on the sofa in the morning watching Jeremy Kyle. Now to an extent I can see their point, it is low paid back breaking work. But the availability of foreign workers prepared to accept lower pay is what brings your relatively cheap fruit & veg to your local Tesco's (other supermarkets are available). Are any of us prepared to pay more for our fruit & veg when so many people have been squeezed for the last 8 years of austerity?
What's that I hear you say, crude stereotype?
Maybe, but I have for a long time maintained that stereotypes exist for a reason.
Only of academic interest to me....but encouraging foreign migrants to come in just because they accept low paying manual jobs, could backfire in the long run. In the next generation their children will not remain as low paid workers. They will move up and take up high paid jobs as well....besides buying up houses and businesses. The locals could well be elbowed out. Will they like it at that time?
-
But the children of migrant workers are the locals. My nephew is marrying a smashing Lithuanian girl, hurrah.
-
Only of academic interest to me....but encouraging foreign migrants to come in just because they accept low paying manual jobs, could backfire in the long run. In the next generation their children will not remain as low paid workers. They will move up and take up high paid jobs as well....besides buying up houses and businesses. The locals could well be elbowed out. Will they like it at that time?
It's always been this way, Sriram. What do you think the Indian community did when they arrived here after Amin threw them out of Uganda?
-
It's always been this way, Sriram. What do you think the Indian community did when they arrived here after Amin threw them out of Uganda?
Ok...but helping out refugees is one thing and having a policy of welcoming migrants just to take up low level jobs is quite another thing. The former maybe a humane thing to do. The latter could be a short sighted policy.
-
Ok...but helping out refugees is one thing and having a policy of welcoming migrants just to take up low level jobs is quite another thing. The former maybe a humane thing to do. The latter could be a short sighted policy.
So how do you suggest the crops get picked?
-
Labour shortages are common throughout the economy, in agriculture, catering, health, building. I suspect that if the flow of EU migrants slows, then non-EU migrants will take up the slack. You can't simultaneously have an expanding economy with low unemployment and block immigration. And unemployment is really low.
-
Dominic Raab, the new Brexit secretary, just told Marr: "Forgive me if I don’t keep a laser-like focus on the substance."
Er, no.
-
That doesn't negate my point about the english language, though
What? The language that is a fusion of Anglo-Saxon, Danish, Norman French, French, Latin etc etc etc?
and it also leads to disproportionate immigration when relatives and friends are brought over, eventually putting more pressure on schools, nhs etc.
And it would lead to disproportionate emigration in bad times.
-
Only of academic interest to me....but encouraging foreign migrants to come in just because they accept low paying manual jobs, could backfire in the long run. In the next generation their children will not remain as low paid workers. They will move up and take up high paid jobs as well.
I'm failing to see a down side to having a country with more motivated young people in it.
-
That's one of the most original arguments I've seen for Brexit. It's also one of the most ludicrous, but hats off for imagination there.
I suppose with the stockpiling of tinned goods, it might also help the obesity problem. Perhaps we could have put on own version of The Hunger Games
-
I'm failing to see a down side to having a country with more motivated young people in it.
I saw a piece on Newsnight once about how migrants living in deprived areas blow apart the myth that 'nobody from round here gets anywhere so why bother trying' because their kids do try and do achieve. This can motivate others, but most of the time it seems to just stoke feelings of resentment.
So given that too many people in this country aren't motivated I'm all for importing it.
-
I saw a film about Oldham, which has had its problems with racism. But anyway the film stated two things, that immigration into Oldham had gone up, and unemployment had gone down. This seems to contradict the idea that migration reduces jobs. I suppose it won't reduce the racism, in fact, you may get envy of new immigrants making good. My Lithuanian neighbour is a builder and is doing well, (Norfolk).
-
Got there in the end
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/23/uk-public-will-blame-eu-for-no-deal-brexit-says-jeremy-hunt
Tories and Cameron exonerated.
This and economic uncertainty for at least 50 years (Rees Mogg)
Tories finally concede that the only way for the Tories to be in power is economic disaster.
-
It seems Mrs May has taken personal charge of Brexit - so that's all right then!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44941792
-
It seems Mrs May has taken personal charge of Brexit - so that's all right then!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44941792
You’re making something out of nothing. As the Brexit secretary said, it’s no more than shifting the deck chairs in Whitehall...
... oh, wait...
-
You’re making something out of nothing. As the Brexit secretary said, it’s no more than shifting the deck chairs in Whitehall...
You mean Titanic.
Seventh petty officer Curruthers played by Jacob Rees Mogg is shooting his way toward a place in the lifeboat. Rose played by Anna Soubry has forsaken her place in the boats to return for plucky artist Jack played by Arron Banks. As his body sinks in the icy waters Rose fears the worst unconscious of Jacks miniature scuba equipment and the dark and silent outline of a submarine below.
-
Jabba the Hutt lookalike proposes reform of treason act...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/25/tory-mep-david-bannerman-ex-ukip-says-treason-act-should-include-extreme-eu-loyalty
Given the definitions of treason bandied about here I wonder if the following persons could not be considered.
All fuel protestors.
William Hague for supporting the protests.
Hard Brexitters who would seek an interruption in the food supply.
-
Jabba the Hutt lookalike proposes reform of treason act...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/25/tory-mep-david-bannerman-ex-ukip-says-treason-act-should-include-extreme-eu-loyalty
Given the definitions of treason bandied about here I wonder if the following persons could not be considered.
All fuel protestors.
William Hague for supporting the protests.
Hard Brexitters who would seek an interruption in the food supply.
Given the number of times Bannerman has defected, he probably wouldn’t know loyalty if it hit him in the face.
-
Apparently he both lives in and is Antwerp.
-
Apparently he both lives in and is Antwerp.
;D
-
Gary Lineker backs a second referendum. So there we go, one of our greatest political thinkers will no doubt sway the balance.
-
Brexiters…….....Where is the food plan? The medicines Plan?
-
Brexiters…….....Where is the food plan? The medicines Plan?
Well I want to know from Ippy and others whether food stockpiling is what they voted for.
-
I find it all scary. In a couple of years our entire lifestyles could be drastically changed for the worst & I won't understand in a lifetime why anyone voted Brexit.
-
I find it all scary. In a couple of years our entire lifestyles could be drastically changed for the worst & I won't understand in a lifetime why anyone voted Brexit.
Yes, if the chance ever looks even half likely I will be moving elsewhere.
And I never, ever thought I'd say that.
-
Yes, if the chance ever looks even half likely I will be moving elsewhere.
And I never, ever thought I'd say that.
Is it too late to think of setting up some business interests or somesuch in Europe as a basis for claiming European citizenship after Brexit ?
-
Is it too late to think of setting up some business interests or somesuch in Europe as a basis for claiming European citizenship after Brexit ?
Probably. Anyway, I’ll figure out something. I usually do.
-
Well I want to know from Ippy and others whether food stockpiling is what they voted for.
You arent really expecting an answer are you?
-
This is a really scary article
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like
It analyses the effect of a no deal Brexit on just our food distribution system. If the average time to clear customs at Dover increases from the current two minutes to four minutes, the tailback would be 20 miles long within 24 hours. Our just in time food system would collapse completely within 24 hours five days.
-
This is a really scary article
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/07/27/this-is-what-no-deal-brexit-actually-looks-like
It analyses the effect of a no deal Brexit on just our food distribution system. If the average time to clear customs at Dover increases from the current two minutes to four minutes, the tailback would be 20 miles long within 24 hours. Our just in time food system would collapse completely within 24 hours.
That is scary - someone needs to stop this madness before it is too late: it feels like we are being walked up the scaffold by chronically gullible Brexit enthusiasts who are telling us, as we see seeing the executioner looking at us and rubbing his hands, that there really is nothing to worry about.
Politics in the UK works whereby one democratic decision can be overturned by a later democratic decision. The Tories are too infected as as party (bar a few exceptions) by their lunatic fringe to do anything other than lemming impersonations, so a re-run referendum won't happen: so we need a GE and hope that the outcome provides a means to abandon Brexit before it is too late.
-
That is scary - someone needs to stop this madness before it is too late: it feels like we are being walked up the scaffold by chronically gullible Brexit enthusiasts who are telling us, as we see seeing the executioner looking at us and rubbing his hands, that there really is nothing to worry about.
Politics in the UK works whereby one democratic decision can be overturned by a later democratic decision. The Tories are too infected as as party (bar a few exceptions) by their lunatic fringe to do anything other than lemming impersonations, so a re-run referendum won't happen: so we need a GE and hope that the outcome provides a means to abandon Brexit before it is too late.
If Labour genuinely had a Remain leadership I think we might be looking at a very different scenario.
-
Yes, I could see that Labour were using ambiguity over Brexit to stop Leave voters flipping during the election, but now it's irresponsible. They have a duty as opposition to oppose, but Corbyn is carrying the Tories' bags for them. They are not even proposing the single market.
-
If Labour genuinely had a Remain leadership I think we might be looking at a very different scenario.
Yep - all it would need is is Labour leader of the calibre of the late John Smith and enough of a Tory loss to allow a Tory-free coalition that would at least sanity-check Brexit before proceeding, and ideally bin it.
Desperate times require desperate measures so if someone could persuade Sinn Fein to take their Westminster seats on a one-off basis solely in order to defeat the Tories in a vote and bring down the government, and thereby Sinn Fein also stick one on the DUP, so as to force a GE that would be welcome.
Surely enough Brexit enthusiasts wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for it again (via supporting the Tories/UKIP) now that the shambles surrounding Brexit, and the Tory handling of it, is clear to anyone whose IQ scores a larger value than does their shoe-size.
-
While I would hope that we get some sort of solution that avoids no deal, my reading of a lot of writing on the Remain sides seems to show the same sort of faith based attitude that is apparent in some Brexiteer stuff. It seems to me that while there may be some reasonable numbers who have changed their minds, the rhetoric on both sides becomes ever more hysterical.
-
I think that's true about hysteria, but isn't one reason for that the lack of information? For example, the rumours about stockpiling are increasing, partly because the govt is giving nods and winks, well, there might be or might not be. It's a kind of information vacuum, and it's been going on for two years.
-
The thing is though it's not just Brexit this seems to apply on. Have a look at the discussions online about anti Semitism in the Labour Party, or indeed on anything to do with Trump. Elsewhere i had got involved in a discussion between two different groups trying to save orangutans, and in 10 tweets it was all Sharks and Jets. Extremism is the new centrism.
-
Yes, I could see that Labour were using ambiguity over Brexit to stop Leave voters flipping during the election, but now it's irresponsible. They have a duty as opposition to oppose, but Corbyn is carrying the Tories' bags for them. They are not even proposing the single market.
Corbyn is a Brexiteer. That's the reason why they aren't full on campaigning to Remain now.
-
While I would hope that we get some sort of solution that avoids no deal, my reading of a lot of writing on the Remain sides seems to show the same sort of faith based attitude that is apparent in some Brexiteer stuff. It seems to me that while there may be some reasonable numbers who have changed their minds, the rhetoric on both sides becomes ever more hysterical.
Did you read the link I gave about the food supply chain? You seem surprised that people are beginning to panic about the possibility of a no deal Brexit.
-
Did you read the link I gave about the food supply chain? You seem surprised that people are beginning to panic about the possibility of a no deal Brexit.
Its not only the food chain, but look at medical drugs. Just checked my tablets, one sourced in Greece, another in Poland, yet another from Spain. Do we have the capacity to produce these if the supply chain is disrupted?
Does anyone have an answer, apart from the far from satisfactory "it will all turn out alright" ?
-
I don't know if the govt can risk coming clean about shortages of food and medicines. The danger for them is mass panic, and hostility to Brexit. Yet if they keep stumm, rumours and leaks will multiply. Maybe they will keep quiet and hope it goes away. But comments columns are full of people worrying, where will I get medicine X?
-
Saying that it will be OK is all very well, but why is the NHS stockpiling? You could try asking them for advice, but I have a funny feeling you will get nowhere.
-
Obviously the gov't must avoid mass panic and take whatever action it can to minimise shortages and disruption in the event of a no-deal exit. However, there are still options if we don't have measures in place or a ratified exit agreement by the end of the year:
- We can request an extension to the two year negotiating period
- We can call for Article 50 to be suspended
- Depending on further votes or changes of leadership, we could ask for Article 50 to be reversed
Just because a small majority have elected to pull the chain, it doesn't mean we are inevitably flushed down the toilet.
-
Did you read the link I gave about the food supply chain? You seem surprised that people are beginning to panic about the possibility of a no deal Brexit.
No, I'm just making the point that people automatically use information as part of their confirmation bias. You will pick the worst news and use it, subconsciously, to portray those in the other side as acting out of faith and vice versa. The idea that fifty % of the populace are just the 'others' is you bring dragged to the extreme by our current public discourse.
-
No, I'm just making the point that people automatically use information as part of their confirmation bias. You will pick the worst news and use it, subconsciously, to portray those in the other side as acting out of faith and vice versa. The idea that fifty % of the populace are just the 'others' is you bring dragged to the extreme by our current public discourse.
The article wasn't news, it was a researched analysis of the consequences on one sector of the UK economy for a no deal Brexit. If you think it was mere hysteria, perhaps you would like to explain why.
-
The article wasn't news, it was a researched analysis of the consequences on one sector of the UK economy for a no deal Brexit. If you think it was mere hysteria, perhaps you would like to explain why.
This proves my point, you aren't reading what is written but are just reacting emotionally against any questions. We accept arguments that back is up uncritically but the problem is that we then end up criticising those who don't as being the 'others', which in turn makes those you portray as others more likely to follow the same route. We seem locked in the definition of a vicious circle.
-
This proves my point, you aren't reading what is written but are just reacting emotionally against any questions.
Bullshit.
We accept arguments that back is up uncritically but the problem is that we then end up criticising those who don't as being the 'others', which in turn makes those you portray as others more likely to follow the same route. We seem locked in the definition of a vicious circle.
So do you think the analysis I posted is correct or not? I'm still waiting for anybody to come up with a cogent reason why it is wrong.
And you are wrong in general about the character of this debate. The Remainers, as a rule, are bringing real arguments and evidence to the debate. The Brexiteers bring nothing except desperation. I post a lot of articles that claim various levels of disaster for Brexit as do other Remainers. Why don't the Brexiteers do the same? It's because published well argued rational arguments for Brexit do not exist.
Instead of just complaining about the way the rest of us are conducting this debate, why not join in? If you can find a really solid article that argues Brexit is going to be OK, I'd really like to read it now because I'm dreading the shit storm that looks like it's coming down the road.
I'd so like to be wrong about Brexit.
-
Bullshit.
So do you think the analysis I posted is correct or not? I'm still waiting for anybody to come up with a cogent reason why it is wrong.
And you are wrong in general about the character of this debate. The Remainers, as a rule, are bringing real arguments and evidence to the debate. The Brexiteers bring nothing except desperation. I post a lot of articles that claim various levels of disaster for Brexit as do other Remainers. Why don't the Brexiteers do the same? It's because published well argued rational arguments for Brexit do not exist.
Instead of just complaining about the way the rest of us are conducting this debate, why not join in? If you can find a really solid article that argues Brexit is going to be OK, I'd really like to read it now because I'm dreading the shit storm that looks like it's coming down the road.
I'd so like to be wrong about Brexit.
I'm complaining about the 'othering' that is prevalent in so many debates at the moment. Why do you want me to argue for something I haven't said? Might help to show that you are reading poster if you didn't misrepresent them
-
Obviously the gov't must avoid mass panic and take whatever action it can to minimise shortages and disruption in the event of a no-deal exit. However, there are still options if we don't have measures in place or a ratified exit agreement by the end of the year:
- We can request an extension to the two year negotiating period
- We can call for Article 50 to be suspended
- Depending on further votes or changes of leadership, we could ask for Article 50 to be reversed
Just because a small majority have elected to pull the chain, it doesn't mean we are inevitably flushed down the toilet.
I'm so glad you are posting again, Udayana. There speaks the voice of reason.
-
Thanks Rhi :)
Of-course whatever the reasonable approach, it requires the gov't to be competent and take responsibility. I.e. must be persuaded and also held to account.
-
Interesting review of Roger Scruton's book Where We Ate: The State of Britain Now
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/idolatry-home
-
To reinforce my point upthread about medication:
https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/news-and-analysis/news/millions-of-patients-could-be-affected-by-no-deal-brexit-medicines-shortages-says-mhra-chief/20205240.article
-
Interesting review of Roger Scruton's book Where We Ate: The State of Britain Now
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/idolatry-home
How do I feel about my Englishness? I think that England has provided three men of transcendent genius: Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and William Shakespeare ... and an artist who was quite possibly the greatest landscape painter who ever lived - William Turner. I am very proud of my national association with these men (and I went to the same school as one of them - though not at the same time). However, I regard them as leading figures in the European culture which largely appears to define humanity. They were a part of the culture which also received contributions from - among many others : Leonardo, Michelangelo, Bach, Schiller, Monet, Voltaire, Beethoven, Galileo ... the list is endless.
I regard myself as English, European and British - in that order.
-
Bullshit.
OK.
And you are wrong in general about the character of this debate. The Remainers, as a rule, are bringing real arguments and evidence to the debate. The Brexiteers bring nothing except desperation.
Not all Brexiters post here, some don't because of endless strawmen, hysterical over-emotional posts.
-
OK.
Not all Brexiters post here, some don't because of endless strawmen, hysterical over-emotional posts.
We're all entitled to our own individual view, remainers come over to me as very far from stupid but are very embittered losers it appears to me and are continuously hitting out at anything they can find no matter how erroneous.
I have to admit I would have felt much the same if the vote had gone the other way, but I don't think I would have gone as far down the, because of endless straw men, hysterical over-emotional posts route, the remainers seem to be going every day.
We, both sides think the other to be tragically wrong it must be worse for the losers, that's life.
Regards ippy
-
We're all entitled to our own individual view, remainers come over to me as very far from stupid but are very embittered losers it appears to me and are continuously hitting out at anything they can find no matter how erroneous.
I have to admit I would have felt much the same if the vote had gone the other way, but I don't think I would have gone as far down the, because of endless straw men, hysterical over-emotional posts route, the remainers seem to be going every day.
We, both sides think the other to be tragically wrong it must be worse for the losers, that's life.
Regards ippy
Both Remain and Leave in this thread seem to do the whole us and then approach. Shiny shiny mirrors all round.
-
We're all entitled to our own individual view, remainers come over to me as very far from stupid but are very embittered losers it appears to me and are continuously hitting out at anything they can find no matter how erroneous.
I have to admit I would have felt much the same if the vote had gone the other way, but I don't think I would have gone as far down the, because of endless straw men, hysterical over-emotional posts route, the remainers seem to be going every day.
We, both sides think the other to be tragically wrong it must be worse for the losers, that's life.
Regards ippy
So can you answer my concerns about the chain of supply for medicines. Because contrary to what others might think, I happen to believe that this issue is equally important and potentially devastating for both leave and remain voters.
-
Any organisation not willing to sell the UK medicine and food, or punish the UK as a deterent to others, isn't an organisation worth being part of.
-
Any organisation not willing to sell the UK medicine and food, or punish the UK as a deterent to others, isn't an organisation worth being part of.
Except that isn't the issue.
-
So can you answer my concerns about the chain of supply for medicines. Because contrary to what others might think, I happen to believe that this issue is equally important and potentially devastating for both leave and remain voters.
Yes I could but there is no way it wouldn't end up as an unruly wrangle where we won't agree, we're on both sides sitting in our respective trenches with our tin hats on and have no way of resolving this difference we have by argument, I think the referendum had become the only way of resolving this gulf of a difference between the sides, I don't wish to take part in such an embittered, on both sides, discussion.
Yes I'm avoiding the subject but I'm mostly avoiding any of the embitterment in the process, largely I enjoy most exchanges on this forum and would like it to remain as it is.
This in or out of the EU is one of the most contentious disagreements I've ever come across in my life time.
Regards ippy
-
Any organisation not willing to sell the UK medicine and food, or punish the UK as a deterent to others, isn't an organisation worth being part of.
It's not that - it is having the mechanisms in place to trade leaving the supply chain uninterrupted. If we have a "hard Brexit" and end up with checks at Dover or wherever how does that affect time/heat sensitive medicines. Some emphasis has been placed on WTO rules but as I posted upthread on this previously, it is not a given that transferring to WTO rules is going to be that easy or allow us to trade on anything like the terms we currently do with the EU. This could force up the price of medicines to us from the EU whilst simultaneously not allow for a replacement due to delays in the implementation of WTO rules.
-
Yes I could but there is no way it wouldn't end up as an unruly wrangle where we won't agree, we're on both sides sitting in our respective trenches with our tin hats on and have no way of resolving this difference we have by argument, I think the referendum had become the only way of resolving this gulf of a difference between the sides, I don't wish to take part in such an embittered, on both sides, discussion.
Can I respectfully point out that this is purely a question about the practicalities of what would happen post Brexit - I am not talking about whether or not we are leaving. Now if you have an answer, which you imply above, can you share it with us?
This is not some hypothetical "taking back control" stuff. This is about medication which will affect all of us at some point in our lives. Now if you have an answer that can help put my mind at ease on this issue I would very much like to hear it.
-
We're all entitled to our own individual view, remainers come over to me as very far from stupid but are very embittered losers it appears to me and are continuously hitting out at anything they can find no matter how erroneous.
I have to admit I would have felt much the same if the vote had gone the other way, but I don't think I would have gone as far down the, because of endless straw men, hysterical over-emotional posts route, the remainers seem to be going every day.
We, both sides think the other to be tragically wrong it must be worse for the losers, that's life.
Regards ippy
People are genuinely scared. Something about which you don't seem to give a shit.
-
Both Remain and Leave in this thread seem to do the whole us and then approach. Shiny shiny mirrors all round.
It's very difficult to empathise with an 'I'm not telling you' position.
-
I thought that a lot of the arguments now are not about remain/leave, but the question of no deal. I assume that if there is a deal, or a long transition, there won't be problems with food and medicine. There is also the supposed Singapore-type economics of some no dealers, all a bit fuzzy, but clearly pretty right-wing..
-
I thought that a lot of the arguments now are not about remain/leave, but the question of no deal. I assume that if there is a deal, or a long transition, there won't be problems with food and medicine. There is also the supposed Singapore-type economics of some no dealers, all a bit fuzzy, but clearly pretty right-wing..
Has anyone mentioned the problem with supplies of insulin? Could be an interesting headline:" Theresa May steps down as PM as she can no longer control her diabetes methodically."
-
It's very difficult to empathise with an 'I'm not telling you' position.
And I get the idea that you disagree with ippy about that but there is a generalisation on the thread about people that voted Brexit that is not to do with ippy
-
People are genuinely scared. Something about which you don't seem to give a shit.
And if leave voters were genuinely scared? Did you give a shit?
-
And if leave voters were genuinely scared? Did you give a shit?
Scared of what? Isn’t it about taking control back? I voted remain because I wanted to feed my kids.
-
Scared of what? Isn’t it about taking control back? I voted remain because I wanted to feed my kids.
So leave voters want to starve their children.
-
And if leave voters were genuinely scared? Did you give a shit?
I don't find that a convincing argument. Under the current but soon to be defunct set up, we know roughly what to expect. We are moving to a position where we do not know what is going to happen. Now maybe all will be fine (although that's not what my urine is telling me), but the point is there is much more uncertainty now than there was before. For that reason alone there is much more to be worried/scared about.
-
C'mon NS you know Rhiannon didn't mean that. Many 'leave' voters were infused with patriotic-type propaganda and the idea that 'we' would be better off without the EU, they hadn't thought out the options and implications properly & let's face it, no-one was given that much information before the vote.
Plus what Trent said in post below.
-
I don't find that a convincing argument. Under the current but soon to be defunct set up, we know roughly what to expect. We are moving to a position where we do not know what is going to happen. Now maybe all will be fine (although that's not what my urine is telling me), but the point is there is much more uncertainty now than there was before. For that reason alone there is much more to be worried/scared about.
Didn't say it was convincing, was mirroring. So do you think Brexit voters should think it works?
-
C'mon NS you know Rhiannon didn't mean that. Many 'leave' voters were infused with patriotic-type propaganda and the idea that 'we' would be better off without the EU, they hadn't thought out the options and implications properly & let's face it, no-one was given that much information before the vote.
Plus what Trent said in post below.
was wondering by about the portrayal of Leave voters? You agree with Rhiannon that they want to starve her kids?
-
Sorry don't get that last sentence :-[
-
Sorry don't get that last sentence :-[
Try it now
-
Try it now
Must be me - still not getting what you are getting at!
-
People are genuinely scared. Something about which you don't seem to give a shit.
I do care that's why I voted leave for reasons that I think are perfectly reasonable, obviously you want to remain probably probably because you think it's a perfectly reasonable stance to take.
I am sorry we don't agree but like I said before that's life.
We could argue this till doomsday we'll never agree and again like I said with an impasse like this EU one I think the referendum was the only way.
Regards ippy.
-
I do care that's why I voted leave for reasons that I think are perfectly reasonable, obviously you want to remain probably probably because you think it's a perfectly reasonable stance to take.
I am sorry we don't agree but like I said before that's life.
We could argue this till doomsday we'll never agree and again like I said with an impasse like this EU one I think the referendum was the only way.
Regards ippy.
Ippy I don’t want to argue with you. I don’t think we even have argued. But I’m still none the wiser as to why you voted Leave apart from some vague thing about the ‘United States of Europe’, which doesn’t actually exist.
-
was wondering by about the portrayal of Leave voters? You agree with Rhiannon that they want to starve her kids?
A distortion of what I said that is worthy of Vlad. Hats off for magnificent trolling there.
-
A distortion of what I said that is worthy of Vlad. Hats off for magnificent trolling there.
It was reductio to illustrate that your othering was just the same form of extreme.
-
It was reductio to illustrate that your othering was just the same form of extreme.
My 'othering' as you call it, exists only in your head. I get why a lot of people voted Leave. My friend from a fishing town because he thought it'd protect jobs. Some older people I know because they are convinced the Euro is going to collapse. I have no idea about Ippy because he hasn't said. I've asked him to explain because I want to understand, not because I want conflict.
Just because some people like to 'other' those that they don't agree with, you shouldn't assume that all do. That smacks of prejudice on your part. Or smugness. Maybe both.
-
Sorry don't get that last sentence :-[
It comes from Rhiannon writing ' I voted remain because I wanted to feed my kids.' So the opposite by implication, i.e. Those who voted leave is that they wanted to starve their kids. It's just another example of othering by portraying one's own position as something as motherhood and apple pie as feeding your own children, and the others as being against that.
-
My 'othering' as you call it, exists only in your head. I get why a lot of people voted Leave. My friend from a fishing town because he thought it'd protect jobs. Some older people I know because they are convinced the Euro is going to collapse. I have no idea about Ippy because he hasn't said. I've asked him to explain because I want to understand, not because I want conflict.
Just because some people like to 'other' those that they don't agree with, you shouldn't assume that all do. That smacks of prejudice on your part. Or smugness. Maybe both.
Didn't assume. Working from the evidence of your post about wanting to feed your children. It implies people who disagree want to starve their children. That is exactly othering.
-
It comes from Rhiannon writing ' I voted remain because I wanted to feed my kids.' So the opposite by implication, i.e. Those who voted leave is that they wanted to starve their kids. It's just another example of offering by portraying one's own position as something as motherhood and apple pie as feeding your own children, and the others as being against that.
I got what you were saying there, don't agree with it, but I get that. It's this:
So do you think Brexit voters should think it works?
But its all moved on so no worries.
-
Didn't assume. Working from the evidence of your post about wanting to feed your children. It implies people who disagree want to starve their children. That is exactly othering.
Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. Believe it or not I can hold in my head the though that I had concerns that hadn’t occurred to others, while understanding that others believe those fears to be unfounded. That is so utterly pathetic and beneath you, frankly. Stop fucking reading my mind. You aren’t fucking psychic.
For fuck’s sake.
-
I got what you were saying there, don't agree with it, but I get that. It's this:
But its all moved on so no worries.
Why don't you agree? The I just disagree position is what ippy has done on this thread, and I doubt you think that is a useful approach.
To win the argument those of us who think remain is the best option need to stop just portraying the 'other' side as racists morons who by implication of what we might write want to starve their children.
-
Don’t be so fucking ridiculous. Believe it or not I can hold in my head the though that I had concerns that hadn’t occurred to others, while understanding that others believe those fears to be unfounded. That is so utterly pathetic and beneath you, frankly. Stop fucking reading my mind. You aren’t fucking psychic.
For fuck’s sake.
Then don't write posts that imply that you think that wanting to feed your children makes you different from people who voted leave. It's not about reading your mind, it's just pointing out what your post implies.
-
Then don't write posts that imply that you think that wanting to feed your children makes you different from people who voted leave. It's not about reading your mind, it's just pointing out what your post implies.
They implied no such fucking thing. I was giving one big reason why I voted as I did. Who is fucking ‘othering’ now?
-
They implied no such fucking thing. I was giving one big reason why I voted as I did. Who is fucking ‘othering’ now?
It exactly implies it. If you voted to feed your children, then the opposite vote is against that. I'm not othering because I am not making a generalisation here, which your post does by implication.
-
Why don't you agree? The I just disagree position is what ippy has done on this thread, and I doubt you think that is a useful approach.
To win the argument those of us who think remain is the best option need to stop just portraying the 'other' side as racists morons who by implication of what we might write want to starve their children.
I just took her post as being one of the reasons she voted remain, that is if leave were to win then life would become more difficult. I do not see an implication of othering or of thinking that Leave voters want to starve their children. It just seems a bit of a stretch to me.
-
Didn't assume. Working from the evidence of your post about wanting to feed your children. It implies people who disagree want to starve their children. That is exactly othering.
That's clearly incorrect logic and false.
-
I just took her post as being one of the reasons she voted remain, that is if leave were to win then life would become more difficult. I do not see an implication of othering or of thinking that Leave voters want to starve their children. It just seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Then why draw attention to it? If it isn't saying that the 'other' side voted differently, i.e. To achieve the opposite, then what's it saying? In all such statements try sticking the word 'not' in As that's what it implies for the other side. 'I vote for peace'. 'I vote for the end to poverty '. I vote to save tiny babies from pain'. It's implicit othering that the people who disagree with you are voting against.
-
That's clearly incorrect logic and false.
No, it's clear in the use of voting for and against. It's the clear implication that if you stated voting for sonetningt, then the opposite is voting against. It's sticking a rosette on your vote and saying this is the lovely vote. And that implies the other vote is the horrible vote. In a referendum there isn't really a not guilty vote so it's dichotomies all the way down.
-
Then don't write posts that imply that you think that wanting to feed your children makes you different from people who voted leave. It's not about reading your mind, it's just pointing out what your post implies.
Bullshit. If I vote Labour because I am against nuclear war that doesn’t mean that I think those who voted for other parties think it’s a good idea.
People have all kind of reasons for voting for and against Brexit. Do you think I’m too thick to realise that? You seem to have set yourself up as the only voice of reason here among both remainers and leavers and are so blinded by your own shiny enlightenment that you can’t see we aren’t all the ignorant muppets you choose to see us as.
-
Then why draw attention to it? If it isn't saying that the 'other' side voted differently, i.e. To achieve the opposite, then what's it saying? In all such statements try sticking the word 'not' in As that's what it implies for the other side. 'I vote for peace'. 'I vote for the end to poverty '. I vote to save tiny babies from pain'. It's implicit othering that the people who disagree with you are voting against.
I think Rhi has covered it but for example I vote Labour because I am concerned about the NHS. I don't necessarily think that all Tory voters aren't concerned about the NHS. In fact I'm sure they are. So I'm still not seeing this in the way you are.
-
No, it's clear in the use of voting for and against. It's the clear implication that if you stated voting for sonetningt, then the opposite is voting against. It's sticking a rosette on your vote and saying this is the lovely vote. And that implies the other vote is the horrible vote. In a referendum there isn't really a not guilty vote so it's dichotomies all the way down.
Voting is not an exercise in abstract logic. The idea is that people vote for their own interests. Some will be much richer after brexit some fear that they will not. Some vote for change, some for security.
-
Bullshit. If I vote Labour because I am against nuclear war that doesn’t mean that I think those who voted for other parties think it’s a good idea.
People have all kind of reasons for voting for and against Brexit. Do you think I’m too thick to realise that? You seem to have set yourself up as the only voice of reason here among both remainers and leavers and are so blinded by your own shiny enlightenment that you can’t see we aren’t all the ignorant muppets you choose to see us as.
If I'm the only voice of reason then you are all fucked beyond recognition. But maybe try and address the point rather than try the mind reading stuff? What's the point in saying you 'want to feed your children' if it isn't about othering? Do ippy or jakswan have some other view? If not then it's a pointless statement.
-
Voting is not an exercise in abstract logic. The idea is that people vote for their own interests. Some will be much richer after brexit some fear that they will not. Some vote for change, some for security.
And in saying that you vote to testify children implies that others do not. This isn't about abstract logic, it's about the conduct of public discourse.
-
There is a tendency to portray the other side as being stupid or having bad motives. I'm sure we've all done it. It makes us feel superior and justifies our point of view.
-
I think Rhi has covered it but for example I vote Labour because I am concerned about the NHS. I don't necessarily think that all Tory voters aren't concerned about the NHS. In fact I'm sure they are. So I'm still not seeing this in the way you are.
So if you say I'm voting for the NHS, then you are implying that someone voting the other way in a referendum is voting against it? Honestly? If not then what's the point and value in the statement?
-
Bullshit. If I vote Labour because I am against nuclear war that doesn’t mean that I think those who voted for other parties think it’s a good idea.
People have all kind of reasons for voting for and against Brexit. Do you think I’m too thick to realise that? You seem to have set yourself up as the only voice of reason here among both remainers and leavers and are so blinded by your own shiny enlightenment that you can’t see we aren’t all the ignorant muppets you choose to see us as.
Wow!...........both barrels.
-
So if a Brexiteer says they voted to leave to make the UK wealthier. Then they are by stating this othering me and implying that I don't want to make the UK wealthier? Is that really how it works?
I get your point that public discourse could be a whole lot better, but we'll end up not stating a pov for fear of "othering" people.
I'm just not seeing it.
-
There is a tendency to portray the other side as being stupid or having bad motives. I'm sure we've all done it. It makes us feel superior and justifies our point of view.
In most cases, as regards the bad motives,that has to be true. In almost all political positions though it's true of some of the people on our 'side' too. The point is to avoid generalizing about people.
-
So if a Brexiteer says they voted to leave to make the UK wealthier. Then they are by stating this othering me and implying that I don't want to make the UK wealthier? Is that really how it works?
I get your point that public discourse could be a whole lot better, but we'll end up not stating a pov for fear of "othering" people.
I'm just not seeing it.
Pretty much. Let's say 'I voted to leave to avoid fascism' - which is actually a viewpoint I've been given. Then voting to stay then means for that person either that I want fascism, or that I am too stupid to get that I am voting for it. We need to have a discussion with those we disagree with on specifics, while acknowledging that in terms of the general, such as feeding children, we might be in common ground. As soon as we bring up something and say we voted for i t, the implication is that the other vote is against that.
-
Ippy I don’t want to argue with you. I don’t think we even have argued. But I’m still none the wiser as to why you voted Leave apart from some vague thing about the ‘United States of Europe’, which doesn’t actually exist.
We're never going to agree about the EU and I think you've accepted that, this being so why do you then expect me to feed you with anything, anything at all about my views other than my stated wish for the U K to leave thee EU.
I can see the fact we're leaving the EU must be a bitter pill for remainers, I would be fighting like hell if the shoe was on the other foot, this in or out EU ref is as I have said before, I've never experienced anything where there is such a bitterness between the advocates of the two schools of thought.
Regards ippy
-
We're never going to agree about the EU and I think you've accepted that, this being so why do you then expect me to feed you with anything, anything at all about my views other than my stated wish for the U K to leave thee EU.
I can see the fact we're leaving the EU must be a bitter pill for remainers, I would be fighting like hell if the shoe was on the other foot, this in or out EU ref is as I have said before, I've never experienced anything where there is such a bitterness between the advocates of the two schools of thought.
Regards ippy
Do you think continually not saying why you voted leave is conducive to understanding?
-
I can quite accept that people on both sides voted to make the UK wealthier without thinking that either side is "othering" the other.
I have been trying to have a discussion on specifics, because I had decided I wanted to move away from the relentless toing and froing over leaving, which I find pointless and tedious as one way or another we will leave.
I chose medicine, but no one seems to want to answer. So I'm not othering, but I would like to point out that some Leavers are avoiding issues.
Another article here about medicines:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/prescription-drug-brexit-pharmacy-supply-chains-shortages?CMP=fb_gu
Something really does need to happen and soon about this.
-
Do you think continually not saying why you voted leave is conducive to understanding?
I think my post 2096 to Rhiannon was very clear.
Regards ippy
-
I think my post 2096 to Rhiannon was very clear.
Regards ippy
Very clear that you don't want to say why you voted leave. And do you think that is conducive to understanding your position?
-
I think my post 2096 to Rhiannon was very clear.
Regards ippy
It is just a provocation. If reasons for brexit cannot be given or argued for, it means those opposed, for their own clearly stated and argued reasons, should put in every effort and means to halt it.
-
I can quite accept that people on both sides voted to make the UK wealthier without thinking that either side is "othering" the other.
I have been trying to have a discussion on specifics, because I had decided I wanted to move away from the relentless toing and froing over leaving, which I find pointless and tedious as one way or another we will leave.
I chose medicine, but no one seems to want to answer. So I'm not othering, but I would like to point out that some Leavers are avoiding issues.
Another article here about medicines:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/prescription-drug-brexit-pharmacy-supply-chains-shortages?CMP=fb_gu
Something really does need to happen and soon about this.
Again, if the EU would not allow the free flow of bone fide medicines, ingredients etc, with or without tariffs, into the UK as sime kind of punishment for leaving, then it isn't an organisation worth being part of.
-
Again, if the EU would not allow the free flow of bone fide medicines, ingredients etc, with or without tariffs, into the UK as sime kind of punishment for leaving, then it isn't an organisation worth being part of.
I refer you to my post #2051. It's not a question of punishment, it is a question of logistics and organisation.
-
Again, if the EU would not allow the free flow of bone fide medicines, ingredients etc, with or without tariffs, into the UK as sime kind of punishment for leaving, then it isn't an organisation worth being part of.
Again, as NS stated earlier, that is not the issue.
The issue is that, if we leave without an exit agreement, the UK may be unable to process drug imports in sufficiently timely manner, to allow uninterrupted supply. This is entirely down to the UK government, and hopefully, they are competent enough to have a system in place - in the event of a no-deal exit.
If there is an exit agreement then there is a 2 year transitional period, so the problem does not arise.
-
This is entirely down to the UK government, and hopefully, they are competent enough to have a system in place
Competent? Government?
I'll have two bottles of those optimist pills right now!
-
I think the tabloids will present any customs delays as punishment by the EU. There is a certain irony here, since the UK has decided to step outside the single market, with all its rules, and then we complain if the rules continue.
-
Pretty much. Let's say 'I voted to leave to avoid fascism' - which is actually a viewpoint I've been given. Then voting to stay then means for that person either that I want fascism, or that I am too stupid to get that I am voting for it. We need to have a discussion with those we disagree with on specifics, while acknowledging that in terms of the general, such as feeding children, we might be in common ground. As soon as we bring up something and say we voted for i t, the implication is that the other vote is against that.
Your last sentence is something that you've made up.
Voting is like backing a horse in a race. As Trent says, I might vote Labour because I think they will protect the NHS. OTOH someone could vote Tory, very sincerely, because they believe that wealth creation is essential for increased tax take to fund the NHS. Only when the race is run do we get to see who is right. So when I say that I've voted for security for my kids (food security, job security, whatever) that doesn't mean I think that Leavers didn't; in all likelihood we've backed different horses to deliver the same thing.
As a single mother my concerns are very often framed by the basics of providing what my family needs. That doesn't mean to say that I think that people who vote differently to me don't have the same concerns; we've all looked at what is in front of us and made what we believe to be the best choices. Which is why I find it so frustrating that Ippy won't explain his choices; understanding his POV actually humanises the debate. Understanding that my friend from Grimsby has seen local jobs go to the wall gives a very human dimension to his decision to vote Leave and in doing so he isn't 'othering' me. I believe that the remaining jobs that we have are better protected within the EU. He doesn't. Only time will tell. And I have friends of the older generation who look at how the EU has been run and who believe that that is likely to cause a rise in fascism and who voted Leave on that basis. Again, only history will tell which is correct.
Some people on this forum have very strident opinions for or against religion. Because we've been posting together for a long time now there have been moments when the human story behind the reasons for those opinions has been stated, often quietly, tucked away. There have been a fair few posts on this forum that have been 'aha!' moments in that regard, and I hope that just sometimes I'm more tolerant of others because I understand why they are in one camp or the other, so to speak. What I am trying to say here is that stating one's reasons for voting a particular way is, or should be, the very opposite of othering. What parent or grandparent wouldn't understand a desire for food security? If Ippy told me that (for example) he felt that the children in this country would have better long-term security outside of the EU and give his reasons, I might not agree with him, but we would actually have common ground rather than mutual incomprehension. 'Othering' is not listening, not seeking to understand - the very opposite of what I and others are trying to do. If we don't state mutually our reasons and our fears we will never find common ground and a way to move forward.
-
I think the tabloids will present any customs delays as punishment by the EU. There is a certain irony here, since the UK has decided to step outside the single market, with all its rules, and then we complain if the rules continue.
Incompetency and lying by the government and media - I can believe.
But these would be our own rules - we could just keep the borders open and let everything continue coming in until proper systems were in place to tax them?
-
Very clear that you don't want to say why you voted leave. And do you think that is conducive to understanding your position?
Not particularly but that's but if you feel inclined to crawl back through my previous posts you'll find I have made myself very clear.
Regards ippy.
-
But these would be our own rules - we could just keep the borders open and let everything continue coming in until proper systems were in place to tax them?
As I understand it, if we fall back to WTO rules, then we'd have to open the borders to every other country we didn't have a free-trade agreement with too.
1. Most-favoured-nation (MFN): treating other people equally Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.
So much for "taking back control", eh?
-
Incompetency and lying by the government and media - I can believe.
But these would be our own rules - we could just keep the borders open and let everything continue coming in until proper systems were in place to tax them?
Well, the word is everything, as Stranger pointed out. No checks on dodgy food, animals, plant material, from any country, under non-discrimination rules. This would make us radioactive, metaphorically, and other countries would probably impose severe checks on any imports from us.
Presumably, the Irish border would be super-hard, for the same reason. .
But the tabloids are complaining about the rules of the single market, even though we are opting out. The EU are supposed to unravel the SM, as we don't like it!
-
Jeremy Hunt warning the EU, that unless they change their stance, no deal could happen. Honestly, there must be a production line of comedians being produced by HM Govt. I suppose they are getting ready for no deal, and trying to avert the flak, hence, it's their fault for having a single market. There is a possibility of a kind of poker game last minute deal, I would think. That reminds me of the old joke, if you've been playing poker for 30 minutes, and you're wondering who the patsy is, it's you.
-
Well, this is an opportunity for those that voted to leave to explain what kind of system they want and how it is going to work.
If they don't come up with anything workable, we should just ignore the brexit vote as a kind of massive collective fart.
-
No, you can't ignore it, as it is the voice of the people, and only traitors are against that. I am assuming that there will be late discussions, with give and take. But there is no way the EU will dismantle the SM. Barnier had a neat reply, you want to protect your borders, so do we.
-
Your last sentence is something that you've made up.
Voting is like backing a horse in a race. As Trent says, I might vote Labour because I think they will protect the NHS. OTOH someone could vote Tory, very sincerely, because they believe that wealth creation is essential for increased tax take to fund the NHS. Only when the race is run do we get to see who is right. So when I say that I've voted for security for my kids (food security, job security, whatever) that doesn't mean I think that Leavers didn't; in all likelihood we've backed different horses to deliver the same thing.
As a single mother my concerns are very often framed by the basics of providing what my family needs. That doesn't mean to say that I think that people who vote differently to me don't have the same concerns; we've all looked at what is in front of us and made what we believe to be the best choices. Which is why I find it so frustrating that Ippy won't explain his choices; understanding his POV actually humanises the debate. Understanding that my friend from Grimsby has seen local jobs go to the wall gives a very human dimension to his decision to vote Leave and in doing so he isn't 'othering' me. I believe that the remaining jobs that we have are better protected within the EU. He doesn't. Only time will tell. And I have friends of the older generation who look at how the EU has been run and who believe that that is likely to cause a rise in fascism and who voted Leave on that basis. Again, only history will tell which is correct.
Some people on this forum have very strident opinions for or against religion. Because we've been posting together for a long time now there have been moments when the human story behind the reasons for those opinions has been stated, often quietly, tucked away. There have been a fair few posts on this forum that have been 'aha!' moments in that regard, and I hope that just sometimes I'm more tolerant of others because I understand why they are in one camp or the other, so to speak. What I am trying to say here is that stating one's reasons for voting a particular way is, or should be, the very opposite of othering. What parent or grandparent wouldn't understand a desire for food security? If Ippy told me that (for example) he felt that the children in this country would have better long-term security outside of the EU and give his reasons, I might not agree with him, but we would actually have common ground rather than mutual incomprehension. 'Othering' is not listening, not seeking to understand - the very opposite of what I and others are trying to do. If we don't state mutually our reasons and our fears we will never find common ground and a way to move forward.
Sorry Rhiannon I'm guilty of largely enjoying the company of, I would say of all that post on this forum, the bitter feelings that accompany this split from the EU I have no intention of being involved In.
I've never wanted wanted an EU going right back to the original ref for the EEC and there's nothing I've seen or heard at any time since then that has altered my opinion about, not so much the EEC but the EU, incidentally I feel the transforming of the EEC into the EU was foisted on us by a number of typical underhanded moves so typical of politicians, particularly that last trip of Mr Brown to Lisbon where he went out of his way to avoid the media and he was largely successful in doing so too, If his intentions were at least good ones why the need for this surreptitious manner of his?
Incidentally I have a sizeable amount of my family that live in Grimsby/Cleethorps, even a couple of Great, Great, Great nieces and nephews too, my oldest sister was 19 years older than me which should explain, I've been an uncle since I was a six year old.
I remember the first time I was there there were children running around that didn't have any shoes, lots of them I'd never seen anything like that before.
Regards ippy
-
Sorry Rhiannon I'm guilty of largely enjoying the company of, I would say of all that post on this forum, the bitter feelings that accompany this split from the EU I have no intention of being involved In.
I've never wanted wanted an EU going right back to the original ref for the EEC and there's nothing I've seen or heard at any time since then that has altered my opinion about, not so much the EEC but the EU, incidentally I feel the transforming of the EEC into the EU was foisted on us by a number of typical underhanded moves so typical of politicians, particularly that last trip of Mr Brown to Lisbon where he went out of his way to avoid the media and he was largely successful in doing so too, If his intentions were at least good ones why the need for this surreptitious manner of his?
Incidentally I have a sizeable amount of my family that live in Grimsby/Cleethorps, even a couple of Great, Great, Great nieces and nephews too, my oldest sister was 19 years older than me which should explain, I've been an uncle since I was a six year old.
I remember the first time I was there there were children running around that didn't have any shoes, lots of them I'd never seen anything like that before.
Regards ippy
I'm just curious as to what you want. You have talked about a complete break from the EU. By that, do you mean closing ports and airports to EU traffic?
-
Sorry Rhiannon I'm guilty of largely enjoying the company of, I would say of all that post on this forum, the bitter feelings that accompany this split from the EU I have no intention of being involved In.
I've never wanted wanted an EU going right back to the original ref for the EEC and there's nothing I've seen or heard at any time since then that has altered my opinion about, not so much the EEC but the EU, incidentally I feel the transforming of the EEC into the EU was foisted on us by a number of typical underhanded moves so typical of politicians, particularly that last trip of Mr Brown to Lisbon where he went out of his way to avoid the media and he was largely successful in doing so too, If his intentions were at least good ones why the need for this surreptitious manner of his?
Regards ippy
Now because you've been slightly more forthcoming I can see we have common ground. Brown acted like an idiot over Lisbon. His intentions were good in the sense that he believed it to be the right thing, but he went about it in completely the wrong way. Whatever it was, it looked underhand and undemocratic. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put to the country it is highly unlikely we would be in this mess - one way or another the issue would have been decided, and if necessary a workable compromise reached.
-
Now because you've been slightly more forthcoming I can see we have common ground. Brown acted like an idiot over Lisbon. His intentions were good in the sense that he believed it to be the right thing, but he went about it in completely the wrong way. Whatever it was, it looked underhand and undemocratic. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put to the country it is highly unlikely we would be in this mess - one way or another the issue would have been decided, and if necessary a workable compromise reached.
Damn it I've even joined the conservative party so that I have a vote against T May, it was hard collecting the forms and filling them in, I hate the hard bastards, I'm doing this because I believe it to be the best way to get the leave Europe, I didn't vote for hard or soft I voted to leave the EU.
Regards ippy
-
Damn it I've even joined the conservative party so that I have a vote against T May, it was hard collecting the forms and filling them in, I hate the hard bastards, I'm doing this because I believe it to be the best way to get the leave Europe, I didn't vote for hard or soft I voted to leave the EU.
Regards ippy
A vote against T May? For who? If Johnson and Mogg could not put themselves up when A deal would be settled over a cup of tea. They are not going to step up when there are food shortages and people are dying because there are no meds.
Another thing. How does an outfit that bottled the repercussions of stopping England taking part in the World Cup suddenly so macho at the repercussions of bringing the British way of life to an end?With food and fuel shortages, No foreign holidays, no flights, no driving abroad etc?
Under these circumstances you'd expect the US to bankroll Brexit.....but no.
-
Now because you've been slightly more forthcoming I can see we have common ground. Brown acted like an idiot over Lisbon. His intentions were good in the sense that he believed it to be the right thing, but he went about it in completely the wrong way. Whatever it was, it looked underhand and undemocratic. Had the Lisbon Treaty been put to the country it is highly unlikely we would be in this mess - one way or another the issue would have been decided, and if necessary a workable compromise reached.
I think it is naive to think that a referendum on Lisbon would have decided the issue - the 2016 referendum hasn't decided the issue, quite the reverse, it has created a far more divided country on the EU. Had there been a referendum on Lisbon, regardless of the result there would have still been divisions on the EU. Indeed just as we saw in 2016 having a referendum forces those who really weren't;t concerned about the EU as an issue (in 2016 over 90% of the population) to be forced by the vote to be concerned. Calling the 2016 referendum turned a non-issue for the vast, vast majority of the population into the most serious issue for the population. I suspect we'd have seen something similar, although probably not as intense, with a vote on Lisbon.
-
I didn't vote for hard or soft I voted to leave the EU.
But that is a meaningless and naive statement- you have to have an outcome from leaving, whether it be soft, hard, WTO, EEA etc, etc etc. To fail to give a damn about the future direction when voting is borderline negligent considering the massively different outcomes and potential massively damaging consequences of most of those outcomes.
-
I think it is naive to think that a referendum on Lisbon would have decided the issue - the 2016 referendum hasn't decided the issue, quite the reverse, it has created a far more divided country on the EU. Had there been a referendum on Lisbon, regardless of the result there would have still been divisions on the EU. Indeed just as we saw in 2016 having a referendum forces those who really weren't;t concerned about the EU as an issue (in 2016 over 90% of the population) to be forced by the vote to be concerned. Calling the 2016 referendum turned a non-issue for the vast, vast majority of the population into the most serious issue for the population. I suspect we'd have seen something similar, although probably not as intense, with a vote on Lisbon.
I don't agree. The EU that people want to stay in or leave now is different to the one back then. We could have made choices as to how we wanted to proceed. Truthfully, I'm not sure I would have voted for greater integration. But now we have it, I've found that I love the European feel that my part of the world has now while still being completely and unmistakably English, but more to the point our society functions the way that it does because of the EU and as far as I am concerned it is too late to leave safely. If we had been able to vote back in the day when Brown was looking shifty in Portugal (and it was a big story at the time, I'm not convinced that people were disinterested especially as Ireland were getting a vote and we weren't) we may - may - have been able to head some of this shit off. Voting against may have led to the government getting further compromises in Europe, or we may have left but with fewer consequences than now, given how much the world has changed in such a short time. Or we would have voted to accept it, Ukip would have been dead in the water and Call Me Dave would never have felt the need to hold another referendum.
-
I don't agree. The EU that people want to stay in or leave now is different to the one back then. We could have made choices as to how we wanted to proceed. Truthfully, I'm not sure I would have voted for greater integration. But now we have it, I've found that I love the European feel that my part of the world has now while still being completely and unmistakably English, but more to the point our society functions the way that it does because of the EU and as far as I am concerned it is too late to leave safely. If we had been able to vote back in the day when Brown was looking shifty in Portugal (and it was a big story at the time, I'm not convinced that people were disinterested especially as Ireland were getting a vote and we weren't) we may - may - have been able to head some of this shit off. Voting against may have led to the government getting further compromises in Europe, or we may have left but with fewer consequences than now, given how much the world has changed in such a short time. Or we would have voted to accept it, Ukip would have been dead in the water and Call Me Dave would never have felt the need to hold another referendum.
Love the use of 'call me Dave', not heard that one before.
Regards ippy
-
Or we would have voted to accept it, Ukip would have been dead in the water ...
Really, why do you think a vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty would have made UKIP dead in the water, noting that UKIP are about leaving the EU, and their campaign wouldn't have been effected by a vote either way on an EU treaty. Do you really think that had the 2016 referendum gone the other way that UKIP would have disappeared ... nope, remember Farage was claiming that a vote to remain would just redouble efforts from UKIP. Actually the one thing that seems to have puncture the UKIP bubble was a vote to leave.
-
... or we may have left but with fewer consequences than now, given how much the world has changed in such a short time.
Why do you think that leaving in 2009 (for example) would have had fewer consequences than now - the process is exactly the same. But there is a big difference - had we left in 2009 that would have been at the same time as the peak effect of the global economic crisis - the economic consequences would have been horrendous compared to now when we are at least leaving at a time when the global economy is pretty buoyant, even if our economy is stagnating due to brexit.
-
Why do you think that leaving in 2009 (for example) would have had fewer consequences than now - the process is exactly the same. But there is a big difference - had we left in 2009 that would have been at the same time as the peak effect of the global economic crisis - the economic consequences would have been horrendous compared to now when we are at least leaving at a time when the global economy is pretty buoyant, even if our economy is stagnating due to brexit.
The wasn't my argument though.
-
I think it is naive to think that a referendum on Lisbon would have decided the issue -
...
I agree with this, however the issue is much deeper and reflects the inadequacies of both the EU and UK constitutions.
The UK constitution (or all the bits and pieces that are considered as one) does not require referenda to ratify international treaties, even those that fundamentally change it's democratic basis or sovereignty of the UK parliament.
The EU constitution treaty was an attempt to mash together various earlier treaties as the basis for the EU institutions - this was rejected in the countries that require referenda on international treaties. Then the changes it proposed were incorporated into the Lisbon treaty as a set of modifications to existing treaties, eventually accepted following some minor changes.
That treaties that change the constitution and sovereignty can be arranged and implemented without reference to the electorate must, imv, result in a democratic deficit - as eventually expressed in 2016.
If all EU (EEC) electorates had directly ratified the significant (constitution changing) treaties throughout we would now have a very different, much more democratic, EU. The fault is not directly that of the EU itself but of the governments and civil services of the member states. In our case, our own.
-
I don't see how if we'd had one referendum in 2007 we'd have had another not even a decade later.
-
I don't see how if we'd had one referendum in 2007 we'd have had another not even a decade later.
I think you are right in that if we had had a referendum in 2007 ( to ratify the Lisbon treaty - and earlier to ratify Maastricht) and those treaties had been changed in response, we would not have had one in 2016.
-
I don't see how if we'd had one referendum in 2007 we'd have had another not even a decade later.
Because they were on different issues - a 20076 referendum would have been on the narrow issue of the Lisbon treaty - it would have been irrelevant to those who frankly don't care how the EU operates, they want out - they existed well before 2007 (remember Jimmy Goldsmith's referendum party as long ago as 1997 and remember that UKIP existed long before Lisbon).
-
The wasn't my argument though.
What was your argument?
-
If we had been able to vote back in the day when Brown was looking shifty in Portugal (and it was a big story at the time, I'm not convinced that people were disinterested especially as Ireland were getting a vote and we weren't) we may - may - have been able to head some of this shit off.
I'm sorry - it wasn't a big issue at all. Sure there was some negative publicity in the right wing press, but did the public give a damn - nope.
https://twitter.com/IpsosMORI/status/1022468708210491392
This is the long standing Mori issue tracker - effectively those polled can name any important issue they think is facing the country, and this is unprompted. Note the complete lack of concern about the EU throughout the time of Lisbon negotiation and its signing by Gordon Brown in October 2007. Less than 5% of the public considered the EU to be an issue at the time. Why would you hold a referendum on an issue that 95% of the population don't think is, well, an issue.
-
Because they were on different issues - a 20076 referendum would have been on the narrow issue of the Lisbon treaty - it would have been irrelevant to those who frankly don't care how the EU operates, they want out - they existed well before 2007 (remember Jimmy Goldsmith's referendum party as long ago as 1997 and remember that UKIP existed long before Lisbon).
If it wasn't of interest then Brown wouldn't have signed the Treaty in the way that he did and other countries wouldn't have felt that a referendum was needed. Frankly the way Brown behaved stank. Who was he trying to appease? The likes of Corbyn in his own party? The electorate? Note that Ukip's ascendancy happened after Lisbon. If we didn't agree to ratify Lisbon then something would have needed to happen - the Treaty needed to be changed or we would need to leave. Actually it would in effect have been a vote for or against the EU.
You are wrong to think that people didn't care about Europe back then. The nuts and bolts of how it worked may not have been that interesting (or, more likely, were too complex to get to grips with) but the bigger issues such as shared laws and courts, freedom of movement and the single currency were and are. It was something talked about in the pub quite a lot, and not just because this is a farming area. One thing I have always been against is us joining the Euro and one unintended consequence of voting Leave is that it makes joining the Euro more likely. If we ask to rejoin the EU post Brexit (and I think it highly likely that we will) then it will be on the EU's terms, and that will include giving up Sterling.
-
If all EU (EEC) electorates had directly ratified the significant (constitution changing) treaties throughout we would now have a very different, much more democratic, EU. The fault is not directly that of the EU itself but of the governments and civil services of the member states. In our case, our own.
We live in a representative democracy. We don't have referenda to decide policy decisions except when the government is too cowardly to take responsibility for difficult decisions.
A referendum on Maastricht or on Lisbon would have descended into the same sort of shitfest that the Brexit referendum became. Ordinary people are just not equipped to understand the complexities of the changes that Maastricht or Lisbon introduced. There wouldn't have been a chance of making an informed vote for most people.
-
We live in a representative democracy. We don't have referenda to decide policy decisions except when the government is too cowardly to take responsibility for difficult decisions.
A referendum on Maastricht or on Lisbon would have descended into the same sort of shitfest that the Brexit referendum became. Ordinary people are just not equipped to understand the complexities of the changes that Maastricht or Lisbon introduced. There wouldn't have been a chance of making an informed vote for most people.
Yes, the little people are just too stupid to know what's good for them.
-
Yes, the little people are just too stupid to know what's good for them.
Ordinary people is all of us i.e. not the politicians and lawyers that constructed the treaties.
-
Ordinary people is all of us i.e. not the politicians and lawyers that constructed the treaties.
The problem is that by not giving anyone the Janet and John version you create an information vacuum perfect for the likes of Farage, Johnson, the Mail and other purveyors of fake news to fill.
-
The problem is that by not giving anyone the Janet and John version you create an information vacuum perfect for the likes of Farage, Johnson, the Mail and other purveyors of fake news to fill.
Who said anything about creating an information vacuum? Who said anything about keeping the details of any treaties secret?
-
Who said anything about creating an information vacuum? Who said anything about keeping the details of any treaties secret?
They are not secret but deliberately over-complicated and obscured. Compare the EU constitution with that of the US.
If the treaties that reduced (or appeared to reduce) peoples rights had to be explained to the electorate before adoption they would be very different.
-
Who said anything about creating an information vacuum? Who said anything about keeping the details of any treaties secret?
Where did I use the word 'secret'?
If the way that a treaty is worded or organised isn't communicated effectively to the electorate (because they are too 'ordinary' to get it, perhaps) then that creates an information vacuum. The alternative is that the treaties and processes are deliberately constructed to be overcomplicated and obscure, as Uday says, in which case that makes a mockery of democracy and suddenly Leave seems to have a point.
-
You are wrong to think that people didn't care about Europe back then. The nuts and bolts of how it worked may not have been that interesting (or, more likely, were too complex to get to grips with) but the bigger issues such as shared laws and courts, freedom of movement and the single currency were and are. It was something talked about in the pub quite a lot, and not just because this is a farming area.
Yet when Mori asked people (unprompted) to name issues facing the UK just 5% (or less) mentioned the EU. If it was important they'd have mentioned it when polled in far greater numbers.
The reality is that until the referendum the EU was a big issue for a tiny proportion of obsessives (most of whom wouldn't have been satisfied with a referendum on Lisbon as it didn't give the option to leave) while the vast, vast majority simply didn't see the EU as an important issue. Cameron changed all that, of course, by forcing people to see it as an issue, which is what happens when you call a referendum.
-
Yet when Mori asked people (unprompted) to name issues facing the UK just 5% (or less) mentioned the EU. If it was important they'd have mentioned it when polled in far greater numbers.
The reality is that until the referendum the EU was an issue for a tiny proportion of obsessives (most of whom wouldn't have been satisfied with a referendum on Lisbon as it didn't give the option to leave) while the vast, vast majority simply didn't see the EU as an important issue. Cameron changed all that, of course, by forcing people to see it as an issue, which is what happens when you call a referendum.
Yet we've just had a load of posts on how the EU deliberately framed its treaties and processes in ways that most people can't follow. "not interested in' or 'cannot understand' is not the same thing as 'not important to'. Had this stuff been explained, had people been made to take notice before, we might not have the utter bollock-up we are now facing. Because it is important to people - isn't it? Because if it isn't then Brexit won't make any difference and all the fears about security, the economy etc are totally without foundation.
What you actually appear to be saying is that the European bureaucrats should be free to draw up treaties to which various governments sign up without putting the nuts and bolts of those treaties in their manifestoes or to the country to vote on. Is that democracy?
-
Note that Ukip's ascendancy happened after Lisbon.
Actually way later than Lisbon - there is no credible evidence that the signing of Lisbon in 2007 resulting in a big surge in UKIP support. It is easy to check by looking at the closest election results before and after the signing.
So for the general election we are comparing 2005 and 2010 - the UKIP % vote went up by just 0.9%, hardly a surge in anyone's books.
Ah, I hear you saying, but general elections isn't where UKIP were strongest - it is the European Parliament elections. So let's compare UKIPs 15.6% in 2004 (before Lisbon) with their 16.0% in 2009 (after Lisbon). Hardly evidence that Lisbon was somehow instrumental in UKIP's ascendency.
-
Yet we've just had a load of posts on how the EU deliberately framed its treaties and processes in ways that most people can't follow. "not interested in' or 'cannot understand' is not the same thing as 'not important to'.
If is was important then when polled (unprompted) people would have said so regardless of why it was important - but they didn't. Or rather 95% didn't.
If you ask someone 'what are the most important or other important issues facing Britain today', completely unprompted so they can say anything they like and you can mention as many issues as you like, and they fail to mention something I think you can conclude that it isn't important to them. That's how the Mori issues tracker works. And the fact that it is unprompted is critical as it doesn't push people into thinking something is important when it isn't.
-
What you actually appear to be saying is that the European bureaucrats should be free to draw up treaties to which various governments sign up without putting the nuts and bolts of those treaties in their manifestoes or to the country to vote on. Is that democracy?
But isn't that exactly what happens all the time in parliament - just change European bureaucrats to Civil Servants - how many changes in the law etc, etc go are proposed by the government, drafted by civil servants and are enacted without a vote in the country in a referendum.
And don't forget the following.
1. Only one country (Ireland) actually had a referendum on Lisbon
2. Ratification by the UK followed a vote in Parliament
3. Support for what ultimately became the Lisbon Treaty (which was significantly watered down from the earlier proposed constitution) was in the Labour party's 2005 manifesto and Labour won that election (on that manifesto)
-
If is was important then when polled (unprompted) people would have said so regardless of why it was important - but they didn't. Or rather 95% didn't.
If you ask someone 'what are the most important or other important issues facing Britain today', completely unprompted so they can say anything they like and you can mention as many issues as you like, and they fail to mention something I think you can conclude that it isn't important to them. That's how the Mori issues tracker works. And the fact that it is unprompted is critical as it doesn't push people into thinking something is important when it isn't.
But Jeremy has already said that ordinary people don't understand the EU then and still don't. 'Not understanding' is not the same thing as 'not important to', and nor is 'not interested in'. People might not have been given enough information to actually realise that it was and is important, but if that was a deliberate act then that is a subversion of democracy. Because if Brexit isn't important to each and every one of us then it will have no impact, right?
-
But isn't that exactly what happens all the time in parliament - just change European bureaucrats to Civil Servants - how many changes in the law etc, etc go are proposed by the government, drafted by civil servants and are enacted without a vote in the country in a referendum.
And don't forget the following.
1. Only one country (Ireland) actually had a referendum on Lisbon
2. Ratification by the UK followed a vote in Parliament
3. Support for Lisbon was in the Labour party's 2005 manifesto and Labour won that election (on that manifesto)
Did Labour spell out what Lisbon meant? We've already been told that nobody outside of politics and the civil service can understand it.
-
'Not understanding' is not the same thing as 'not important to', and nor is 'not interested in'.
How many times?!?
If the EU as an issue was 'important to' the British people, then when asked by Mori:
1. What is the most important issue facing Britain today
2. What are other important issues facing Britain today
then they'd mention EU, brexit, single currency, common market etc etc (all are bundled into the same category) at the very least in Q2. Yet from 2005 until after the 2015 general election typically only about 5% of people mentioned it. Incredibly just after Cameron was elected in 2010 the survey recorded that just 1% polled mentioned EU, brexit, single currency, common market as an important issue.
So in effect you seem to be saying that it was an important issue, so important intact that the vast majority failed to mention it when asked.
-
They are not secret but deliberately over-complicated and obscured. Compare the EU constitution with that of the US.
And then compare the EU and US constitutions with that of the UK.
And before anyone replies that there is no British Constitution, yes there is. It has never been codified.
.
-
But isn't that exactly what happens all the time in parliament - just change European bureaucrats to Civil Servants - how many changes in the law etc, etc go are proposed by the government, drafted by civil servants and are enacted without a vote in the country in a referendum.
And don't forget the following.
1. Only one country (Ireland) actually had a referendum on Lisbon
2. Ratification by the UK followed a vote in Parliament
3. Support for what ultimately became the Lisbon Treaty (which was significantly watered down from the earlier proposed constitution) was in the Labour party's 2005 manifesto and Labour won that election (on that manifesto)
yes but cases are not comparable. Take the screw-ups over UC for example, people can pressure MPs to review and attempt to change the system, (really whose bright idea was it to stop paying child-benefit to mothers rather than "the household"?) .. and bring issues to the fore in elections.
People do not have the same leverage in a union of 27 countries and a remote parliament, most of whose works are kept at a distance - and where local (national) government takes any credit due and assigns the EU the blame for failures. And, where even the representatives, MEPs have less power and influence than the Commissioners and functionaries.
In the main, the vote for leave was not on particular details of trade deals, day to day operation and so on, but on issues of sovereignty and feeling "a loss of control" - issues at a constitutional level.
Surely a properly democratic state should not be able to change it's constitution without reference to the people?
-
And then compare the EU and US constitutions with that of the UK.
And before anyone replies that there is no British Constitution, yes there is. It has never been codified.
.
Yes, or at least, at the root of the issue are the failings of our own systems rather than those of the EU which is constrained by other factors.
-
Yes, or at least, at the root of the issue are the failings of our own systems rather than those of the EU which is constrained by other factors.
I completely agree.
-
yes but cases are not comparable. Take the screw-ups over UC for example, people can pressure MPs to review and attempt to change the system, (really whose bright idea was it to stop paying child-benefit to mothers rather than "the household"?) .. and bring issues to the fore in elections.
People do not have the same leverage in a union of 27 countries and a remote parliament, most of whose works are kept at a distance - and where local (national) government takes any credit due and assigns the EU the blame for failures. And, where even the representatives, MEPs have less power and influence than the Commissioners and functionaries.
In the main, the vote for leave was not on particular details of trade deals, day to day operation and so on, but on issues of sovereignty and feeling "a loss of control" - issues at a constitutional level.
Surely a properly democratic state should not be able to change it's constitution without reference to the people?
So changing the voting age, or allowing women to vote should have been referendums?
-
How many times?!?
If the EU as an issue was 'important to' the British people, then when asked by Mori:
1. What is the most important issue facing Britain today
2. What are other important issues facing Britain today
then they'd mention EU, brexit, single currency, common market etc etc (all are bundled into the same category) at the very least in Q2. Yet from 2005 until after the 2015 general election typically only about 5% of people mentioned it. Incredibly just after Cameron was elected in 2010 the survey recorded that just 1% polled mentioned EU, brexit, single currency, common market as an important issue.
So in effect you seem to be saying that it was an important issue, so important intact that the vast majority failed to mention it when asked.
I don't think they were important issues, certainly not the most important in UK politics - because people had more immediate problems to deal with. But there was a build up of resentment - a in/out referendum at any time since the late 80's could have given rise to the situation we have now.
Often it is all the little details that no-one pays attention to that end up causing the boat to sink.
-
How many times?!?
If the EU as an issue was 'important to' the British people, then when asked by Mori:
1. What is the most important issue facing Britain today
2. What are other important issues facing Britain today
then they'd mention EU, brexit, single currency, common market etc etc (all are bundled into the same category) at the very least in Q2. Yet from 2005 until after the 2015 general election typically only about 5% of people mentioned it. Incredibly just after Cameron was elected in 2010 the survey recorded that just 1% polled mentioned EU, brexit, single currency, common market as an important issue.
So in effect you seem to be saying that it was an important issue, so important intact that the vast majority failed to mention it when asked.
No,you are either deliberately misunderstanding me or just aren't getting it. Just because people don't know that something is important, that doesn't mean that it isn't. For a long time most people said that climate change wasn't important to them personally. That doesn't change the fact that it was and is important.
Just because people may have thought or felt that the EU wasn't important, that doesn't make it factual that it wasn't. Actually the political classes should have explained over and over just how important the EU is, in terms of security, health care, food, jobs, the economy... All the things that people will have told MORI that they prioritise - the NHS, the economy, security, the environment - are now threatened by Brexit because the EU was the lynchpin for it all. Now do you see what I am saying? Whether people thought it was or not isn't relevant. It was and is vitally important, but Brown and the rest thought that they could just do deals without explaining why they were done or the benefits to Jeremy's ordinary people. It was so import, only people didn't know so they didn't prioritise it. And now that it is becoming apparent it is too fucking late.
-
Sorry to intervene in your discussions. I am not involved in this but I must say that the economy need not be the highest priority for everyone. The economy is only one factor. There are many others factors such as identity, language, culture, personal security, bonding, social integration....and many other factors which could take precedence over economic issues.
-
So changing the voting age, or allowing women to vote should have been referendums?
hmm .. only if you can ensure a fair vote :)
-
I noticed the other day that Barnier said that 80% of the deal is done. I am guessing that a big chunk of the 20% concerns Ireland, and probably the EU will be wary, as this seemed to be settled in December, but May pulled back, as DUP said no. So I guess there are possible solutions. I bet lots of people want a sketchy deal as then you get a two year transition, and the immediate panic is over. Well, maybe.
-
hmm .. only if you can ensure a fair vote :)
Which is an issue with referendums. I take your point about constitutional change but given our nebulous constitution it isn't easy to know what that covers. In addition if you do have a clear constitution, such as the U.S. then the method of change doesn't have to be referendums. Because referendums tend to be binary by default, they aren't good at complex issyes. Problem is most issues are complex.
-
Keep seeing this - sorry if it's been posted before...
Danny Dyer calls David Cameron 'a twat' over Brexit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W77154J0-w)
-
Sorry, not sorry Newsthump again:
http://newsthump.com/2017/01/06/iceberg-insists-it-can-thrive-on-its-own-after-winning-referendum-to-leave-antarctica/
-
Keep seeing this - sorry if it's been posted before...
Danny Dyer calls David Cameron 'a twat' over Brexit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W77154J0-w)
And he's related to the kings of England. Perhaps he should start a revolution.
-
No,you are either deliberately misunderstanding me or just aren't getting it. Just because people don't know that something is important, that doesn't mean that it isn't. For a long time most people said that climate change wasn't important to them personally.
In the Mori issues index people aren't asked about issues that are important to them personally, they are asked about important issues facing Britain.
Really is a bankrupt argument when you are trying to equate those concerned about the EU (over decades the preserve of a small number of idealogical hard right fanatics) and those concerned about climate change (scientists using evidence). Of course the better comparison is eurosceptic fanatics and climate change deniers - they are the bed fellows of course.
-
In the Mori issues index people aren't asked about issues that are important to them personally, they are asked about important issues facing Britain.
Really is a bankrupt argument when you are trying to equate those concerned about the EU (over decades the preserve of a small number of idealogical hard right fanatics) and those concerned about climate change (scientists using evidence). Of course the better comparison is eurosceptic fanatics and climate change deniers - they are the bed fellows of course.
I give up.
-
Where did I use the word 'secret'?
I didn't say you used the word "secret", it was implied by your post.
If the way that a treaty is worded or organised isn't communicated effectively to the electorate (because they are too 'ordinary' to get it, perhaps) then that creates an information vacuum. The alternative is that the treaties and processes are deliberately constructed to be overcomplicated and obscure, as Uday says, in which case that makes a mockery of democracy and suddenly Leave seems to have a point.
The EU treaties are not constructed to be overly complicated. They are necessarily complicated thanks to the fact that the EU is a complex organisation and you cannot reasonably expect anybody whose job is not related to the EU organisation in some way to have the time to fully understand them. The same applies to pretty much any complex issue of government which is why we don't do referendums on everything and instead pay a body of elected officials to run the country.
-
I didn't say you used the word "secret", it was implied by your post.
The EU treaties are not constructed to be overly complicated. They are necessarily complicated thanks to the fact that the EU is a complex organisation and you cannot reasonably expect anybody whose job is not related to the EU organisation in some way to have the time to fully understand them. The same applies to pretty much any complex issue of government which is why we don't do referendums on everything and instead pay a body of elected officials to run the country.
What the fuck is it with everyone thinking that by making a statement I'm 'implying' something that isn't there? What happened to the need for evidence round this place? FFS.
-
Surely a properly democratic state should not be able to change it's constitution without reference to the people?
In which case step forward ... the UK.
In the past few years the following constitutional changes have been made or are in the process of being made (and these are just examples, there are many others):
Abolition of hereditary peers
Alternation in accession rules for our head of state
Reduction in number of MPs to 600 (currently going through)
Fixed term parliament act
Some I agree with, some I don't - that isn't the point. The point is that not one has been put to a referendum. All have been passed purely by parliament, so my only way to block them is to try to change the makeup of parliament (but I only have a vote in one of 650 constituencies) or to campaign more widely to get parliament either to take my stance or to put the constitutional change to a referendum.
And before you claim that this is still different to the EU, well you are wrong. Constitutional changes in the EU are still all subject to requirement of unanimous approval by all member states, i.e. each country has a veto. So if there is a major constitutional change in the EU my options to influence are identical to that for the UK (see above). Although I do have one further option - if I oppose an EU constitutional change and it is clear that the UK government is going to approve, I can also campaign to persuade another country to block it (e.g. Ireland) and therefore have rather more option to influence constitutional change in the EU than in the UK.
-
I'm still wrestling with the Irish issue. As far as I can see, the first agreement (December), was that NI would remain in the single market - initially, May agreed to this, but it was nixed by DUP. It would mean in effect, no Irish border.
The problem then is that if NI withdraws from single market, there is automatically a hard border with the South. This might go against Good Friday agreement, and create security fears. You might have an emergency waiver also, whereby goods and people move freely, a kind of bodge.
Any other offers?
-
I'm still wrestling with the Irish issue. As far as I can see, the first agreement (December), was that NI would remain in the single market - initially, May agreed to this, but it was nixed by DUP. It would mean in effect, no Irish border.
The problem then is that if NI withdraws from single market, there is automatically a hard border with the South. This might go against Good Friday agreement, and create security fears. You might have an emergency waiver also, whereby goods and people move freely, a kind of bodge.
Any other offers?
A united Ireland?
-
A united Ireland?
Hmm - the DUP are really likely to go for that aren't they. And of course they are all that hold's the May government together.
-
Hmm - the DUP are really likely to go for that aren't they. And of course they are all that hold's the May government together.
I wasn’t being serious, but it’s another solution on paper.
As a thought experiment I wonder if May could give up NI in exchange for goodies.
-
I wasn’t being serious, but it’s another solution on paper.
As a thought experiment I wonder if May could give up NI in exchange for goodies.
No - the leader of a different party perhaps (although unlikely) but not the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party.
-
No - the leader of a different party perhaps (although unlikely) but not the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party.
Yeah, I get that. But if we did have a different PM, I wonder if it'd be possible. In a sense it'd solve a lot of problems.
-
Yeah, I get that. But if we did have a different PM, I wonder if it'd be possible. In a sense it'd solve a lot of problems.
only Nixon can go to China.
-
Yeah, I get that. But if we did have a different PM, I wonder if it'd be possible. In a sense it'd solve a lot of problems.
Even with a different party and different leader it would only be possible with the explicit consent of the people of NI, i.e. through a referendum result. There is no way that any party leader would cede NI to the Republic other than via a referendum agreement so to do.
-
Of course, the old joke in the South was, no, please, anything but that (absorption of the north).
-
only Nixon can go to China.
Indeed, I saw him do it at the ENO many years ago.
-
What the fuck is it with everyone thinking that by making a statement I'm 'implying' something that isn't there? What happened to the need for evidence round this place? FFS.
Because that is what your post implied. It’s the way the English language works. You say something with a meaning. I don’t have to quote it back to you exactly, I can use different words that mean the same thing.
-
In which case step forward ... the UK.
...
If you read carefully you will see that my complaints were about the UK constitution rather than the EU's (not that the EU's does not have significant problems)
I'm not arguing that every change requires a referendum but those that significantly change the role of government in society. If such changes are not understood, discussed and agreed then there is a critical weakening of the social contract. For most issues the result of the next general election should suffice.
Major international treaties affecting basic rights are likely to need ratification by separate referendum (imo).
-
Because that is what your post implied. It’s the way the English language works. You say something with a meaning. I don’t have to quote it back to you exactly, I can use different words that mean the same thing.
Rhi's post did not imply "secret". Anyway even if you think it did, why persist on that point when it has been explained that that was not meant?
On the actual point at issue, the EU agreements are of-course long and complicated, and rather inaccessible to most of the voting population. If OUR government does not put in the effort to explain and get agreement on the important points, is it any wonder when a majority of the electorate decide they would rather put their trust in a bunch of snake-oil salesmen and flouncers?
-
Some interesting stuff in here.
https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
-
Re: the Irish border: England was conquered by the Normans in the 11th Century. Gaelic Ireland at this time comprised the whole island. But when one of its many native Irish kings (who ruled individual territories) sought help from Henry II to regain his territory, in return for allegiance to Henry, the English later conquered much of the island.
So since Britain and parts of Ireland were both conquered by the Normans, they share that in common. To go back to a unified Ireland would be turning back the clock to before its conquest by Norman England. Equally, Britain leaving the EU would turn back the clock to the time of its pre-Norman independence from Europe. So strictly speaking N. Ireland has the right to leave the UK, since the whole of Ireland was originally independent of Britain.
The second millennium AD would then be known as "the one with the Normans".
-
Some interesting stuff in here.
https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/
Cracking article, thank you.
-
Agree. Long, detailed but a belter.
-
If you read carefully you will see that my complaints were about the UK constitution rather than the EU's (not that the EU's does not have significant problems)
I'm not arguing that every change requires a referendum but those that significantly change the role of government in society. If such changes are not understood, discussed and agreed then there is a critical weakening of the social contract. For most issues the result of the next general election should suffice.
Major international treaties affecting basic rights are likely to need ratification by separate referendum (imo).
Fair enough - I'm glad that you accept that the UK constitution is at least as bad as the EU treaties in lacking direct consent of the electorate via referendums.
That said I'm not convinced that all constitutional changes require a referendum provided you have a robust democratic system (and here again there are issues with the UK). The key, it seems to me, is whether changes are able to be reversed. And in my examples I can readily see that the representative democratic process is able to reverse abolishing hereditary peers (not that I can see much public appetite), repealing the FTPA etc. The ones that are more tricky are, of course, those that directly affect the democratic process to elect that representative parliament e.g. changing voting system for general elections and reducing numbers of MPs - those are perhaps the ones that really should require a referendum as they will fundamentally change the make up of the house that could repeal the changes.
-
On the actual point at issue, the EU agreements are of-course long and complicated, and rather inaccessible to most of the voting population.
But again this isn't just the case for EU legislation - have you ever read any Acts of Parliament - they are usually (and necessarily) incredibly long, complicated and written in legalese.
I agree that the government needs to explain what is in all legislative instruments (whether UK or EU) but this doesn't extend to explaining the technical details line by line. We have legislative scrutiny processes for that. They key is to explain the basic aims of the legislation and in most cases this is relatively straightforward.
-
Re: the Irish border: England was conquered by the Normans in the 11th Century. Gaelic Ireland at this time comprised the whole island. But when one of its many native Irish kings (who ruled individual territories) sought help from Henry II to regain his territory, in return for allegiance to Henry, the English later conquered much of the island.
So since Britain and parts of Ireland were both conquered by the Normans, they share that in common. To go back to a unified Ireland would be turning back the clock to before its conquest by Norman England. Equally, Britain leaving the EU would turn back the clock to the time of its pre-Norman independence from Europe. So strictly speaking N. Ireland has the right to leave the UK, since the whole of Ireland was originally independent of Britain.
The second millennium AD would then be known as "the one with the Normans".
Never liked the Normans. Always thought it was a shame they wone the Battle of Hastings.
-
Never liked the Normans. Always thought it was a shame they wone the Battle of Hastings.
Although by heritage they were mostly from Viking stock.
-
Very good article above. One point about immigration, it is partly powered by high employment, which sucks in labour automatically. Or if you like, shortages of labour, historically in agriculture, health, catering and building. So one way to reduce immigration is to increase unemployment. But you have to do this very quietly and deniably.
-
Very good article above. One point about immigration, it is partly powered by high employment, which sucks in labour automatically. Or if you like, shortages of labour, historically in agriculture, health, catering and building. So one way to reduce immigration is to increase unemployment. But you have to do this very quietly and deniably.
And also decrease the welfare state. I saw a programme years ago in which young men in Peterborough were interviewed about why they didn’t take agricultural jobs and they said life on the dole was easier and more fun. So based on that in order to make local people take the jobs traditionally filled by migrants you have to give them no other options.
-
Very good article above. One point about immigration, it is partly powered by high employment, which sucks in labour automatically. Or if you like, shortages of labour, historically in agriculture, health, catering and building. So one way to reduce immigration is to increase unemployment. But you have to do this very quietly and deniably.
That is a problem really. Though the article nicely collects all the reasoning and emotions behind the brexit vote, even if we leave with the hardest of hard brexits, there is no real reason to think this would resolve any of our underlying problems and reduce discontent.
-
That is a problem really. Though the article nicely collects all the reasoning and emotions behind the brexit vote, even if we leave with the hardest of hard brexits, there is no real reason to think this would resolve any of our underlying problems and reduce discontent.
Yes. It's funny how one forgets things. I'd forgotten the sense of unease when Blair opened our border believing that ten thousand people from Eastern Europe would arrive, but instead it was in the hundreds of thousands. What a betrayal of working people. But I don't feel that unease now because I like my Eastern European neighbours, I like what they bring to me locality and it still remains a very 'English' place to be in terms of its identity. Yet the schools don't have places and the maternity unit is dangerously overstretched. And this isn't about the dispossessed but affluent people living in an affluent area who can no longer get access to services, or have seen those services decline.
I think that the nationalist movement in Scotland really poked a stick at the sense of English nationalism that the article mentions. It may not have been intended but I think the English felt a lot of hate directed in their direction. It made the country want to put up its walls and self-isolate. And whatever happens with Brexit, the mistrust between the Scots and the English will be a toxic problem for decades.
Career politicians are a real bugbear of mine. And it really isn't just the Tories; I could weep at the ineptitude of the show cabinet who tend to justify their suitability for office with 'I served on my local authority'.
-
Yes. It's funny how one forgets things. I'd forgotten the sense of unease when Blair opened our border believing that ten thousand people from Eastern Europe would arrive, but instead it was in the hundreds of thousands. What a betrayal of working people. But I don't feel that unease now because I like my Eastern European neighbours, I like what they bring to me locality and it still remains a very 'English' place to be in terms of its identity. Yet the schools don't have places and the maternity unit is dangerously overstretched. And this isn't about the dispossessed but affluent people living in an affluent area who can no longer get access to services, or have seen those services decline.
I think that the nationalist movement in Scotland really poked a stick at the sense of English nationalism that the article mentions. It may not have been intended but I think the English felt a lot of hate directed in their direction. It made the country want to put up its walls and self-isolate. And whatever happens with Brexit, the mistrust between the Scots and the English will be a toxic problem for decades.
Career politicians are a real bugbear of mine. And it really isn't just the Tories; I could weep at the ineptitude of the show cabinet who tend to justify their suitability for office with 'I served on my local authority'.
What is interesting is that there is a negative correlation between proportional Brexit vote and numbers of migrants - in other words places with tiny numbers of migrants voted most heavily for brexit and vice versa. So the issue of migration wasn't one of reality (people in consitutencies 'over-run' with migrants voting leave) but perception - people in constituencies where migrants were as rare as hen's teeth voting leave because of a perceived problem of migration, which clearly didn't affect their locality.
-
What is interesting is that there is a negative correlation between proportional Brexit vote and numbers of migrants - in other words places with tiny numbers of migrants voted most heavily for brexit and vice versa. So the issue of migration wasn't one of reality (people in consitutencies 'over-run' with migrants voting leave) but perception - people in constituencies where migrants were as rare as hen's teeth voting leave because of a perceived problem of migration, which clearly didn't affect their locality.
Do you have the stats for that?
I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?
Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.
I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.
-
Noticeable in London, 50% foreign or thereabouts, and most boroughs voted remain. In fact, I think most big cities. Presumably also a correlation with left/right, i.e. Tories voted leave?
-
Do you have the stats for that?
http://bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/
Scroll down to Figure 2. There is a clear negative correlation between % Brexit vote and proportion of non-UK born residents.
-
http://bruegel.org/2017/02/questionable-immigration-claims-in-the-brexit-white-paper/
Scroll down to Figure 2. There is a clear negative correlation between % Brexit vote and proportion of non-UK born residents.
What I think it happening is that areas where there hasn't been a lot of migration in the past got scared by EU migration. I've described where I live; there are few minority groups living here, therefore the Eastern Europeans are noticeable. In areas with high migration and minority groups, not so much. And a lot of Europeans have ended up in traditionally white areas, particularly rural places, which are more conservative anyway.
-
Interesting story going around that May's Chequers plan was so unlikely to be accepted by the Ultras and by the EU, that she must have known this. After that, many theories about that, e.g. she doesn't know what she's doing, she's hoping for an emergency waiver from EU, she's resigned to crashing out, she has a cunning plan, she wants to cancel the whole thing, etc.
-
And a lot of Europeans have ended up in traditionally white areas ...
And what race are non UK Europeans, other than ... err ... white.
-
Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding.
Rhiannon - read back what you have just written and think very, very carefully, about how that comes across. I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women', but you have to be very, very careful about what you post and how it comes across.
-
Rhiannon - read back what you have just written and think very, very carefully, about how that comes across. I don't believe you are the know of person who succumbs to the "my mate know a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women', but you have to be very, very careful about what you post and how it comes across.
Now, just hang on. This was a television news report, not a 'my mate said in the pub...' No idea if what was said was accurate but it was someone official giving the interview on regional telly. It bears no relation to the 'raping our women; shit that we hear and you have a fucking nerve suggesting that it does. Take it up with Cambs police. Not me.
And if you want to accuse me of being racist, I suggest you have the balls to do so. If not apologise or at least stop being so fucking patronising.
Eta here's the racist copper that you need to email. But you owe me an apology.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7001768.stm
-
Now, just hang on. This was a television news report, not a 'my mate said in the pub...' No idea if what was said was accurate but it was someone official giving the interview on regional telly. It bears no relation to the 'raping our women; shit that we hear and you have a fucking nerve suggesting that it does. Take it up with Cambs police. Not me.
And if you want to accuse me of being racist, I suggest you have the balls to do so. If not apologise or at least stop being so fucking patronising.
Eta here's the racist copper that you need to email. But you owe me an apology.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7001768.stm
An article from 11 years ago - are you serious.
Does she say that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' - no she doesn't - not even close.
In fact the only comment that could be construed as 'Eastern European migrants feuding' is that there was a murder of one Lithuanian by another. There are no other details, certainly not enough to conclude this is due to a feud.
And anyhow, her comments don't seem to fit with the evidence on crime (except for some extreme cherry picking for which there is no evidence provided that this was due to migrants, e.g. drink driving) - as though the period from 2000 to 2010 (when there was the most significant influx of Eastern European migrants) crime levels declined significantly - and that is demonstrated both in recorded crime and also the British Crime Survey.
-
An article from 11 years ago - are you serious.
Does she say that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' - no she doesn't - not even close.
In fact the only comment that could be construed as 'Eastern European migrants feuding' is that there was a murder of one Lithuanian by another. There are no other details, certainly not enough to conclude this is due to a feud.
And anyhow, her comments don't seem to fit with the evidence on crime (except for some extreme cherry picking for which there is no evidence provided that this was due to migrants, e.g. drink driving) - as though the period from 2000 to 2010 (when there was the most significant influx of Eastern European migrants) crime levels declined significantly - and that is demonstrated both in recorded crime and also the British Crime Survey.
You really seem determined to paint me as a racist, don’t you? I don’t think ‘Eastern Europeans feuding’ is a big deal - even if they are it doesn’t affect me - but then she links migration to a whole load of other crimes, including people trafficking. You don’t like it, take it up with her.
And look at it in context ffs. NS linked to an article showing how dissatisfaction with the EU has been brewing for years. This is my point - people in positions of authority saying this stuff sticks in the minds of those who watch it. I haven’t been affected by a rise in crime and I’d largely forgotten about it until the recent debate on here; others won’t have, particularly those looking for confirmation that immigration is a bad thing. Whether or not what she says is correct, stuff like this sticks.
I want an apology for you calling me racist.
-
I want an apology for you calling me racist.
Show me where I have called you a racist. I haven't - stop making things up.
-
Rhiannon - read back what you have just written and think very, very carefully, about how that comes across. I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women', but you have to be very, very careful about what you post and how it comes across.
Leaving aside the caricature of Rhiannon's post, I think this is one of those posts which misses that the sort of bias you are implying about those voting leave is something we all suffer from. Confirmation bias exists in us all, and in general life anecdote is powerful, and it is unrealistic to think that we apply or can apply a fully scientific approach to general life. There's an underserved claim to virtuousness by people looking just at statistics and thinking that trumps experience here. And yes, the media do contribute to that but again that would be true for all of us.
In the article I linked to earlier, it argued that Remain tried too much on facts and figures - actually I think that's not really correct. Both sides used figures but very little facts. Both sides traded mainly on fears, but the approach that in voting too leave people were just being stupid and racist which was and is so prevalent when tied in with a general problem with how we view politicians, seems counter productive.
-
Show me where I have called you a racist. I haven't - stop making things up.
It’s there in your posts - as NS said, a caricature of the ignorant Brexit voter.
Perhaps that’s all it is though - you think I’m ignorant, maybe because I’m not educated, I’m working class, perhaps because I’m from an area that voted strongly to leave (although why anyone finds it surprising that much of Essex - populated in many places by people moving out from the East End - voted Leave given the way many still carry the past horrors of WW2 because their families could never find the words to talk about it, it is beyond me).
I am sick of you mansplaining things to me and I am sick of you talking to me like I’m as thick as shit.
-
Leaving aside the caricature of Rhiannon's post, I think this is one of those posts which misses that the sort of bias you are implying about those voting leave is something we all suffer from. Confirmation bias exists in us all, and in general life anecdote is powerful, and it is unrealistic to think that we apply or can apply a fully scientific approach to general life. There's an underserved claim to viciousness by people looking just at statistics and thinking that trumps experience here. And yes, the media do contribute to that but again that would be true for all of us.
And people won't see a police interview on the BBC as anecdote, they will see it as fact. There are enough statistics in there to back up what they already think, or are beginning to think given that they are noticing change around them (the number of new languages for example, also quoted in the article).
-
And people won't see a police interview on the BBC as anecdote, they will see it as fact. There are enough statistics in there to back up what they already think, or are beginning to think given that they are noticing change around them (the number of new languages for example, also quoted in the article).
People's experience isn't anecdote either, nor is what they hear from friends in the context of general life. If a friend tells me that they were in a bus and someone punched someone, I don't think that's just anecdote. Further, there is a general issue with actually establishing facts for most things. We don't on a day to day basis have the time to follow the procedures of science or a court case to establish facts, and it's generally not even possible were we to try.
I've spent a reasonable amount of time following the debate on anti semitism in the Labour party and yet each new report of something is additional effort to investifate! Further, I am not close enough to establish facts about who said what at what time in meetings in 2010 and whether any such reports are biased. The fact that many areas with small amounts of immigration voted for Credit doesn't really tell us much beyond that.
-
Perhaps that’s all it is though - you think I’m ignorant, maybe because I’m not educated, I’m working class, perhaps because I’m from an area that voted strongly to leave (although why anyone finds it surprising that much of Essex - populated in many places by people moving out from the East End - voted Leave given the way many still carry the past horrors of WW2 because their families could never find the words to talk about it, it is beyond me).
Nice rant.
For the record - I do not think you are ignorant and (as far as I am aware) I have never said you were.
For the record - I do not think you are uneducated and (as far as I am aware) I have never said you were.
For the record - I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that you voted remain and do not think I have ever said you were a brexit supporter.
For the record - I do not think you are racist and I have never said you were.
I am sick of you mansplaining things to me ...
Nice bit of gender stereotyping there.
-
Nice rant.
For the record - I do not think you are ignorant and (as far as I am aware) I have never said you were.
For the record - I do not think you are uneducated and (as far as I am aware) I have never said you were.
For the record - I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that you voted remain and do not think I have ever said you were a brexit supporter.
For the record - I do not think you are racist and I have never said you were.
Nice bit of gender stereotyping there.
Be honest with yourself and accept that your post was both patronising and intended to be so.
-
People's experience isn't anecdote either, nor is what they hear from friends in the context of general life. If a friend tells me that they were in a bus and someone punched someone, I don't think that's just anecdote. Further, there is a general issue with actually establishing facts for most things. We don't on a day to day basis have the time to follow the procedures of science or a court case to establish facts, and it's generally not even possible were we to try.
I've spent a reasonable amount of time following the debate on anti semitism in the Labour party and yet each new report of something is additional effort to investifate! Further, I am not close enough to establish facts about who said what at what time in meetings in 2010 and whether any such reports are biased. The fact that many areas with small amounts of immigration voted for Credit doesn't really tell us much beyond that.
When I was in hospital waiting to have my youngest, a woman from Eastern Europe in the next bed to me went in to labour and ended up delivering her baby without privacy on the ward, because there were no delivery suites available. She screamed the whole time in her native language, in between throwing up. The reason for the pressure on the maternity unit was, I was told, due to high migration into the area.
'High migration' isn't the same thing as 'high immigration'. Companies (some very large) have relocated to Cambridge from elsewhere in the UK because it is a centre of excellence for research (biotech companies, for example). But couple the word 'migration' with hearing a foreign language and for some people it then means something totally different.
-
Be honest with yourself and accept that your post was both patronising and intended to be so.
Wrong - see my next post.
-
People's experience isn't anecdote either, nor is what they hear from friends in the context of general life. If a friend tells me that they were in a bus and someone punched someone, I don't think that's just anecdote. Further, there is a general issue with actually establishing facts for most things. We don't on a day to day basis have the time to follow the procedures of science or a court case to establish facts, and it's generally not even possible were we to try.
True - but we aren't usually talking about direct experience in this context, nor even second hand from a trusted person (e.g. your friend) - the danger here is the kind of nebulous heresay, purporting to be true, that is, in reality merely an appeal to confirmation bias. And it is often the case that the words of people who aren't racist get misconstrued and extrapolated via confirmation bias to provide fuel for the racist and xenophobic elements. That's why we have to be careful with what we say and how we say it.
That was my point to Rhiannon - to look carefully at what she said for fear of making incendiary comments that are exaggerations of what was actually said that could provide fuel to those who are racist. And that proved to be correct because her summary of the views of that particular police officer (presumably misremembered from 11 years ago) are not what she actually said (if we presume the article is faithful to the original tv interview.
She never said 'that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' or anything close to that. What she actually said was very different, never mentioned anything about 'Eastern European migrants feuding' and indeed the only reference to anything that could be construed as feuding in the article is:
'The force's report warned that officers had seen increases in "critical incidents" and tensions within some communities fuelled by local resentment towards newcomers.'
The implication being that the victims are the migrants and the perpetrators are the locals.
-
Wrong - see my next post.
your posting certainly reads as patronising, so how you can say 'wrong' there seems odd. As to what you believe about your own intentikbs, I may be wrong but again your posting seems to imply that you are self aware enough to know that your tone is patronising.
-
True - but we aren't usually talking about direct experience in this context, nor even second hand from a trusted person (e.g. your friend) - the danger here is the kind of nebulous heresay, purporting to be true, that is, in reality merely an appeal to confirmation bias. And it is often the case that the words of people who aren't racist get misconstrued and extrapolated via confirmation bias to provide fuel for the racist and xenophobic elements. That's why we have to be careful with what we say and how we say it.
That was my point to Rhiannon - to look carefully at what she said for fear of making incendiary comments that are exaggerations of what was actually said that could provide fuel to those who are racist. And that proved to be correct because her summary of the views of that particular police officer (presumably misremembered from 11 years ago) are not what she actually said (if we presume the article is faithful to the original tv interview.
She never said 'that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' or anything close to that. What she actually said was very different, never mentioned anything about 'Eastern European migrants feuding' and indeed the only reference to anything that could be construed as feuding in the article is:
'The force's report warned that officers had seen increases in "critical incidents" and tensions within some communities fuelled by local resentment towards newcomers.'
The implication being that the victims are the migrants and the perpetrators are the locals.
She added that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country.
"We recently had a murder that was Lithuanian on Lithuanian and it could have happened in Lithuania but it didn't," she said.
-
But couple the word 'migration' with hearing a foreign language and for some people it then means something totally different.
Indeed, which is why there is a responsibility on all of us who aren't racist or xenophobic to be careful not to fan the flames. The issue here is inadequate service provision and that would be just the same had the person in the next bed been British through the generations since 1066.
-
True - but we aren't usually talking about direct experience in this context, nor even second hand from a trusted person (e.g. your friend) - the danger here is the kind of nebulous heresay, purporting to be true, that is, in reality merely an appeal to confirmation bias. And it is often the case that the words of people who aren't racist get misconstrued and extrapolated via confirmation bias to provide fuel for the racist and xenophobic elements. That's why we have to be careful with what we say and how we say it.
That was my point to Rhiannon - to look carefully at what she said for fear of making incendiary comments that are exaggerations of what was actually said that could provide fuel to those who are racist. And that proved to be correct because her summary of the views of that particular police officer (presumably misremembered from 11 years ago) are not what she actually said (if we presume the article is faithful to the original tv interview.
She never said 'that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' or anything close to that. What she actually said was very different, never mentioned anything about 'Eastern European migrants feuding' and indeed the only reference to anything that could be construed as feuding in the article is:
'The force's report warned that officers had seen increases in "critical incidents" and tensions within some communities fuelled by local resentment towards newcomers.'
The implication being that the victims are the migrants and the perpetrators are the locals.
I see you start by assuming what millions of people are talking about. You really can't stop yourself being patronising can you?
-
Indeed, which is why there is a responsibility on all of us who aren't racist or xenophobic to be careful not to fan the flames. The issue here is inadequate service provision and that would be just the same had the person in the next bed been British through the generations since 1066.
I would suggest there's a responsibility on people not to make a lazy generalisation about others being racist. But then I'm not as effortlessly patronising or dismissive of others opinions as some.
-
I see you start by assuming what millions of people are talking about. You really can't stop yourself being patronising can you?
You were the one who brought up (quite rightly) confirmation bias. All I am saying is that people with confirmation bias in whatever respect will latch onto comments that support their confirmation bias. That's why we need to be careful in what we say.
-
She added that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country.
"We recently had a murder that was Lithuanian on Lithuanian and it could have happened in Lithuania but it didn't," she said.
She mentions one murder (which I also mentioned upthread) - in what way does that equate to 'that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding'? It doesn't and nor did she say or imply it did.
-
You were the one who brought up (quite rightly) confirmation bias. All I am saying is that people with confirmation bias in whatever respect will latch onto comments that support their confirmation bias. That's why we need to be careful in what we say.
And you illustrated your own confirmation bias in implying that millions of people were not talking about anything real.
-
I would suggest there's a responsibility on people not to make a lazy generalisation about others being racist.
Which I never did. And if you actually bothered to read my posts and explanations it would be very clear that my comment to Rhiannon would only have been made on the basis of her not being racist - the whole point being that those who aren't racist or xenophobic need to be careful in the comments they make to avoid providing fuel to those that are.
-
She mentions one murder (which I also mentioned upthread) - in what way does that equate to 'that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding'? It doesn't and nor did she say or imply it did.
In the context of saying they are struggling with numbers, she mentions feuds being brought over, as Rhiannon quoted, that she then specifies a specific case doesn't break the context that ongoing feuds have an impact. It can certainly be read to imply Rhiannon's statement.
-
Which I never did. And if you actually bothered to read my posts and explanations it would be very clear that my comment to Rhiannon would only have been made on the basis of her not being racist - the whole point being that those who aren't racist or xenophobic need to be careful in the comments they make to avoid providing fuel to those that are.
This is about all the people who you have decided weren't talking about their experience but we're just talking about it third hand, all the people that you don't want Rhiannon to encourage to be racist because you think that they need to be protected because they are just too dumb and racist.
Posting like you have here is exactly why Remain failed.
-
In the context of saying they are struggling with numbers ...
Despite it being clear in the article that crime had declined 20%
she mentions feuds being brought over, as Rhiannon quoted ...
Nope she said that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - not that they were, but could be.
... that she then specifies a specific case doesn't break the context that ongoing feuds have an impact.
Which she fails to indicate was anything to do with a pre-existing feud.
It can certainly be read to imply Rhiannon's statement.
Indeed would be for those with a confirmation bias that migration is fuelling a crime spree.
Alternative, and more balanced, interpretations are available. Specifically that although there has been significant migration into the area there is no evidence of an increase in crime, indeed that crime has dropped considerably. That the influx of people speaking a variety of languages does create challenges when those people are either accused of crime, or are victims of crime. However given that crime rates are declining and funding has increased 20% that there should be significant capacity to be able to cope. Finally that there are tensions, but the implication is that the migrants are more likely to be the victims when those tensions break out into incidents, rather than the perpetrators.
A more cynical interpretation would be that here is a senior and ambitious police officer pushing for more funding for her force.
-
Despite it being clear in the article that crime had declined 20%
Nope she said that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - not that they were, but could be.
Which she fails to indicate was anything to do with a pre-existing feud.
Indeed would be for those with a confirmation bias that migration is fuelling a crime spree.
Alternative, and more balanced, interpretations are available. Specifically that although there has been significant migration into the area there is no evidence of an increase in crime, indeed that crime has dropped considerably. That the influx of people speaking a variety of languages does create challenges when those people are either accused of crime, or are victims of crime. However given that crime rates are declining and funding has increased 20% that there should be significant capacity to be able to cope. Finally that there are tensions, but the implication is that the migrants are more likely to be the victims when those tensions break out into incidents, rather than the perpetrators.
A more cynical interpretation would be that here is a senior and ambitious police officer pushing for more funding for her force.
I note now that you are happy to dismiss this as not balanced. You might as well just write in big flashing letters 'I'm going to be patronising and cling to my own confirmation bias'.
I think your reading of the point of ongoing feuds is desperately disingenuous.
-
This is about all the people who you have decided weren't talking about their experience but we're just talking about it third hand
Let's broaden this out from the migration issue.
Actually crime is a classic of the third hand experience leading to a perception that isn't true.
So the British Crime Survey annually asks people about their own experience - specifically whether they have been a victim of crime. And thought the period 2000-2010-ish when you summed all of those individual experiences there was a clear decline in crime in England and Wales. Yet when you ask about their perception of crime in a broader context during that period individuals suggested that crime was rising a little in their area and a lot elsewhere in the country - but of course people elsewhere in the country were also being asked about their individual experiences and also indicated that they were less likely to be a victim of crime.
-
I note now that you are happy to dismiss this as not balanced. You might as well just write in big flashing letters 'I'm going to be patronising and cling to my own confirmation bias'.
I think your reading of the point of ongoing feuds is desperately disingenuous.
Do you really think that a balanced summary of the entire article is that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding'?
Really?
-
Let's broaden this out from the migration issue.
Actually crime is a classic of the third hand experience leading to a perception that isn't true.
So the British Crime Survey annually asks people about their own experience - specifically whether they have been a victim of crime. And thought the period 2000-2010-ish when you summed all of those individual experiences there was a clear decline in crime in England and Wales. Yet when you ask about their perception of crime in a broader context during that period individuals suggested that crime was rising a little in their area and a lot elsewhere in the country - but of course people elsewhere in the country were also being asked about their individual experiences and also indicated that they were less likely to be a victim of crime.
Why are we broadening something out from you making assumptions about the millions of people who voted for Brexit, and what they talked about and you appearing to regard then as racist, which for some reason you edited from my post? Is it because you want to go and insult some more people for just being stupid so you can dismiss all of what they talk about as well?
-
Do you really think that a balanced summary of the entire article is that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding'?
Really?
It's not a summary but it's part of her position. I note that you seem to take as true what Liam Byrne says in the article - that would be your confirmation bias showimg.
-
It's not a summary but it's part of her position. I note that you seem to take as true what Liam Byrne says in the article - that would be your confirmation bias showimg.
It isn't though as she never said that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' - it is a complete misrepresentation of what she said. Given that Rhi posted this on the basis of her recollection of a tv interview it is presumably misremembering, but nonetheless wrong assuming the BBC article is similar to the tv report.
Interestingly about a year later (when being tipped as a possible Met commissioner - hmm) Spence effectively retracted many of those comments, specifically implying that there was no evidence that the influx of Eastern European migrants was having a disproportionate effect on crime - any changes were merely linked to an increase in overall population levels.
-
your posting certainly reads as patronising,
No it doesn't. Perhaps it's your confirmation bias that makes you think so.
-
But then I'm not as effortlessly patronising or dismissive of others opinions as some.
I would say calling somebody else's every post patronising and accusing everybody of confirmation bias is pretty dismissive of of others' opinions.
-
No it doesn't. Perhaps it's your confirmation bias that makes you think so.
Yes, it does in my opinion so in what way am I 'wrong'?
-
I would say calling somebody else's every post patronising and accusing everybody of confirmation bias is pretty dismissive of of others' opinions.
Even I had done that, wouldn't make me wrong.
-
In the context of saying they are struggling with numbers, she mentions feuds being brought over, as Rhiannon quoted, that she then specifies a specific case doesn't break the context that ongoing feuds have an impact. It can certainly be read to imply Rhiannon's statement.
She mentioned lots of things like a 17% increase in drunk driving offences and an increase in the incidence of people carrying knives. The feud thing was way down the list and she brought up only one example of it happening.
-
She mentioned lots of things like a 17% increase in drunk driving offences and an increase in the incidence of people carrying knives. The feud thing was way down the list and she brought up only one example of it happening.
Which still doesn't remove it as a part of her position
-
Even I had done that, wouldn't make me wrong.
You are doing it and the tone of the post to which I was replying suggested to me that you are critical of such things.
-
Which still doesn't remove it as a part of her position
A very tiny part of her position in 2007 and one that doesn't really have too much basis in fact - not if she is naming a single case.
-
You are doing it and the tone of the post to which I was replying suggested to me that you are critical of such things.
I would disagree that I am saying it evetytome but again even if I were to be it doesn't me me wrong n saying that the post is patronising and subject to confirmation bias.
-
A very tiny part of her position in 2007 and one that doesn't really have too much basis in fact - not if she is naming a single case.
Which doesn't make it not something she was saying which was Prof D's position. You might argue that Rhinnon's post overemphasised it, not that it wasn't part of the position.
-
She mentioned lots of things like a 17% increase in drunk driving offences and an increase in the incidence of people carrying knives. The feud thing was way down the list and she brought up only one example of it happening.
So if I'd added all the other things that she listed as being due to immigration that would have made it better? I remembered the feud thing because someone died.
-
I would disagree that I am saying it evetytome but again even if I were to be it doesn't me me wrong n saying that the post is patronising and subject to confirmation bias.
Whether the post is patronising or not in tone is irrelevant to the argument it is making. To dismiss a post because you think it is patronising is similar to dismissing it for ad hominem reasons.
Similarly, claiming a poster has confirmation bias does not advance your case. You should show why the particular post you are responding to has confirmation bias and since that is the same as showing that the facts are incorrect or cherry picked or that the interpretation is erroneous, you might as well just do that without throwing in the personal accusations.
-
Whether the post is patronising or not in tone is irrelevant to the argument it is making. To dismiss a post because you think it is patronising is similar to dismissing it for ad hominem reasons.
Similarly, claiming a poster has confirmation bias does not advance your case. You should show why the particular post you are responding to has confirmation bias and since that is the same as showing that the facts are incorrect or cherry picked or that the interpretation is erroneous, you might as well just do that without throwing in the personal accusations.
And yet you were happy to insist that I'd 'implied' something even when the word that you chose to put in my mouth wasn't there, and you kept on insisting that was what I meant even when I told you that it wasn't.
Was that you implying that I'm a liar?
-
So if I'd added all the other things that she listed as being due to immigration that would have made it better? I remembered the feud thing because someone died.
Yes, I think it would (and by better, I mean worse). The statement was made in relation to the police force's resources being put under extra pressure. A 17% rise in drink driving is of far more concern from that point of view than one extra murder.
It would also be pretty easy to conjure up fear of immigrants driving around in their Ladas swigging from a Vodka bottle as they go if you were of a mind to do so.
-
And yet you were happy to insist that I'd 'implied' something even when the word that you chose to put in my mouth wasn't there
A nice tu quoque there.
-
Yes, I think it would (and by better, I mean worse). The statement was made in relation to the police force's resources being put under extra pressure. A 17% rise in drink driving is of far more concern from that point of view than one extra murder.
It would also be pretty easy to conjure up fear of immigrants driving around in their Ladas swigging from a Vodka bottle as they go if you were of a mind to do so.
It would, but I didn't. The potential crime wave that she talked about isn't something I experienced so I didn't pay it much heed. And 'feuding' immigrants isn't a frightening prospect, is it? It certainly doesn't frighten me.
-
A nice tu quoque there.
No, it's an attempt to understand your reasoning on correct debate.
-
No, it's an attempt to understand your reasoning on correct debate.
What do you mean by "correct debate"?
My point was just that calling somebody's argument patronising or saying it exhibits confirmation bias without evidence does not help if you are trying to show the argument is wrong. Surely that point stands or falls independently of whether or not I have used such tactics on you in the past.
-
What do you mean by "correct debate"?
My point was just that calling somebody's argument patronising or saying it exhibits confirmation bias without evidence does not help if you are trying to show the argument is wrong. Surely that point stands or falls independently of whether or not I have used such tactics on you in the past.
What evidence would you consider sufficient for something as subjective as judging something to be 'patronising'?
-
What do you mean by "correct debate"?
My point was just that calling somebody's argument patronising or saying it exhibits confirmation bias without evidence does not help if you are trying to show the argument is wrong. Surely that point stands or falls independently of whether or not I have used such tactics on you in the past.
How do you 'show' something is patronising? As to confirmation bias, surely pouring out that someone takes a set of argument on an article that supports them as true, and rejects the ones that don't because they object to the possible motivation of the person putting them forward is simply an example of confirmation bias?
-
What evidence would you consider sufficient for something as subjective as judging something to be 'patronising'?
And indeed, when someone claims that the judgement that they have written something is patronising is 'wrong' as Prof D did, how do they show tgat
-
And today's reasons why Brexit is scary shit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/police-leaders-warn-home-secretary-public-safety-threat-from-no-deal-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/06/carer-shortage-after-brexit-will-force-women-to-quit-jobs
-
And today's reasons why Brexit is scary shit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/06/police-leaders-warn-home-secretary-public-safety-threat-from-no-deal-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/06/carer-shortage-after-brexit-will-force-women-to-quit-jobs
I know there is an attempt to justify it in the article but the 'women' to quit jobs headline is shallow, fatuous, and plays into stereotypes.
-
I know there is an attempt to justify it in the article but the 'women' to quit jobs headline is shallow, fatuous, and plays into stereotypes.
Agree 100%. It's annoying - they ran a similar story recently on how the problems in retail mean that women lose their jobs too. There are only marginally more unpaid female carers. The headline should reflect that people will need to quit work if care homes and service close due to staff shortages.
A lack of carers is still a concern though.
-
And yet you were happy to insist that I'd 'implied' something even when the word that you chose to put in my mouth wasn't there, and you kept on insisting that was what I meant even when I told you that it wasn't.
Err - isn't that exactly what you did to me when you accused my of calling you racist (see replies 2201, 2203 and 2206).
-
Err - isn't that exactly what you did to me when you accused my of calling you racist (see replies 2201, 2203 and 2206).
You may be right. But it was how I read your post. Mea culpa.
Now I just think your post was arrogant and patronising.
-
You may be right. But it was how I read your post. Mea culpa.
So you accept that I never accused you of being racist, and indeed have made it entirely clear that I do not think you are racist.
Rather than me apologising to you for something I never said, perhaps it should be you apologising to me for claiming I made a serious and defamatory accusation, when I never did.
Now I just think your post was arrogant and patronising.
Fine - that's your opinion - other opinions are available.
-
So you accept that I never accused you of being racist, and indeed have made it entirely clear that I do not think you are racist.
Rather than me apologising to you for something I never said, perhaps it should be you apologising to me for claiming I made a serious and defamatory accusation, when I never did.
Fine - that's your opinion - other opinions are available.
Isn't that what mea culpa means? An admission of wrongdoing?
Being wrong I can live with. At least I don't go out of my way to put people down.
-
Isn't that what mea culpa means? An admission of wrongdoing?
Your [almost] apology is accepted.
Being wrong I can live with. At least I don't go out of my way to put people down.
I didn't - I just do not appreciate people accusing me of calling them racist when I didn't.
The rest of my posts are about the BBC article - pointing out that your comment that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' isn't consistent with what was written in the article isn't putting you down. It is disagreeing with your interpretation, and I'm not the only one. And I was also clear that given that your original post was on the basis of what you'd remembered from a tv news item some 11 years ago the likely explanation was misremembering rather than anything else.
-
So you accept that I never accused you of being racist, and indeed have made it entirely clear that I do not think you are racist.
Rather than me apologising to you for something I never said, perhaps it should be you apologising to me for claiming I made a serious and defamatory accusation, when I never did.
Fine - that's your opinion - other opinions are available.
And you will apologise to Rhiannon for portraying her post as talking to someone down the pub who said their friend said? Or do you just want to a hypocrite as well as patronising?
Btw you said I was wrong to find your posting patronising, can you show this as it amounts to an objective claim?
-
And you will apologise to Rhiannon for portraying her post as talking to someone down the pub who said their friend said? Or do you just want to a hypocrite as well as patronising?
This was the 'offending' comment from Rhiannon, in full:
'Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing.'
Can you explain to me how that is consistent with what was 'officially' reported in the BBC article. For example where on earth do the details about stabbing each other come from, or ancient disagreements. None of that is in the article. It simply isn't there.
In fact a little idle googling of Lithuanian murders in Cambridgeshire in the couple of years prior to the article in 2007 pulls up only one case - and that involved a man dying when his van was set on fire in Wisbech, was ultimately determined to be manslaughter not murder and no-one was ever convicted so we have no idea whether or not it was perpetrated by another Lithuanian let alone whether it was part of an ongoing feud.
-
This was the 'offending' comment from Rhiannon, in full:
'Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing.'
Can you explain to me how that is consistent with what was 'officially' reported in the BBC article. For example where on earth do the details about stabbing each other come from, or ancient disagreements. None of that is in the article. It simply isn't there.
In fact a little idle googling of Lithuanian murders in Cambridgeshire in the couple of years prior to the article in 2007 pulls up only one case - and that involved a man dying when his van was set on fire in Wisbech, was ultimately determined to be manslaughter not murder and no-one was ever convicted so we have no idea whether or not it was perpetrated by another Lithuanian let alone whether it was part of an ongoing feud.
That's not the comment in full at all, is it?
Which was:
'Do you have the stats for that?
I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?
Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.
I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.'
Which you portrayed incorrectly as being represented by the bit in double quotes here
'Rhiannon - read back what you have just written and think very, very carefully, about how that comes across. I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women', but you have to be very, very careful about what you post and how it comes across.'
Which is a misrepresentation for which you should apologise.
-
Btw you said I was wrong to find your posting patronising, can you show this as it amounts to an objective claim?
No I didn't.
You made the following claim:
'Be honest with yourself and accept that your post was both patronising and intended to be so.'
You were inferring my intentions which is remarkable given that only I know what I meant by my posts. You were wrong in inferring that I intended to be patronising. Whether you thought it was patronising is besides the point - if you did, fine - that's up you - but as I pointed out other opinions are available.
Valid opinions other than my own are not available as to my intentions as clearly I alone can know those, so I can 100% state you were wrong in implying that I intended to be patronising.
-
No I didn't.
You made the following claim:
'Be honest with yourself and accept that your post was both patronising and intended to be so.'
You were inferring my intentions which is remarkable given that only I know what I meant by my posts. You were wrong in inferring that I intended to be patronising. Whether you thought it was patronising is besides the point - if you did, fine - that's up you - but as I pointed out other opinions are available.
Valid opinions other than my own are not available as to my intentions as clearly I alone can know those, so I can 100% state you were wrong in implying that I intended to be patronising.
And you said the post was wrong, no qualifying about the part, and I'm sorry but lots of liars say they are telling the truth, that doesn't make their claim objective, does it?
-
And you said the post was wrong, no qualifying about the part,
In which case I shall now qualify - you were wrong to say that I intended to be patronising.
If you found it to be patronising, fine - that's your opinion - other opinions are available.
... and I'm sorry but lots of liars say they are telling the truth, that doesn't make their claim objective, does it?
So are you accusing me of lying then?
-
In which case I shall now qualify - you were wrong to say that I intended to be patronising.
If you found it to be patronising, fine - that's your opinion - other opinions are available.
So are you accusing me of lying then?
I'm saying that just because you are saying it's true, doesn't make it objective. Surely you agree?
-
I'm saying that just because you are saying it's true, doesn't make it objective. Surely you agree?
That wasn't the question I asked you. Would you like to answer that one please.
-
That wasn't the question I asked you. Would you like to answer that one please.
It's what I'm saying about your idea that just because you are saying you are writing the truth doesn't make it objective. You may or may not be telling the truth but your statement that you are is worthless in terms of backing up your claim.
-
That wasn't the question I asked you. Would you like to answer that one please.
So you can demand apologies and answers yet can't give the same to others.
That said, I haven't asked for an apology from you and I don't want one. In the cold light of day I've realised that your opinion of me means nothing as far as I'm concerned.
-
Odd that Prof D skipped #2263 which pointed out his incorrect claim to quote Rhiannon in full, and his misrepresentation of that post.
-
That said, I haven't asked for an apology from you and I don't want one.
Yes you have:
Reply 2203:
'I want an apology for you calling me racist.'
-
Yes you have:
Reply 2203:
'I want an apology for you calling me racist.'
For which I have said that I was wrong. However you continue to misrepresent what I said, and quote 'in full' something that you had edited.
-
Odd that Prof D skipped #2263 which pointed out his incorrect claim to quote Rhiannon in full, and his misrepresentation of that post.
Read post 2262 - note the bit I have italicised:
'This was the 'offending' comment from Rhiannon, in full:'
In other words the full comment that offended me and that I felt would act to provide fuel to those (unlike Rhiannon) who are racist or xenophobic.
Which we now know bears no resemblance to what Julie Spence actually said in the 2007 BBC article, which she later further watered down further.
-
For which I have said that I was wrong. However you continue to misrepresent what I said, and quote 'in full' something that you had edited.
I quoted in full the offending comment - in other words the particular section that offended me.
We are in pedantry a-go-go world now. So just to ensure we can now close down this one, here goes:
Here is Rhiannon's post in full:
'Do you have the stats for that?
I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?
Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.
I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.'
The 'offending' comment from the entire post is (in other words the comment that I found offensive) was:
'Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing.'
Hope that helps you both sleep soundly.
-
Read post 2262 - note the bit I have italicised:
'This was the 'offending' comment from Rhiannon, in full:'
In other words the full comment that offended me and that I felt would act to provide fuel to those (unlike Rhiannon) who are racist or xenophobic.
Which we now know bears no resemblance to what Julie Spence actually said in the 2007 BBC article, which she later further watered down further.
You replied to the post in full at first. Using the words 'in full ' and then not quoting in full as you did is just lying. And then you misrepresented what she said. And have continually not apologized.
-
You are excellent at taking offence, ProfD. Not so great at admitting when you give it.
-
I quoted in full the offending comment - in other words the particular section that offended me.
We are in pedantry a-go-go world now. So just to ensure we can now close down this one, here goes:
Here is Rhiannon's post in full:
'Do you have the stats for that?
I've mentioned my mate in Grimsby before. He works as a long haul driver for an agency. One day they are all told that a group of Polish drivers have arrived looking for work, they will do it for less so everyone has to take a wage cut or they won't get work. Not long after, both Brits and Poles are told to take another wage cut because the Romanian drivers have arrived. And the likelihood of this being a rogue employer is what, exactly?
Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing. So the character of a place changes.
I love the fact that I can find Polish branded food in my local supermarket. We like to try some of it. But to others that will be a change too. Are we 'overrun'? No, but this is new and there will be people who don't like it, just as much as I think it is something to enjoy.'
The 'offending' comment from the entire post is (in other words the comment that I found offensive) was:
'Or in my neck of the woods, the head of Cambs police is on television giving an interview saying that she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. They don't bother the locals, just bring over ancient disagreements from their homelands and stab each other, and as she pointed out, that needs policing in a county where the village bobby on a bike is still a thing.'
Hope that helps you both sleep soundly.
I won't have a problem sleeping but then I'm not the one lying about something being 'in full' or misrepresenting what someone said. And the 'offending' comment was stil! A valid reading not something that had nothing to do with the aticle, but then since you seem to have no problem lying or misrepresenting people, then that won't bother you either.
Btw any answer to why I should take the claim of someone saying they weren't lying as objective?
-
You replied to the post in full at first. Using the words 'in full ' and then not quoting in full as you did is just lying. And then you misrepresented what she said. And have continually not apologized.
Is that actually supposed to mean anything.
Actually when I first replied (way back in reply 2200) I selected that comment from the entire post that I found most offending, however pretty well the entire paragraph is pretty offending and unnecessarily inflammatory.
The first and last paragraphs are fine though - just so you understand that response can be nuanced - you can agree with one part of a post, but not another part.
-
Is that actually supposed to mean anything.
Actually when I first replied (way back in reply 2200) I selected that comment from the entire post that I found most offending, however pretty well the entire paragraph is pretty offending and unnecessarily inflammatory.
The first and last paragraphs are fine though - just so you understand that response can be nuanced - you can agree with one part of a post, but not another part.
And I wouldn't call it 'in full' because it's incorrect. Since you know that in context you are lying, and have misrepresented Rhiannon, and refused to apologise.
-
Btw any answer to why I should take the claim of someone saying they weren't lying as objective?
I don't think objectiveness comes in to it when discussing someone's intentions - these are purely subjective matters, but critically subjective, in as much as if someone claims to have done something with (or without) a particular intention who am I (or you) to claim otherwise. I cannot know your intentions and you cannot know mine, but that doesn't mean that each of our opinions are equal on the matter - point being that you can never know my intentions, while I always know them. Sure I could be lying (but you've been rather reticent to accuse me of that directly in this context, although seem happy to do so in other contexts), but again only I can ever know if that is the case.
Oh and by the way it wasn't my intention to be patronising and no I am not lying.
-
Is that actually supposed to mean anything.
Actually when I first replied (way back in reply 2200) I selected that comment from the entire post that I found most offending, however pretty well the entire paragraph is pretty offending and unnecessarily inflammatory.
The first and last paragraphs are fine though - just so you understand that response can be nuanced - you can agree with one part of a post, but not another part.
Except your offence seems to come from your belief that I'd listened to gossip by a friend of a friend in a pub (or similar) and repeated it. It seems that you didn't believe me when I recalled (imperfectly, but I think it reasonable that my brain at the time connected her comments about people arming themselves with knives for protection and someone dying as a result of a feud) the comments of a senior ranking police officer. So you must have dismissed that as a lie on my part from the off.
Remember this was a part of a discussion about the reasons for why people voted as they did, especially in areas of low migration.
If you said that I was recalling an inflammatory statement given by a senior ranking police officer then I would have agreed with you. If you don't like what she said take it up with her. I'm sure a quick google will bring up her details.
-
I don't think objectiveness comes in to it when discussing someone's intentions - these are purely subjective matters, but critically subjective, in as much as if someone claims to have done something with (or without) a particular intention who am I (or you) to claim otherwise. I cannot know your intentions and you cannot know mine, but that doesn't mean that each of our opinions are equal on the matter - point being that you can never know my intentions, while I always know them. Sure I could be lying (but you've been rather reticent to accuse me of that directly in this context, although seem happy to do so in other contexts), but again only I can ever know if that is the case.
Oh and by the way it wasn't my intention to be patronising and no I am not lying.
And once you accept that it's subjective the word 'wrong' is inappropriate, and again you just saying you aren't lying is exactly what a liar would say so it moves you nowhere. That you may not have intended to be patronising doesn't mean you weren't being patronising, just that you may not have sufficient self knowledge to know if you were.
And you have still lied about quoting someone 'in full' and misrepresented them.
-
Except your offence seems to come from your belief that I'd listened to gossip by a friend of a friend in a pub (or similar) and repeated it. It seems that you didn't believe me when I recalled (imperfectly, but I think it reasonable that my brain at the time connected her comments about people arming themselves with knives for protection and someone dying as a result of a feud) the comments of a senior ranking police officer. So you must have dismissed that as a lie on my part from the off.
Remember this was a part of a discussion about the reasons for why people voted as they did.
If you don't like what she said take it up with her. I'm sure a quick google will bring up her details.
I actually said in the original post that I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women'
Which was precisely why I was surprised and concerned that someone like you (i.e. not racist or xenophobic) would be coming out with the kind of exaggerated, inflammatory and scare-mongering comments. Hence why I said that you should read you comment again and be careful about posting comments of that sort. Point being that those of us who aren't racist or xenophobic (including you and me) need to take care in our use of language so as to avoid providing fuel to those that are.
As it turns out your comments bear no resemblance to the actual comments of the person (Julie Spence) who you were purporting to be referring to and in fact I can find no news report of a Lithuanian on Lithuanian murder, caused by stabbing in Cambridgeshire recently before her comments (in 2007). The nearest being a poor guy burned to death in his van in Wisbech - which was determined to be manslaughter and remains unsolved.
And I stand by my comment - if you are unclear on details of an interview, perhaps because they are from 11 years ago and heard briefly on a tv report, best not to infer the most lurid (stabbing each other) and extreme (can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding) interpretation (or as it turns out misinterpretation) of what was actually said. Why ... because it is like red meat to the racists and xenophobes.
-
And once you accept that it's subjective the word 'wrong' is inappropriate ...
It might be from where you are standing (as you cannot know whether I am lying nor my intentions), but not from where I am standing.
Are you really saying that if you claim that I like opera that I (who knows whether or not I like opera) cannot tell you whether you are right or wrong - of course I can. And I will know for sure, while you can either accept what I say or claim I am lying (but I will also know for sure whether I am lying or not).
-
I actually said in the original post that I don't believe you are the kind of person who succumbs to the "my mate knows a bloke who had a chat in the pub who told me that all those foreigners are raping our women'
Which was precisely why I was surprised and concerned that someone like you (i.e. not racist or xenophobic) would be coming out with the kind of exaggerated, scaremongering and scare-mongering comments. Hence why I said that you should read you comment again and be careful about posting comments of that sort. Point being that those of us who aren't racist or xenophobic (including you and me) need to take care in our use of language so as to avoid providing fuel to those that are.
As it turns out your comments bear no resemblance to the actual comments of the person (Julie Spence) who you were purporting to be referring to and in fact I can find no news report of a Lithuanian on Lithuanian murder, caused by stabbing in Cambridgeshire recently before her comments (in 2007). The nearest being a poor guy burned to death in his van in Wisbech - which was determined to be manslaughter and remains unsolved.
And I stand by my comment - if you are unclear on details of an interview, perhaps because they are from 11 years ago and heard briefly on a tv report, best not to infer the most lurid (stabbing each other) and extreme (can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding) interpretation (or as it turns out misinterpretation) of what was actually said. Why ... because it is like red meat to the racists and xenophobes.
Yes and since Rhiannon didn't say anything like that it was a misrepresentation of her post. Further the grid idea was raised and isn't no part of what was said so that's another misrepresentation.
-
It might be from where you are standing (as you cannot know whether I am lying nor my intentions), but not from where I am standing.
Are you really saying that if you claim that I like opera that I (who knows whether or not I like opera) cannot tell you whether you are right or wrong - of course I can. And I will know for sure, while you can either accept what I say or claim I am lying (but I will also know for sure whether I am lying or not).
No, and that's another complete misrepresentation. I'm stating that you just saying you aren't lying is worthless to you showing that you are not lying, and that using a term 'wrong' implies an objectivity that you are in no position to justify.
-
Yes and since Rhiannon didn't say anything like that it was a misrepresentation of her post. Further the grid idea was raised and isn't no part of what was said so that's another misrepresentation.
And I never said she did so how can I be misrepresenting her.
However her 'offending' comment seemed to me to be of a similar exaggerated and scaremongering nature, and so it proved to be. Not through any malign intent but through misremembering what was actually said all those years ago.
-
And I never said she did so how can I be misrepresenting her.
However her 'offending' comment seemed to me to be of a similar exaggerated and scaremongering nature, and so it proved to be. Not through any malign intent but through misremembering what was actually said all those years ago.
Because it has nothing to do with someone she knew down the pub reporting something third hand and is indeed backed up by the article. So it was a complete misrepresentation, along with of course your lazy generalisation about Leave voters having to be protected from their inherent racist stupidity
-
Further the grid idea was raised and isn't no part of what was said so that's another misrepresentation.
The grid idea? - sorry I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please.
-
Because it has nothing to do with someone she knew down the pub reporting something third hand and is indeed backed up by the article.
It demonstrably isn't back up by the article.
So it was a complete misrepresentation, along with of course your lazy generalisation about Leave voters having to be protected from their inherent racist stupidity
Where exactly have I generalised, lazily or otherwise, that leave voters are inherently racist - I haven't. And isn't Rhiannon a remain voter anyway - I thought she was, but might be wrong - no doubt she will correct me if I an wrong in thinking she was a remain voter.
-
It demonstrably isn't back up by the article.
Where exactly have I generalised, lazily or otherwise, that leave voters are inherently racist - I haven't. And isn't Rhiannon a remain voter anyway - I thought she was, but might be wrong - no doubt she will correct me if I an wrong in thinking she was a remain voter.
It is mentioned in the article. Your position is that it is entirely invalid to mention it. That's just incorrect.
Your entire pitch to Rhiannon was that she shouldn't say something about what someone has said to her friend down the pub (which she didn't that was just you lying), and that was somehow bad because it would somehow inflame the people who might be racist inclined which are obviously those leave voters you want to dismiss
-
The grid idea? - sorry I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain please.
actual idea. And you have been denying it despite the article ever since.
-
actual idea. And you have been denying it despite the article ever since.
Nope - still haven't got a clue what you are on about - what 'actual idea'?
Anyone else understand what NS is trying to say?
-
Nope - still haven't got a clue what you are on about - what 'actual idea'?
Anyone else understand what NS is trying to say?
The actual idea of feuds been carried over is in the article. And you have denied it continually.
-
Your entire pitch to Rhiannon was that she shouldn't say something about what someone has said to her friend down the pub (which she didn't that was just you lying), and that was somehow bad because it would somehow inflame the people who might be racist inclined which are obviously those leave voters you want to dismiss
Blimey you really are putting two and two together and making 76!!
Apart from indicating that I thought that Rhiannon voted remain (although I might be wrong) where in the whole thread since she made her comment on Cambridgeshire police (reply2194) have I made a single comment about leave voters? Hmm, another example of confirmation bias on your part perhaps.
-
Blimey you really are putting two and two together and making 76!!
Apart from indicating that I thought that Rhiannon voted remain (although I might be wrong) where in the whole thread since she made her comment on Cambridgeshire police (reply2194) have I made a single comment about leave voters? Hmm, another example of confirmation bias on your part perhaps.
So who were you worrying about when you misrepresented Rhiannin's post as being liable to be stoked up by racism? And when are you going to apologise for misrepresenting her post?
-
The actual idea of feuds been carried over is in the article. And you have denied it continually.
Wrong again - in the article she says that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - note my emphasis - can, not are and into the country, not into Cambridgeshire.
She then makes this claim about a recent murder that was Lithuanian on Lithuanian, which elsewhere is indicated to have been in Wisbech. Problem is the sad death of Dainius Kigas (the only possible recent death in Wisbech) wasn't murder, but manslaughter and also remains unsolved so there is no evidence that the perpetrator was also Lithuanian.
But actually I do not deny that feuds can (and probably) are brought into this country, and perhaps even into Cambridgeshire. Just as feuds from one part of the country might be brought to another part of the country. Nope my issue is with Rhi's claim that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' (again my emphasis). She never said that, nor in any way implied it. And she would look pretty stupid to have claimed that her policeforce were unable to do their job across the entire county due to a few isolated incidents of gang feuds (if these even ever happened).
-
Wrong again - in the article she says that 'that ongoing feuds can also be brought into the country' - note my emphasis - can, not are and into the country, not into Cambridgeshire.
She then makes this claim about a recent murder that was Lithuanian on Lithuanian, which elsewhere is indicated to have been in Wisbech. Problem is the sad death of Dainius Kigas (the only possible recent death in Wisbech) wasn't murder, but manslaughter and also remains unsolved so there is no evidence that the perpetrator was also Lithuanian.
But actually I do not deny that feuds can (and probably) are brought into this country, and perhaps even into Cambridgeshire. Just as feuds from one part of the country might be brought to another part of the country. Nope my issue is with Rhi's claim that 'she can't police the county effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding' (again my emphasis). She never said that, nor in any way implied it. And she would look pretty stupid to have claimed that her policeforce were unable to do their job across the entire county due to a few isolated incidents of gang feuds (if these even ever happened).
I think you are trying a rather desperate reading here which as I covered a number of posts ago makes no sense in context.
-
So who were you worrying about when you misrepresented Rhiannin's post as being liable to be stoked up by racism?
I never said her comments were stoked up by racism, but could act as fuel to racists and xenophobes.
And when are you going to apologise for misrepresenting her post?
Nope - lets focus on your glaring misrepresentation of me, namely claiming that I think that people who 'might be racist inclined which are obviously those leave voters you want to dismiss'
When I haven't even mentioned the referendum, leave voters, remain voters etc (except for inferring that Rhi voted remain) in this whole section of the thread.
-
I never said her comments were stoked up by racism, but could act as fuel to racists and xenophobes.
Nope - lets focus on your glaring misrepresentation of me, namely claiming that I think that people who 'might be racist inclined which are obviously those leave voters you want to dismiss'
When I haven't even mentioned the referendum, leave voters, remain voters etc (except for inferring that Rhi voted remain) in this whole section of the thread.
Context really is not your strong point. We're talking about Brexit. and you had been posting about areas which voted against that. Had you managed to forget that?
I'm not sure why you think indulging in a spot of whataboutery absolves you in any way for your misrepresentation of Rhiannon.
-
I think you are trying a rather desperate reading here which as I covered a number of posts ago makes no sense in context.
So where in the article did she say that her policeforce couldn't police Cambridgeshire effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. She didn't.
In fact in this, and other article, the key issue seems to be the need to spend money on interpreters - sure this is an issue and makes policing a touch more complex, but hardly equates to being unable to police Cambridgeshire effectively. And actually has nothing to do with Eastern European migrants feuding as this is as much about Eastern European migrants as victims or even just witnesses rather than as perpetrators of crime.
-
Context really is not your strong point. We're talking about Brexit. and you had been posting about areas which voted against that. Had you managed to forget that?
I'm not sure why you think indulging in a spot of whataboutery absolves you in any way for your misrepresentation of Rhiannon.
Timing clearly not your strong point. This is all about comments from 2007 - you know 9 years before the referendum - there weren't leave voters and remain voters back then.
In this whole discussion about Rhiannon's comment's about Cambridgeshire I've not made a single comment indicating or even implying that leave voters are racists. Your misrepresentation stands for all too see.
-
Timing clearly not your strong point. This is all about comments from 2007 - you know 9 years before the referendum - there weren't leave voters and remain voters back then.
In this whole discussion about Rhiannon's comment's about Cambridgeshire I've not made a single comment indicating or even implying that leave voters are racists. Your misrepresentation stands for all too see.
And since your charge about possibly encouraging racism was applied to Rhiannon today your point is specious. And your whataboutery continued. when are you going to apologise for your misrepresentation of Rhiannon?
-
So where in the article did she say that her policeforce couldn't police Cambridgeshire effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding. She didn't.
In fact in this, and other article, the key issue seems to be the need to spend money on interpreters - sure this is an issue and makes policing a touch more complex, but hardly equates to being unable to police Cambridgeshire effectively. And actually has nothing to do with Eastern European migrants feuding as this is as much about Eastern European migrants as victims or even just witnesses rather than as perpetrators of crime.
She mentioned the feuds in the context of struggling to meet demand. Therefore it is relevant.
-
She mentioned the feuds in the context of struggling to meet demand. Therefore it is relevant.
Demand for what? Remember this is against the background of a 20% reduction in crime in the county over the period when the big influx of migrants occurred.
There is a world of difference in saying that policing was more complex (which she did) and that it required additional interpreter costs (which she did) and say that she couldn't police Cambridgeshire effectively due to Eastern European migrants feuding, which she very, very clearly didn't. The implication of that comment being that the prevalence of feuding Eastern European migrants made Cambridgeshire a no-go area for policing, which is clearly ridiculous.
-
Ha!
http://newsthump.com/2018/08/06/liam-fox-to-replace-barry-chuckle-in-chuckle-brothers/
-
Ha!
http://newsthump.com/2018/08/06/liam-fox-to-replace-barry-chuckle-in-chuckle-brothers/
Wasn't Liam Fox-Chuckle the equestrian bloke we were discussing yesterday on another thread?
-
Wasn't Liam Fox-Chuckle the equestrian bloke we were discussing yesterday on another thread?
I might watch if he was.
-
Never mind the quality, feel the number.
https://mobile.twitter.com/asabenn/status/1026745997572165634
-
And in today's Brexit Is Shit...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/uk-run-out-of-food-no-deal-brexit-national-farmers-union
-
And in today's Brexit Is Shit...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/uk-run-out-of-food-no-deal-brexit-national-farmers-union
And another
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45093322
-
And in today's Brexit Is Shit...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/uk-run-out-of-food-no-deal-brexit-national-farmers-union
And another
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45093322
Clearly we have some confirmation bias going on with all these anti-Brexit doom and gloom links. Perhaps somebody would like to post a story about something good that’s going to happen.
Is it still confirmation bias if the good stories about Brexit don’t exist?
-
Clearly we have some confirmation bias going on with all these anti-Brexit doom and gloom links. Perhaps somebody would like to post a story about something good that’s going to happen.
Is it still confirmation bias if the good stories about Brexit don’t exist?
No, these are the good news stories. Just wait until you see the bad news stories about brexit - we don't last more than a month with food!
-
Sophie in 't Veld making interesting points about Brexit - Barnier's deputy. She said the EU could not unpick the single market, and, nice irony, which the UK had helped create. She also said the EU had waited two years for a UK proposal, which was unsuitable. Available on iPlayer, interview with Stephen Sackur. No, she's Verhofstadt's deputy.
-
Paltry numbers sign petition calling for a hard brexit
50 000 as reported in the Daily Express.
-
Mrs May has written to Tory members, saying that two EU proposals are unacceptable, including EEA. She also recommended her standard deal, the 'common rulebook', which seems vastly unpopular with EU, as it unravels the single market..
Of course, there are rumours of deals being done later, maybe. But Mrs May seems reluctant to accept that the UK will become a third country, which automatically takes us out of many regulations.
Probably, most people are bored with all this, in any case.
-
Mrs May has written to Tory members, saying that two EU proposals are unacceptable, including EEA. She also recommended her standard deal, the 'common rulebook', which seems vastly unpopular with EU, as it unravels the single market..
Of course, there are rumours of deals being done later, maybe. But Mrs May seems reluctant to accept that the UK will become a third country, which automatically takes us out of many regulations.
Probably, most people are bored with all this, in any case.
So many people seem to be in denial of the problems that No Deal Brexit will cause that maybe we have to go through with it to make them understand. Then, afterwards, we can apply to rejoin the EU and nobody will complain about how bad it is because we will have first hand knowledge of the alternative.
-
So many people seem to be in denial of the problems that No Deal Brexit will cause that maybe we have to go through with it to make them understand. Then, afterwards, we can apply to rejoin the EU and nobody will complain about how bad it is because we will have first hand knowledge of the alternative.
Except we’d no longer be able to keep Sterling. The Euro is showing how precarious it can be today with the risk of contagion from economic collapse in Turkey. Selling the euro to the British public isn’t going to be easy - even the SNP prefer Sterling.
We don’t realise what a uniquely privileged position we have has as full EU members and yet retaining our own currency.
-
Except we’d no longer be able to keep Sterling.
Not in theory, but you don't give up your local currency the minute you join the EU. We could commit to joining the Euro at some unspecified date in the future and never actually do it. Plus, I think it would be quite hard for us to meet the qualification for joining the Euro at the moment.
We don’t realise what a uniquely privileged position we have has as full EU members and yet retaining our own currency.
It's not a unique position. Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden do not use the Euro. Of those countries only Denmark has joined the European Exchange Rate Mechanism which is a legally required precursor to joining the Euro but is also voluntary. All of those countries except Denmark, which has a similar opt out to us, are technically required to join the Euro but none of them have started the process and there is no pressure being brought to bear to make them do it. In fact, Sweden had a referendum in which the Euro was rejected and it's fulfilling the referendum decision by deliberately not joining the ERM.
So if we leave the EU and then rejoin, although we are required to join the Euro, we are not required to join the ERM which is a qualification for the Euro, so we can stay out forever just like Sweden.
-
Hmm.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/18/rethink-of-brexit-vote-may-be-necessary-ex-civil-service-head-warns-lord-kerslake
-
It all seems like guesswork to me. Currently, there is a wide spectrum of views on no deal, ranging from those who see a blockage of transport routes to Europe, hence ports and airports would be closed, to those who say everything will be OK. I don't know how you pick a position, but then the uncertainty might lead to a deal, or lots of mini-deals, e.g., on aviation, pharma, haulage, etc. What a mad way to run a country though, a bit like playing in a casino. If transport is blocked, how could the govt survive?
-
I think that Brexit is a symptom of something having to give; too many people for too long that weren't listened to being exploited by the likes of Banks and Johnson for personal gain.
-
It's possible that some countries would suffer badly from no deal, e.g., Denmark, Ireland, Holland. You would expect lots of pressure then to get a deal, but I'm not sure that normal political logic applies here.
-
! think that Ireland - other factors not withstanding - is set to attract a considerable quantity of the City of London activity. It has the advantage of having English as its native language.
The non-UK part of the EU is sufficiently large, surely, for those countries which do have a lot of UK trade to be able to switch to other customers relatively easily in a single market.
-
I am turning into Victor Meldrew:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/20/mps-ask-for-expenses-budgets-to-be-raised-to-cover-brexit-costs?CMP=fb_gu
but with added expletives.
I don't fucking believe it.
-
Surely the game must be up now Brexiters…..You aren't going to get your meds along with everyone else unless this ends.
-
I am ambivalent about a second vote but this is a ridiculous reason to oppose it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/21/labour-mp-says-second-brexit-vote-could-lead-to-social-unrest?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
I am ambivalent about a second vote but this is a ridiculous reason to oppose it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/21/labour-mp-says-second-brexit-vote-could-lead-to-social-unrest?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
My feeling is that civil unrest is more likely with Brexit, not without it.
-
My feeling is that civil unrest is more likely with Brexit, not without it.
I think you might be right.
-
My feeling is that civil unrest is more likely with Brexit, not without it.
In and of itself, not a great reason not to have Brexit either. The better reasons are why that unrest might happen. Brexit on Twitter mentions currently the 3rd biggest Labour split discussion after anti Semitism and jerk rice.
-
Dangerous man!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-reesmogg-brexit-inspected-irish-border-troubles-eu-no-deal-latest-a8508466.html
-
And another.
https://ansionnachfionn.com/2018/08/25/nigel-farages-ira-and-eu-conspiracy-theory-is-the-real-threat-to-peace/
-
May sets bar high for no deal Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/theresa-may-says-a-no-deal-brexit-wouldnt-be-the-end-of-the-world?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
I still can't get over the weirdness of no deal, that it doesn't mean no deal. There would be lots of mini-deals, obviously. If planes are going to fly, and racehorses moved around, there have to be agreements. I suppose this involves much bureaucracy, ironically.
-
I still can't get over the weirdness of no deal, that it doesn't mean no deal. There would be lots of mini-deals, obviously. If planes are going to fly, and racehorses moved around, there have to be agreements. I suppose this involves much bureaucracy, ironically.
Does it matter? After all, we are going to have blue passports.
-
Today's Brexit is Shit....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/04/marooned-ship-brexiteers-phoney-claims
-
Watched QT last night. I know shouldn't have, not good for blood pressure.
Anyway, the Rottweiler that is Julia Hartley Brewer was on proving once again that she is the singularly most irritating person in the UK.
At one point she asked the question "Name one concession that the EU has made during these negotiations." Then she went on to say they hadn't, and who would want to belong to a club that sought to punish us for leaving.
Obviously, she's never left a club before, but when I leave one I don't get the benefits of that club and they don't change the rules.
It really is rather simple Julia, we are leaving the EU, it does not have to do anything if it doesn't want to. The fact that it is entertaining a deal shows rather more good grace (even if it is based on self interest) on their part than we have done during this whole farce.
-
Yes, punishing us by letting us leave.
Lots of rumours going around that the Ultras have over-reached with their dotty proposals, and that the EU might accept a fudged deal, in order to get to the transition. Kicking the can down the road?
-
Watched QT last night. I know shouldn't have, not good for blood pressure.
Anyway, the Rottweiler that is Julia Hartley Brewer was on proving once again that she is the singularly most irritating person in the UK.
At one point she asked the question "Name one concession that the EU has made during these negotiations." Then she went on to say they hadn't, and who would want to belong to a club that sought to punish us for leaving.
Obviously, she's never left a club before, but when I leave one I don't get the benefits of that club and they don't change the rules.
It really is rather simple Julia, we are leaving the EU, it does not have to do anything if it doesn't want to. The fact that it is entertaining a deal shows rather more good grace (even if it is based on self interest) on their part than we have done during this whole farce.
Exactly my thoughts when watching the programme (and trying to avoid chucking something at the screen while she was pontificating).
The EU is a club, a club with rules that its members must adhere to. If one member decides to leave, why should the club change its rules. If I leave my local gym why on earth should I expect them to make 'concessions' to make it easier for me to leave. It is my choice to leave and ensuring I can leave in an orderly manner is entirely my responsibility.
-
Sassy, the vote was not clear.
In the first place, the Act which enabled the referendum stated that it was only advisory. It is possible (indeed, probable) that some voters may have voted in a particular way merely to send a political message.
Secondly, the information provided for the electors was inadequate for the purpose - neither side presented cases which were adequate or sufficiently appropriate for a vote on a significant constitutional change. Apart from "intention" nobody had any real understanding of the consequences of the referendum nor of the policies and plans that would be needed to implement leaving nor of the consequences of such action.
Thirdly, 63% of the electorate did not support the proposal to leave the EU. The margin between those voting "leave" and those "stay" given the number of people not voting was too small to indicate a clear decision. The referendum is not a normal method of political decision making in the UK - this one was shambolic in its execution.
Fourthly. the primary purpose of the referendum was not to determine the UK's continued membership of the UK. It was being used by a weak prime minister solely for party management purposes.
The very first vote which took us into the common market was a secret ballot all sent to London to be counted. NO ONE has ever said they actually voted to go in. Whatever the arguments the vote to exit was to exit whatever number the greatest was exit.
The clear decision is there were more 'yes's' than 'No's'/ We cannot keep having a vote because some don't agree.
So to be clear the vote rules were complied with and they decide to exit the union. That is it, a full stop and the decision needs to be carried out. Sometimes you need a wider vision to see why we must exit.
-
It was fairly clear here in Scotland.
Does Scotland make up the vote for the whole of the UK? No it doesn't and democracy can't work if people won't accept the final vote.
-
The sooner we are out the better for us.
-
The very first vote which took us into the common market was a secret ballot all sent to London to be counted.
Wow! I didn't know that. And there was I thinking that we joined the Common Market following a general election called by Edward Heath in which such joining was a stated policy. I have no idea what mind bending substance I must have been on to have imagined something as bizarre as that! Was it co-ordinated by the same people that produced the fake lunar landings?
Of course, Sass, it may have been you that was taking mind bending substances. Why else would you make up this tripe?
-
Exactly my thoughts when watching the programme (and trying to avoid chucking something at the screen while she was pontificating).
The EU is a club, a club with rules that its members must adhere to. If one member decides to leave, why should the club change its rules. If I leave my local gym why on earth should I expect them to make 'concessions' to make it easier for me to leave. It is my choice to leave and ensuring I can leave in an orderly manner is entirely my responsibility.
Yes Prof D it's exactly the same visa versa the only difference is practically the whole of the media are remainers and unbalanced in this area but I can console myself when I know we're on the way out of the EU.
Regards ippy
-
... practically the whole of the media are remainers and unbalanced in this area ...
Nay evidence for that Ippy?
Broadcast media are required by law to be impartial.
The national newspapers were significantly tipped in favour of leave. Of the national print newspapers 8 supported leave and 6 supported remain. But even more significantly the 8 leave supporting newspapers included the top three in terms of circulation and the 6 remain supporting newspapers included the bottom 3 in terms of circulation.
So by a rough back of the fag packet calculation about 7.5M newspapers were in daily circulation supporting leave and just 3.2M newspapers supporting remain.
-
Nay evidence for that Ippy?
Broadcast media are required by law to be impartial.
The national newspapers were significantly tipped in favour of leave. Of the national print newspapers 8 supported leave and 6 supported remain. But even more significantly the 8 leave supporting newspapers included the top three in terms of circulation and the 6 remain supporting newspapers included the bottom 3 in terms of circulation.
So by a rough back of the fag packet calculation about 7.5M newspapers were in daily circulation supporting leave and just 3.2M newspapers supporting remain.
Yes, note the use of practically in the post of mine you're responding to.
Regards ippy
-
Yes, note the use of practically in the post of mine you're responding to.
Regards ippy
Why is that relevant:
You said that '... practically the whole of the media are remainers and unbalanced in this area ...', which implies that:
1. A majority of media supported remain and
2. By using 'practically' that it isn't just a small majority but a very large majority that supported remain.
That is errant non-sense. As I have pointed out broadcast media were impartial and the print media were significantly tipped towards leave. Regardless of whether you include 'practically' in your quote, you are wrong.
-
Does Scotland make up the vote for the whole of the UK? No it doesn't and democracy can't work if people won't accept the final vote.
The days of the Scottish tail being wagged by the Westminster dog are long gone, Sass.
There is seething resentmrnt here - and not just amongst Nationalists - that, as the late Labour Frirst Minister said "The democratic will of the Scottiah people" is being steamrollered.
This will lead to asecond Indy ref once the burach of Brexit isworked out and we see just how terrible things will be in Scotland.
What you SHOULD worry about, though, is Northern Ireland.
It's all very well saying the majority of the so-called UK voted to leave - the majority in NI - both sides - voted to remain.
That Westminster ignores their wishes and creates a division that the albeit very fragile peace process healed between north and south, should worry you just as much as the problems finding medicines, paying more for your food, etc, will.
-
Why is that relevant:
You said that '... practically the whole of the media are remainers and unbalanced in this area ...', which implies that:
1. A majority of media supported remain and
2. By using 'practically' that it isn't just a small majority but a very large majority that supported remain.
That is errant non-sense. As I have pointed out broadcast media were impartial and the print media were significantly tipped towards leave. Regardless of whether you include 'practically' in your quote, you are wrong.
So you're implying equality of presentation.
Regards ippy
-
The days of the Scottish tail being wagged by the Westminster dog are long gone, Sass.
There is seething resentmrnt here - and not just amongst Nationalists - that, as the late Labour Frirst Minister said "The democratic will of the Scottiah people" is being steamrollered.
This will lead to asecond Indy ref once the burach of Brexit isworked out and we see just how terrible things will be in Scotland.
What you SHOULD worry about, though, is Northern Ireland.
It's all very well saying the majority of the so-called UK voted to leave - the majority in NI - both sides - voted to remain.
That Westminster ignores their wishes and creates a division that the albeit very fragile peace process healed between north and south, should worry you just as much as the problems finding medicines, paying more for your food, etc, will.
Scotland didn't vote in the referendum. This was not a vote by constituency or region, each person in Scotland had exactly the same influence over the result as everybody else.
-
So you're implying equality of presentation.
Regards ippy
Yes for broadcast coverage, which is required by law to be impartial.
No for newspaper coverage which was heavily biased towards leave - see the evidence on numbers of papers supporting remain/leave and the circulation of those papers.
-
Scotland didn't vote in the referendum. This was not a vote by constituency or region, each person in Scotland had exactly the same influence over the result as everybody else.
Scotland is not a region.
We will not be treated like one.
-
Scotland is not a region.
We will not be treated like one.
As far as the EU are concerned Scotland is a region of the UK - see, for example how Scotland is one of the UK regions in European Parliament elections.
However that is besides the point - the point is that the referendum was a UK-wide vote, with the result decided purely on the basis of all the votes cast across the entire UK. Accordingly results were not divided into any constituent parts, whether Scotland (regardless of whether it is considered a country or a region) nor any other part of the UK, e.g. Wales, Northern Ireland, London etc.
-
Scotland is not a region.
We will not be treated like one.
Yes it is a region. It is also a country but that doesn’t alter the point. This vote was not like a general election in which regions voted for MPs. Everybody had one vote. Scotland didn’t vote for anyrhing, the people in Scotland voted.
-
London has a strong case for staying in independently. As strong as Scotland's.
-
London has a strong case for staying in independently. As strong as Scotland's.
Indeed - if Scotland (or London) wish to stay in the EU independently of the rest of the UK, they have a route to do so. That would be to become an independent sovereign state from the rest of the UK and for the government of that new sovereign state to apply to join the EU as a new accession state.
-
Quite a comical sequence, but not for the workers involved. Head of Jaguar says that a hard Brexit threatens jobs; Tory MP Bernard Jenkin says this is scaremongering; Jaguar Land Rover announce 3 day week for some staff; Tory govt announce new factory to make magic carpets soon. I made that bit up.
-
Yes it is a region. It is also a country but that doesn’t alter the point. This vote was not like a general election in which regions voted for MPs. Everybody had one vote. Scotland didn’t vote for anyrhing, the people in Scotland voted.
In a view of the referendum as discrete from history and politics, that's correct. Thing is, it isn't separate from those things. The vote in the separate sense gives no more justification for independence for Scotland, than it would if the upper floor in 23 Railway Cuttings, East Cheam voted remain. In the rather more complex world of things beyond the referendum it's a bit different.
Let's have a look at three areas mentioned that voted Remain. London voted remain, and at the time of the referendum there were some murmurs about the possibility of a city state. Indeed there had been some before that but very occasional. There had been a move to devolving powers after the petty power grab by the Tory govt under Thatcher, and an ongoing campaign to reduce local powers in a number of govts. There is no reason why London could not work as an independent city state in Europe, though there might be some practical difficulties (which I'll mention when I get to Northern Ireland). And yet there isn't any real movement to get this as the solution. I have to admit I think that the various parties that might be interested in speaking for London's interests in the last couple of years as regards the financial industry have been quiet, and I suspect that's because it's viewed as suspicious outside of that bubble. In the end though there is no real push for independence and that makes the feasibility of it, low.
Moving onto Scotland - coming a couple of years after a referendum in which the Unionist side argued that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to vote No, and where 45% voted to eave we have a very different situation than London. Add to that that Scotland is a country with its own legal system, education system, and we have in the grand scheme of things a different situation. That said the vote in the EU referendum alone isn't significant to that, it's the significance it gains within that context. It would be too easy though, as some do, to say portray the Yes vote in the indyref, as somehow homogeneous in it's support for the EU. Indeed it's clear that some of the reluctance to hold an indyref2 arises from the worry that a significant part of the Yes vote is anti EU as well and would maybe switch sides.
And then onto Northern Ireland, where the vote to Remain is then fed back into a situation where the practicalities of day to day become significant in a way that isn't true of elsewhere with the land border. I do wonder if the unrealistic approach take to this over the last two years has dampened down any idea of solutions to London's ambitions, and made any idea of a city state as mentioned above seem completely infeasible. Again while NI is no more than 23 Railway Cuttings in the view of the referendum, the referendum is very much more in terms of the feed back loop into the history and politics of NI. The likelihood of a united Ireland has grown because of the vote and what has happened since.
-
It looks like the EU are definitely saying no to Chequers. What now? All kinds of rumours that the Tory conference will lead to May falling, replaced by Hammond (favouring EEA ), or Mogg (no deal), and maybe others. Or maybe May will hang on.
Another view, that the EU are dumping May, as they realized how hopeless she is. Dunno.
-
Let's have a look at three areas mentioned that voted Remain.
Areas didn’t vote remain. Areas didn’t vote at all. The only reason we know that the majority of people in Scotland voted remain was due to the way the votes were counted. If you say Scotland voted remain, you are writing about 40% of the voters out of history.
-
Areas didn’t vote remain. Areas didn’t vote at all. The only reason we know that the majority of people in Scotland voted remain was due to the way the votes were counted. If you say Scotland voted remain, you are writing about 40% of the voters out of history.
Might help if you read the post rather than making up the straw man you did here.
-
Theresa May doesn’t look well at the moment.
-
She is suffering the consequences of putting the interests of the Conservative Party before those of the United Kingdom.
-
She is suffering the consequences of putting the interests of the Conservative Party before those of the United Kingdom.
I bow to no one in my dislike of our current PM BUT for once I don't think this is the issue. I believe she honestly thinks negotiating some solution is the best thing that can be done, and that she thinks correctly that she has virtually no room for manoeuvre. That Chequers was a farce, immediately destroyed by the fringe of her party, is just the result of that.
-
To be fair I don’t know how this hadn’t broken her, or how anyone could manage it. She’s not a nice person. But she’s on a course that cannot end well for her or her country, and she knows it.
-
To be fair I don’t know how this hadn’t broken her, or how anyone could manage it. She’s not a nice person. But she’s on a course that cannot end well for her or her country, and she knows it.
I don't see it as unmanageable in principle, very difficult - certainly. That she was a lukewarm remainer though was probably the worst choice.
-
I don't see it as unmanageable in principle, very difficult - certainly. That she was a lukewarm remainer though was probably the worst choice.
Her heart isn’t in it. She doesn’t believe in it. I think she has a reputation for doing things in which she doesn’t believe - her ‘racist’ policies I think stem from a fanaticism to do what she’s supposed to do, which as Home Secretary was to deliver certain immigration figures. The human cost of those policies, and Brexit, seems to elude her.
-
It baffles me that her civil servants have presumably been telling her that Chequers has legs, when Barnier was saying years ago that you can't chop the single market in bits, and snaffle the bits that you like. It's true that she is constrained by the Ultras, and can't accept EEA . Possible, that there will still be some kind of deal, I thought Katya Adler was clever on BBC, that negotiations often seem to break down, in order to then leap to victory. Maybe. Otherwise, get the spam and tinned peaches in.
-
Our local Tesco has at the end of its aisles a load of special offers. For weeks now they have been tinned soup, meat, fruit etc. Stuff in packets that keeps for ages.
-
Might help if you read the post rather than making up the straw man you did here.
I didn't read most of the post because your premise "regions voted" is false and everything you built on it is therefore not reliable.
-
One aspect of no deal is that just in time deliveries will break down, and car production, and other production lines, which rely on JIT, will grind to a halt. Is that what the hard Brexit people want? Of course, there might be a side deal to help engineering, but that's not no deal. Are there any other solutions?
-
I didn't read most of the post because your premise "regions voted" is false and everything you built on it is therefore not reliable.
Since it is a misstatement of the premise, which you would know were to read it, you are just keeping your local straw supplier in business.
-
Our local Tesco has at the end of its aisles a load of special offers. For weeks now they have been tinned soup, meat, fruit etc. Stuff in packets that keeps for ages.
I think stockpiling has been a macabre joke, but come January, there may be panic, and buying in bulk. Unless of course, a deal happens. Can you believe that a modern industrial country is contemplating wartime measures? What insanity has taken us over?
-
What happens re the NI/Eire border in the event of a no deal?
Why can't negotiating teams from NI and Eire be locked in room until they agree on something that will let brexit proceed or just give up?
-
What happens re the NI/Eire border in the event of a no deal?
Why can't negotiating teams from NI and Eire be locked in room until they agree on something that will let brexit proceed or just give up?
Because the negotiating teams are the UK and the EU
-
Because the negotiating teams are the UK and the EU
Yes, but I'm suggesting delegation to competent sub-teams. If they can agree on a solution why shouldn't the UK, EU accept it?
-
Yes, but I'm suggesting delegation to competent sub-teams. If they can agree on a solution why shouldn't the UK, EU accept it?
Because they might agree on a solution that crosses the red line of either the EU or the UK.
In fact, I think the only two practical solutions are hard border and UK not leaving the customs union. The default is hard border, and that is what we will get carrying on in the direction we are going.
-
Yes, but I'm suggesting delegation to competent sub-teams. If they can agree on a solution why shouldn't the UK, EU accept it?
Because the issue is an EU wide one
-
Lying, lying bastards courtesy of Newsthump:
http://newsthump.com/2018/09/21/lying-bastards-furious-at-emanuel-macron-for-pointing-out-that-they-are-lying-bastards/
-
Because the issue is an EU wide one
Agreed...but even if there were an NI delegation, such a delegation would have to be either appointed by, or approved by, the NI Assembly - which hasn't sat for eighteen months.
Were Westminster to appoint such a delegation, you'd probably hear the objections from here without the need for a microphone or speakers.
-
Agreed...but even if there were an NI delegation, such a delegation would have to be either appointed by, or approved by, the NI Assembly - which hasn't sat for eighteen months.
Were Westminster to appoint such a delegation, you'd probably hear the objections from here without the need for a microphone or speakers.
True enough .. though if there is not going to be a deal what will they do about the border? They (NI) need to get their thinking caps on.
-
True enough .. though if there is not going to be a deal what will they do about the border?
If there is no Brexit deal, it'll have to revert to being a hard border.
They (NI) need to get their thinking caps on.
It's out of their hands. There's nothing they (people in Northern Ireland) can do to fix this.
-
And court case rolls on
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45601394
-
And court case rolls on
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45601394
Interesting..
Though,even if they win the case, probably irrelevent; unfortunately.
-
If there is no Brexit deal, it'll have to revert to being a hard border.It's out of their hands. There's nothing they (people in Northern Ireland) can do to fix this.
The DUP has, potentially, significant votes in any confidence vote or vote on a deal/no-deal in Westminster. If they, and/or Sinn Fein, actually stopped wanking and got out of bed they potentially have significant influence on any choices taken by May.
-
Well, the DUP are having a big influence. They make a hard border very likely, after all. In fact, you could say that May is paralyzed by them and ERG . No surrender, etc. Plus, a billion smackers!
-
That is them pretending there is no issue.
I liked this: https://www.facebook.com/financialtimes/videos/304396883693376/
-
I think stockpiling has been a macabre joke, but come January, there may be panic, and buying in bulk. Unless of course, a deal happens. Can you believe that a modern industrial country is contemplating wartime measures? What insanity has taken us over?
No one's going to run out of food.
-
No one's going to run out of food.
Doesn't mean there won't be panic.
-
Doesn't mean there won't be panic.
"Panic about running out of food" and "Actually running out of food" are not synonymous.
-
"Panic about running out of food" and "Actually running out of food" are not synonymous.
fortunately Wigginhall did not suggest there would be actual running out of food, merely panic and stockpiling.
-
Then people are idiots.
-
Then people are idiots.
The whole Brexit farrago exemplifies that.
-
The whole Brexit farrago exemplifies that.
Ate you saying people who voted to leave the EU are idiots?
-
Winter setting in early in Finland?
Why don't you read what I have written instead of your interpretation of it?
-
Ate you saying people who voted to leave the EU are idiots?
The whole process is looking pretty idiotic now.
-
The whole process is looking pretty idiotic now.
Could have been handled much better by both sides, without a doubt.
-
Winter setting in early in Finland?
Maybe.
-
Could have been handled much better by both sides, without a doubt.
How could the EU have handled their side better?
-
How could the EU have handled their side better?
Because they set out to, if not quite punish, then give the UK such a shitty deal so as to put fear into other countries that might want to follow the UK. What they should havw done is try and work out a deal which is beneficial to both.
-
Because they set out to, if not quite punish, then give the UK such a shitty deal so as to put fear into other countries that might want to follow the UK. What they should havw done is try and work out a deal which is beneficial to both.
It is quite correct that the EU will want to see the UK as not benefitting, it is important to them to hold the EU together. This could be seen as punishing. However our initial decision to leave could also be seen as the UK wishing to punish the EU for taking so much of our money, our constitutional rights, blah, blah, Eurosceptic blah.
The unvarnished truth remains, the EU does not have to do anything it doesn't want to. We chose to leave, sadly. It is our decision, we take the consequences.
-
I would compare it to divorce. An amicable divorce is much better for both parties. Not so when the one or both parties act like dicks.
-
I would compare it to divorce. An amicable divorce is much better for both parties. Not so when the one or both parties act like dicks.
I would agree, somewhat. But if you want to view it in divorce terms then we have been much more the wandering dick than the EU has; special treatment, refunds, general awkwardness, personal abuse, as an example I speak of the Farage when he accused MEP's of never having had a proper job when he was speaking next to a former brain surgeon; (and what of worth has Farage ever done) then I think we should be paying a hefty divorce settlement.
In those circumstances I can see that maybe the EU doesn't want a particularly amicable divorce.
-
Because they set out to, if not quite punish, then give the UK such a shitty deal so as to put fear into other countries that might want to follow the UK. What they should havw done is try and work out a deal which is beneficial to both.
Why should they give a deal to Britain that is more beneficial than the deal we already had?
-
I would compare it to divorce. An amicable divorce is much better for both parties. Not so when the one or both parties act like dicks.
I don't think the EU have been behaving like dicks. They have been pretty transparent in their dealings the whole time and it has always been clear what their position is and where their red lines are. Britain is the one messing this up, not the EU.
-
I would compare it to divorce. An amicable divorce is much better for both parties. Not so when the one or both parties act like dicks.
I wouldn't, I'd compare it to a teenager leaving home and becoming independent.
-
I don't think the EU have been behaving like dicks. They have been pretty transparent in their dealings the whole time and it has always been clear what their position is and where their red lines are. Britain is the one messing this up, not the EU.
Agreed. It was obvious the 'Chequers plan' would be rejected. Why are they wasting so much time trying to sell it?
-
At this point I think having an economic border down the Irish Sea is the best option. It doesn't take N. Ireland out of the UK, what's the problem?
-
Agreed. It was obvious the 'Chequers plan' would be rejected. Why are they wasting so much time trying to sell it?
Because Mrs May has painted herself into a corner. She has ruled out the single market, and industry are screaming that no deal will destroy JIT production, so where do you go?
-
Because they set out to, if not quite punish, then give the UK such a shitty deal so as to put fear into other countries that might want to follow the UK. What they should havw done is try and work out a deal which is beneficial to both.
A good example being they will not give the UK police access to their crime databases. Blackmail!
-
Because Mrs May has painted herself into a corner. She has ruled out the single market, and industry are screaming that no deal will destroy JIT production, so where do you go?
If this is as she says a democratic process: surely a characteristic of democracy is that treaties etc aren't set in stone forever. We voted to leave and we must have had our reasons, so perhaps we should have a go at life independent of the EU. It's just a question of knowing whether they are big enough reasons to outweigh the disadvantages of leaving. That should become clear: will it really be the disaster Remainers say it will be? I recall Jean Claude Junker saying he hoped the UK would rejoin the EU further down the line.
-
Because Mrs May has painted herself into a corner. She has ruled out the single market, and industry are screaming that no deal will destroy JIT production, so where do you go?
Straight out the door, and give it a try I'd say. Why waste time negotiating when you know neither side will give in?
-
Straight out the door, and give it a try I'd say. Why waste time negotiating when you know neither side will give in?
So you are happy with closed ports and no flights?. That seems absurd. Of course, they will carry on negotiating, a clean break could produce economic collapse.
-
So you are happy with closed ports and no flights?. That seems absurd. Of course, they will carry on negotiating, a clean break could produce economic collapse.
Okay, maybe not straight out the door. I meant they seem to be trying to get special privileges rather than accept being like any other non-EU country.
-
At this point I think having an economic border down the Irish Sea is the best option. It doesn't take N. Ireland out of the UK, what's the problem?
If you think Scotland wil keeop quiet whilst Northjern Ireland, which also voted to remain, enjoys single market status, forget it.
We won't.
We will fight for the same privilage as NI.
And we won't be held back by being bribed by May, either.
-
Another issue is that it produces customs checks between N. Ireland and GB. Yeah, the DUP will love that.
-
It is a mess now and something needs to give somewhere and the situation might well change yet.
It seems Labour may now back another referendum, but even then one view is that is shouldn't include an 'abandon Brexit' option, when that must surely be an option. The 'respect the referendum' argument is now a weak one in my view: the referendum occurred for the wrong reasons and backfired, and it was for an 'idea' of Brexit that had no accompanying details and the absence of any meaningful details over two years later, along with the shambles of the current government, does indicate that the outcome of the referendum was a poor one, since otherwise we'd have had a deliverable plan long since - and we don't. It isn't undemocratic to revisit a flawed decision provided the revisit is done democratically.
The Northern Ireland situation will be problematic for as long as the DUP are keeping the Tories in power and any attempt to find a fudge there will be doomed to failure, and with Stormont down a large chunk of the NI electorate have no active political representation which is an affront after all this time. The only option in my view is to contrive a General Election and see where the cards fall then - but of course that is uncertain too (even if it is democratic) and the awaited legal opinion on whether or not Article 50 can be cancelled is another factor.
I find it hard to imagine that those who voted 'Leave' voted for the current mess.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/mcdonnell-new-brexit-referendum-should-not-include-remain-option
A fresh Brexit referendum should be only about a departure deal and should not include the option of staying in the EU, John McDonnell has indicated, in comments likely to dismay Labour members pushing for a so-called people’s vote.
I'm betting now on the next Election being in 2018!
Oct - May bring back outline deal & Parliament vote it down.
We either leave with no deal or another election, Tories win a majority and the deal goes through. If Labour win, Brexit will be the least of our worries!
Not getting Labours negotiating position on Brexit and how it differs from the Tories, it seems to be the same but 'we are nicer people'.
-
Not getting Labours negotiating position on Brexit and how it differs from the Tories, it seems to be the same but 'we are nicer people'.
That's hardly a stretch.
-
A fresh Brexit referendum should be only about a departure deal and should not include the option of staying in the EU, John McDonnell has indicated, in comments likely to dismay Labour members pushing for a so-called people’s vote.
That would be pointless and wrong. The default position if a deal is rejected by a referendum should be "don't change anything" (i.e. stay in the EU) not "commit suicide" (i.e. leave the EU with no deal).
-
If there is a 'People's Vote' and the option for that vote is to accept or decline a 'no deal' (because of a failure to agree terms) then the outcome of voting against that is staying in, surely?
-
I think McDonnell is trying to avoid that, as they don't want to be tagged with denying the original vote. Ironically, that might be even more popular than his version, but I see the Mail is already running with "Labour betrays the referendum" headlines. It would be interesting to see how a Remain policy would score now, maybe quite well.
-
It has to be either:
"The deal on offer or no-deal"
OR
"The deal on offer or do not leave"
OR
"The deal on offer or continue negotiations"
Can't see a referendum giving a three way (or more) option being voted by parliament.
"do not leave" or "continue negotiations" options depend on agreement that Article 50 can be extended or withdrawn by the EU.
-
And in Brexit is Shit...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/uk-eu-flights-would-cease-immediately-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit
-
I think McDonnell is trying to avoid that, as they don't want to be tagged with denying the original vote.
Maybe, or maybe it is that Socialism and the neo-liberal EU just don't get on.
-
I'd have thought that any notions of 'respecting the referendum' are arguably flawed if it can be argued that the question asked was inadequate in the light if the details now emerging (such as the possible implications for air travel as noted in the link posted by Rhi earlier).
-
I'd have thought that any notions of 'respecting the referendum' are arguably flawed if it can be argued that the question asked was inadequate in the light if the details now emerging (such as the possible implications for air travel as noted in the link posted by Rhi earlier).
Of-course they are flawed, and the question was clearly inadequate - but so what? Who is going back to change the outcome and how?
-
It depends on what happens next. If a deal is still managed, I would think that discontent will die down. If we are heading for no deal, and things look bad, e.g. no flights, lorries blocked at ports, who knows what could happen. I haven't a clue. Panic, maybe. But surely, this puts huge pressure on them to do a deal, as no govt could survive.
-
Of-course they are flawed, and the question was clearly inadequate - but so what? Who is going back to change the outcome and how?
It needs someone in the political arena to suggest that the basis of referendum (in or out) doesn't reflect the reality as it is now emerging - who would do so is another matter, since it seems we have long since descended into a divisive Remainers vs Brexiteers situation.
I'm not for labelling those who voted for Brexit as idiots but I do think they were misled into thinking it would be a walk in the park - 'be careful what you wish for' is apposite, as the cookie continues to crumble when it wasn't supposed to crumble (and it is a nice day for mixed metaphors).
-
. If Labour win, Brexit will be the least of our worries!
Oy! >:( >:( >:(
-
It needs someone in the political arena to suggest that the basis of referendum (in or out) doesn't reflect the reality as it is now emerging - who would do so is another matter, since it seems we have long since descended into a divisive Remainers vs Brexiteers situation.
That is what the LibDems, many centrists on both Tory and Labour have said in the last couple of years, in fact its almost all they have said, over and over and over.
I'm not for labelling those who voted for Brexit as idiots but I do think they were misled into thinking it would be a walk in the park - 'be careful what you wish for' is apposite, as the cookie continues to crumble when it wasn't supposed to crumble (and it is a nice day for mixed metaphors).
I expected Norway type deal I think that is the way May was leaning but planned a bigger majority so called an election so she could ignore the hard Brexiteers in her party, exactly the opposite happened.
May is saying that it will be her deal or no deal, everyone is expecting her to go if it gets voted down but then everyone had expected she be long gone by now.
-
Oy! >:( >:( >:(
Not fond memories of the hard left.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWLN7rIby9s
-
Starmer said that any new referendum would not exclude remain, and, journos say, the conference crowd went wild. The Tory press will be writing their "betrayal" accusations as we speak, ditto the Tory conference. Enemy of the people!
-
I expected Norway type deal
In some ways the Norway type deal is the worst deal possible, even though, given that Brexit is happening, it is the deal I would have hoped for.
The Norway deal is being subject to EU regulations but giving up any say in what they are. I’m not surprised that the Brexiteers don’t like it.
-
A true brexiteers wouldn't like it, no. But I bet some voted for Brexit thinking that some kind of 'Norway' deal would open up some kind of Utopia. 'Being like Norway' seems to be something that is sold as a way of government that we should aspire to.
-
This really is getting scary.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/26/no-deal-brexit-will-be-catastrophic-say-british-farmers-national-farmers-union-eu
-
It is scary, and I get the sense of a govt not in control. Then again, the pressure to do a deal is ratcheting up.
-
I believe some of the people who voted Leave said any negative economic cost from that decision was worth it. The people who voted leave or who did not vote at all, because they did not believe the projected negative economic consequences at the point of leaving (that we were repeatedly warned about) would happen, will presumably learn from this experience that maybe they should look into issues more thoroughly before they vote.
I have no problem with people who campaign for a 2nd referendum now that the issues are better understood. As the results were so close and as we are a democracy with Parliamentary sovereignty my view is that people can campaign to change people's minds on single issue votes regardless of the outcome of previous votes, much like after an election people can "defy the wish of the people" and carry on campaigning for parties that lost the election - provided they have the funds and political will. If Remain had won I would expect Leave to carry on campaigning to Leave, if that's what they believe is in the best interests of Britain.
I believe there was less support for ending free movement before the 2008 crash, austerity measures and before the refugee crisis. My view is that if a flood of cheap labour at the lower end of the wage scale depressed earnings for the poorest, there were other ways of addressing that specific issue without losing much needed foreign labour in other areas.
If our immigration and border control and NHS was run so badly that people from the EU who had no means to support themselves and no private health insurance were still being allowed into the country despite the existing rules against this, the government could have made reforms to address this - including changing austerity measures so that funding to areas dealing with these issues were not cut.
-
This really is getting scary.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/26/no-deal-brexit-will-be-catastrophic-say-british-farmers-national-farmers-union-eu
From the article,
“In theory the UK already has a plan as it meets all the regulations now, "
So the auditing process should have started as soon as Article 50 was triggered, surely?
-
Starmer said that any new referendum would not exclude remain, and, journos say, the conference crowd went wild. The Tory press will be writing their "betrayal" accusations as we speak, ditto the Tory conference. Enemy of the people!
Clearly Corbyn etc attempt at placating the centre with 'all options are on the table' seems to be working. Corbyn has always been euro-sceptic and in his speech indicated that a deal that will get a parliamentary majority can get through, will divide both parties though.
-
Patrick Kielty eviscerating Boris Johnson
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatricKielty/status/1045782711816708096
-
Patrick Kielty eviscerating Boris Johnson
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatricKielty/status/1045782711816708096
When you see the NI situation set out clearly in a step-by-step analysis like this it does make the Brexit look so nightmarish that you wonder how anyone who parrots 'good deal for the UK' actually thinks it this mythical 'good deal' is likely to happen.
It's like somebody gave the Brexit zealots a tin opener with the instruction 'use only on cans of worms'.
-
Patrick Kielty eviscerating Boris Johnson
https://mobile.twitter.com/PatricKielty/status/1045782711816708096
He's not wrong.
It's about tie these Westminster Tories actually listened to the people in NI - rather than their partners in bribery, the DUP.
The results of their politicing won't be a party split - it could break their less than prescious union at best, and cost lives at worst.
This is a brilliant article.
-
Whilst I'm sure your collective hand wringing makes you all feel better does anyone else have a view on what is going to happen next.
May gets a deal, puts it before parliament, it gets voted down, we leave with no deal?
-
Whilst I'm sure your collective hand wringing makes you all feel better does anyone else have a view on what is going to happen next.
May gets a deal, puts it before parliament, it gets voted down, we leave with no deal?
Do you mean a view on what will happen, or what should happen?
-
Do you mean a view on what will happen, or what should happen?
Will happen.
-
Mmm... I think that sort depends on the deal. I think you could get a deal that works in the EU and gets through but that is likely to push off the DUP, and then the govt falls at some point at the start of the transition.
In the case of no deal getting through, I think there will be some sort of fudge extending Article 50. That could lead to a leadership challenge which at this stage I think May would win. But it will injure her even further.
I think there are more than a few unknown unknowns out there though that could change anything almost instantaneously
-
Whilst I'm sure your collective hand wringing makes you all feel better does anyone else have a view on what is going to happen next.
May gets a deal, puts it before parliament, it gets voted down, we leave with no deal?
Unless there exists aeal which does not in any way, shape or form, affect the border between NI and the Republic, 'wringing of hands' will not be the first thing that comes to mind.
Wringing of blood soaked bandages will.
You can fire as many Tory trash drivel at the more hard line Republicans as you wish - it will not be stats, but emotions, which will govern them. Any border - be it real, cyber or whatever - will be seen as a barrier - They will not accept barriers.
I wish they would, but that is a pipe dream.
As yet, the bumbling idiots in this Westminster burach have not taken their middle class heads out of the sand long enough to realise it.
-
Whilst I'm sure your collective hand wringing makes you all feel better does anyone else have a view on what is going to happen next.
May gets a deal, puts it before parliament, it gets voted down, we leave with no deal?
Why should I have a view?
We were promised that a deal with the EU would be easy. We were promised £350 million for the NHS. We were promised that we would be better off outside the EU. We were promised control ovrr immigration (that may happen as no fucker in their right mind will want to come here the way things are heading) Those that promised that and supported it should have some idea of how to achieve these objectives, surely?
I am quite clear, they were unachievable then and they are now. Thats my view.
-
Meanwhile we have Boris' bridge and May's Festival of Brexit.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1046328598041440256
-
Boris is fond of proposing completely useless engineering projects. His Thames Estuary airport was a non-starter, because all the seabirds would have flown stright into the jet engines; he backed the Thames garden bridge, a ridiculous vanity project; I seem to recall he wanted a Channel bridge, even though we've got a perfectly good tunnel; and now he wants a bridge to Ireland! What next - a lift into space (theoretically possible) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)?
-
Unless there exists aeal which does not in any way, shape or form, affect the border between NI and the Republic, 'wringing of hands' will not be the first thing that comes to mind.
Wringing of blood soaked bandages will.
You can fire as many Tory trash drivel at the more hard line Republicans as you wish - it will not be stats, but emotions, which will govern them. Any border - be it real, cyber or whatever - will be seen as a barrier - They will not accept barriers.
I wish they would, but that is a pipe dream.
As yet, the bumbling idiots in this Westminster burach have not taken their middle class heads out of the sand long enough to realise it.
You sound like you'll be delighted with rivers of blood.
-
Why should I have a view?
Where did I say you should? Don't reply if you you don't.
We were promised that a deal with the EU would be easy. We were promised £350 million for the NHS. We were promised that we would be better off outside the EU. We were promised control ovrr immigration (that may happen as no fucker in their right mind will want to come here the way things are heading) Those that promised that and supported it should have some idea of how to achieve these objectives, surely?
Politicians make promise they can't keep, you support Corbyn brace for impact!
I am quite clear, they were unachievable then and they are now. Thats my view.
Jolly good.
-
you support Corbyn brace for impact!
I support Corbyn in as much as he is leader of the Labour party, but in the sense that I fully support him, no - you must have mixed me up with another poster. I would prefer a different leader, but speculation as to who that leader may be is pointless at the moment due to the prevailing winds.
Politicians make promise they can't keep
Yes unfortunately they do. Even more unfortunately some of the electorate believe them against their own best interests. Rees Mogg, Boris et al won't be the ones suffering as a result of a no-deal Brexit. The people of the North East as an example won't be quite so lucky.
-
You sound like you'll be delighted with rivers of blood.
Why do you so wilfully misrepresent people?
Anchorman makes it quite clear that he wished the people of NI would accept barriers, but recognised the reality that they won't.
-
I support Corbyn in as much as he is leader of the Labour party, but in the sense that I fully support him, no - you must have mixed me up with another poster. I would prefer a different leader, but speculation as to who that leader may be is pointless at the moment due to the prevailing winds.
Yes unfortunately they do. Even more unfortunately some of the electorate believe them against their own best interests. Rees Mogg, Boris et al won't be the ones suffering as a result of a no-deal Brexit. The people of the North East as an example won't be quite so lucky.
OIC so you understand politicians make promises they can't keep but others less fortunate than you don't know that.
Labour, voted for a referendum, voted for article 50 and say they will vote for a no deal Brexit.
-
Why do you so wilfully misrepresent people?
Anchorman makes it quite clear that he wished the people of NI would accept barriers, but recognised the reality that they won't.
Suggest you look up what misrepresent means. I think in a conversation about NI peace process introducing phrases like 'blood soaked bandages' you can come to a view on what the posters motive is.
-
... and say they will vote for a no deal Brexit.
Really? When have Labour said they would vote for a no deal Brexit?
-
Suggest you look up what misrepresent means. I think in a conversation about NI peace process introducing phrases like 'blood soaked bandages' you can come to a view on what the posters motive is.
My motive in using that emotive language was to show the reality of the emotion-driven situation in parts of the province. As fas as I know, the 'main' ex-terrorist thugs on both sides who abandoned the mindless thirty years of hell known as 'the troubles' still try to keep a lid on the more radical members who are still unreconstructed terrorists.
The car bombs and other explosive-related incidents have not stopped - but by a combination of police vigilance, informants from the ex-terrorist groups themselves, and sheer luck, very few have exploded, and fewer still caused injury.
However, this situation will, sadly, change if any material change is made to the border.
I fully admit that Westminster does not want such a change - but the cvar-crash of the negotiations may well make it inevitable.
In that instance, the mindset of the 'usual suspects' on either side will kick in and the return to the 'troubles' will be a very strong probability.
I wish it were otherwise - those familiar with my posts in another social medium will know my attitude to sectarianism; however, Brexit, in the NI context, may well mean blood.
-
Suggest you look up what misrepresent means. I think in a conversation about NI peace process introducing phrases like 'blood soaked bandages' you can come to a view on what the posters motive is.
Why? In what way did AM extrapolating what may likely happen in NI lead you to the conclusion that he would be delighted with "rivers of blood"?
It never occurred to me that he was even hinting that he would be delighted.
-
OIC so you understand politicians make promises they can't keep but others less fortunate than you don't know that.
Labour, voted for a referendum, voted for article 50 and say they will vote for a no deal Brexit.
I suggest you watch QT from last week, which was from the North East where one woman articulated exactly that position.
I know you are entrenched in your leave position but surely it is clear to you now that their is no good outcome from this decision. We will damage the economy, our prosperity, our progress and our futures. I hear people say we've just got to do it and make the best of it. Why? Why settle for making the best of it when there is another much better option available.
-
I know you are entrenched in your leave position but surely it is clear to you now that their is no good outcome from this decision. We will damage the economy, our prosperity, our progress and our futures.
Not entrenched at all, I'd be quite happy with Norway type deal. It is possible that long term we can be better off outside of the EU, but lets not do that debate again it was two years ago.
I hear people say we've just got to do it and make the best of it. Why? Why settle for making the best of it when there is another much better option available.
I've heard people say we should do it in light of the referendum. The other option, remain I assume, can only come about by another vote.
At the last election one party had a commitment to another vote, Labour was for Brexit. Didn't you vote for Labour at the last election?
-
At the last election one party had a commitment to another vote, Labour was for Brexit. Didn't you vote for Labour at the last election?
Irrelevant, as I think another referendum would be inadvisable. In addition, I don't know about you, but I didn't vote on the basis of one issue.
-
Irrelevant, as I think another referendum would be inadvisable. In addition, I don't know about you, but I didn't vote on the basis of one issue.
Another referendum is the only way to stop Brexit.
So you voted the way you did because other issues are more/as important than Brexit, noted.
-
So you voted the way you did because other issues are more/as important than Brexit, noted.
No. I would refer you to the first sentence of my previous post.
-
No. I would refer you to the first sentence of my previous post.
Not following, you have made the following statements:-
1. 'Why settle for making the best of it when there is another much better option available.'
The only other viable option is another referendum with a remain option on the ballot, bearing in mind the stated positions of MP's.
2. '.....I think another referendum would be inadvisable...'
So by your own statements you can answer the question 'Why settle for making the best of it' with because 'another referendum would be inadvisable'.
-
Johnson takes lead out of Trump's book and suggests May could be prosecuted 'Lock her up!'
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1047100671579906049
-
Not following, you have made the following statements:-
1. 'Why settle for making the best of it when there is another much better option available.'
The only other viable option is another referendum with a remain option on the ballot, bearing in mind the stated positions of MP's.
2. '.....I think another referendum would be inadvisable...'
So by your own statements you can answer the question 'Why settle for making the best of it' with because 'another referendum would be inadvisable'.
No, Government or Parliament could decide its a total shit show and halt Brexit without a second referendum,
-
No, Government or Parliament could decide its a total shit show and halt Brexit without a second referendum,
They could do almost anything 'vote to make me next leader of the UK', not likely though is it.
-
They could do almost anything 'vote to make me next leader of the UK', not likely though is it.
Dunno. Depends how great the risk to UK security becomes if a no deal happens. They are there to act in the best interests of the country, not the individual or party.
Yeah, ok, you have a point...
-
Its simple. I dont think there will be another referendum. There is the option for Mrs May to do the right thing in her political life and say this is not possible without damaging the UK irreparably, therefore we will stop the move to leave. Unlikely granted. I see no other option. As 5his is how I see it I voted largely on the basis of not accounting for the decision to leave. I cannot change the economic suicide taking place. I can, therefore only vote on which party I see as being the best for this country going forward regardless of that decision. I favoured the Labour party. This is not though as you seem to want to paint it a whole hearted endorsement of JC. Its more a case of choosing the least worst option.
PS my main worry re another referendum is the very real threat of civil unrest on a large scale.
-
PS my main worry re another referendum is the very real threat of civil unrest on a large scale.
The language used by the right, and the press especially, makes this entirely possible and I fear that those in political life and the media who oppose Brexit would be in genuine danger. However I also expect that with the job losses to come, possible economic collapse and certainly disruptions to food and medicines, we will see civil unrest anyway.
-
It is such as mess now (was just watching the warnings from Vauxhall on the news) that it is hard to see how this can end well whatever happens - it has already caused friction that will won't subside quickly.
I'd hope it can be stopped one way or another.
-
Its simple. I dont think there will be another referendum. There is the option for Mrs May to do the right thing in her political life and say this is not possible without damaging the UK irreparably, therefore we will stop the move to leave. Unlikely granted. I see no other option. As 5his is how I see it I voted largely on the basis of not accounting for the decision to leave. I cannot change the economic suicide taking place. I can, therefore only vote on which party I see as being the best for this country going forward regardless of that decision. I favoured the Labour party. This is not though as you seem to want to paint it a whole hearted endorsement of JC. Its more a case of choosing the least worst option.
PS my main worry re another referendum is the very real threat of civil unrest on a large scale.
So its 'economic suicide' but you don't want to stop it by means of a referendum because you are scared of civil unrest.
A Corbyn Labour government would result in economic devastation we've not seen since the 1970's.
-
Is tis a case of the little vermin leaving the bigger vermin before the bigger vermin leave the sinking ship? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/02/brexit-eu-hits-out-irresponsible-uk-northern-ireland?CMP=share_btn_fb
-
So its 'economic suicide' but you don't want to stop it by means of a referendum because you are scared of civil unrest.
A Corbyn Labour government would result in economic devastation we've not seen since the 1970's.
You are obtuse. I'd love to see a referendum. I don't think it is possible. I think one of the outcomes of a further referendum would be civil unrest and that is based on observation of the vehemence and vitriol of some on the leave side. Am I wrong to worry about civil unrest? Is that so hard to understand.
As to your second point, your opinion. Other opinions are available I believe.
-
You are obtuse. I'd love to see a referendum. I don't think it is possible. I think one of the outcomes of a further referendum would be civil unrest and that is based on observation of the vehemence and vitriol of some on the leave side. Am I wrong to worry about civil unrest? Is that so hard to understand.
As to your second point, your opinion. Other opinions are available I believe.
Same here ... Can't see how another referendum could be held. If the meaningful debate on the proposed deal fails to approve it (as is most likely) then either negotiations continue, possibly under a new PM or there is an election - can't see a vote for a referendum passing with the way the Tories are split. Labour would try for an election. Neither Tories nor Labour would have another referendum in their manifestos, and it is very unlikely that the other parties would win enough seats to force one on them. If time runs out with no extension, we are left with no-deal.
-
The court case that started here in Scotland regarding whether or not Article 50 is revocable, which has now gone up the legal food chain, could yet provide an option for Parliament to halt the process: if so then some of the hapless and hopeless Tory party might need to find the guts to pull the plug on what looks like an impending disaster, but I doubt they are capable of conceding that Brexit is a mistake.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/21/article-50-european-court-of-justice
I can't see a problem with a second referendum personally, given that the first one was called for the wrong reasons, and since it is now clear that the simplistic in/out question was inadequate given the mess we are in now: people then voted for an idea the and the reality, as we are now seeing on a daily basis isn't how Brexit was portrayed back in 2016. Given the developments since, and lack thereof, I think we should get the chance the re-visit it and, ideally, bin Brexit.
Sure some Brexit enthusiasts would be pissed off at the prospect of a different result but if Brexit goes ahead people will get pissed off anyway once the effects become clear - and it won't be pretty (even if we get blue passports and some stupid festival). Far better to prevent catching the disease in the first place, even if some find the medicine hard to swallow, so as to avoid the symptoms - and especially if it turns out the disease is both chronic and incurable.
Ideally this would follow a general election and perhaps it would take a coalition of all the non-Tory/DUP parties to find a way back from this madness.
-
This is from Frank Bough on Twitter:
Theresa May: "We will prevent unskilled workers coming from EU and will fill the gap by training British workers"
So, we're going to *train* British workers to have *no skills*?
Interesting concept.
-
You are obtuse.
Evidence?
I'd love to see a referendum. I don't think it is possible.
Eh? If at the last election the LibDems had won more seats they could have entered into another coalition with Lab or Con and forced another vote with leave being an option.
So very possible, however since you did not vote that way it made another vote unlikely, or as you put it, impossible.
I think one of the outcomes of a further referendum would be civil unrest and that is based on observation of the vehemence and vitriol of some on the leave side. Am I wrong to worry about civil unrest? Is that so hard to understand.
The implication from what you said its that you didn't want another vote because of the possibility of civil unrest. So can we assume if a far right party emerges threatening civil unrest you will vote for them to stop it happening.
As to your second point, your opinion. Other opinions are available I believe.
Be happy to debate the merits of Corbyn with you, when I've challenged you in the past your comebacks have amounted 'yeah well the Tories suck', so won't hold my breath for an enlightening debate anytime soon.
-
Neither Tories nor Labour would have another referendum in their manifestos, and it is very unlikely that the other parties would win enough seats to force one on them. If time runs out with no extension, we are left with no-deal.
Current Labour Brexit plans are almost the same as May's deal.
Only option is the LibDems, if you listen to the horrors that will come from Brexit according to some you would have thought putting an X in the right place in an election would be the least they could do.
Maybe its better for some to have Brexit in play so they can weaponise it. :)
-
Current Labour Brexit plans are almost the same as May's deal.
No they aren't - May's position is that there is only one option on the table (Chequers), Labour's position is that all options remain on the table.
What is interesting is that Tory rank and file want May to bring other options onto the table (e.g. Canada+++, Norway), while Labour's rank and file want to take options off the table and commit to a people's vote.
Interesting times.
-
The court case that started here in Scotland regarding whether or not Article 50 is revocable,
...
...
Ideally this would follow a general election and perhaps it would take a coalition of all the non-Tory/DUP parties to find a way back from this madness.
I don't have anything against a second ref. in principle, however I think it is wishful thinking to think one would result in a different outcome or resolve any issues.
Given what has already occurred I expect that economically the UK is in for a tough ride and, politically, a swing to the right and nationalist policies.
-
...
Only option is the LibDems, if you listen to the horrors that will come from Brexit according to some you would have thought putting an X in the right place in an election would be the least they could do.
...
Have voted Liberal in every election since I was able to vote but has made f-all difference to anything.
-
Current Labour Brexit plans are almost the same as May's deal.
Only option is the LibDems, if you listen to the horrors that will come from Brexit according to some you would have thought putting an X in the right place in an election would be the least they could do.
Maybe its better for some to have Brexit in play so they can weaponise it. :)
Viewers in Scotland have their own programme.
-
your comebacks have amounted 'yeah well the Tories suck', so won't hold my breath for an enlightening debate anytime soon.
Again confusing me with another poster. I stated quite recently that my concern about Corbyn was that he is not strong enough and not able to deal with issues in a way that other leaders would - for instance thw whole anti-Semitism issue. Can you imagine Blair letting that get out of hand?
Post #26 here: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16003.25
So go stuff your misrepresentation (once again) where the sun don't shine.
PS The Tories do suck.
-
Current Labour Brexit plans are almost the same as May's deal.
Only option is the LibDems, if you listen to the horrors that will come from Brexit according to some you would have thought putting an X in the right place in an election would be the least they could do.
Maybe its better for some to have Brexit in play so they can weaponise it. :)
I have voted Lib Dem in the past, but never again, after the great betrayal of May 2010.
-
Again confusing me with another poster.
Don't think so.
I stated quite recently that my concern about Corbyn was that he is not strong enough and not able to deal with issues in a way that other leaders would - for instance thw whole anti-Semitism issue. Can you imagine Blair letting that get out of hand?
Post #26 here: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16003.25
Not sure what you think that refutes?
So go stuff your misrepresentation (once again) where the sun don't shine.
I would be misrepresenting you if you never said something like 'the Tories suck', if you never said that, fair accusation, if you did going to make yourself look rather stupid.
PS The Tories do suck.
LOL thanks!
-
Not sure what you think that refutes?
So you think that me stating I don't think Corbyn is strong enough to deal with issues is a ringing endorsement then?
You obviously have a completely different understanding of the English language than most other people. Perhaps you and Sass should get together and form a group to promote alt-eng.
As to the Tories sucking - you misrepresented me by saying:
Be happy to debate the merits of Corbyn with you, when I've challenged you in the past your comebacks have amounted 'yeah well the Tories suck', so won't hold my breath for an enlightening debate anytime soon.
As I have given a direct example above where I criticised (and it is not the only post where I have criticised him, search if you don't believe me) the merits or otherwise of Corbyn, which did not involve saying the Tories suck yes I would say it is misrepresentation.
PS the Tories still suck.
PPS Further example for you #19: http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15110.msg715870#msg715870
-
So you think that me stating I don't think Corbyn is strong enough to deal with issues is a ringing endorsement then?
You obviously have a completely different understanding of the English language than most other people. Perhaps you and Sass should get together and form a group to promote alt-eng.
When did you ask for a 'ringing endorsement'?
I won't get involved in trading insults thanks.
As to the Tories sucking - you misrepresented me by saying:
Be happy to debate the merits of Corbyn with you, when I've challenged you in the past your comebacks have amounted 'yeah well the Tories suck', so won't hold my breath for an enlightening debate anytime soon.
As I have given a direct example above where I criticised (and it is not the only post where I have criticised him, search if you don't believe me) the merits or otherwise of Corbyn, which did not involve saying the Tories suck yes I would say it is misrepresentation.
The only way my statement could viewed as misrepresenting you would be to claim you had said something you had not, e.g. 'the Tories suck'. The level of debate I've experienced from you has been at this level, i.e. you do say things like 'the Tories suck'.
PS the Tories still suck.
Case closed, drop mic.
-
Case closed eh? You accuse me of not engaging in debate and then run off. I supplied you with examples of me expressing doubts abouut Corbyn with no calling the Tories shit and yet I have somehow done that (we will leave aside the fact that they are shit for now).
Clearly, you have formed a view of me based on an internal dialogue you have had. To be clear until you coined the phrase I hadnt used it, but now you have suggested it I think I am going to use it as my signature. Dont worry I will credit you. Many thanks for the suggestion.
-
Case closed eh?
I thought so, looks like you don't understand when you lost and want to lose some more. :)
You accuse me of not engaging in debate
Misrepresentation makes you a liar and a hypocrite.
and then run off.
Hello, refuted.
I supplied you with examples of me expressing doubts abouut Corbyn with no calling the Tories shit and yet I have somehow done that (we will leave aside the fact that they are shit for now).
Do you read what is written?
To refute:-
'the level of debate from is to use phrases like "the Tories suck"
You offered a link in which you say 'my main worry with Corbyn is that he would be every bit as paralysed as May is currently', not seeing how that works.
Clearly, you have formed a view of me based on an internal dialogue you have had. To be clear until you coined the phrase I hadnt used it, but now you have suggested it I think I am going to use it as my signature. Dont worry I will credit you. Many thanks for the suggestion.
So I claim the level of debate from you amounts to using phrases like 'the Tories suck' and now you have confessed you will explicitly do so in future.
Suggest we park this here not least because I'm getting embarrassed for you. :)
-
I dont see how me saying Corbyn and May are similarly ineffectual amounts to me saying the Tories suck. Quite happy to park it here but the embarrassment, like the misrepresentation, is not mine.
-
I dont see how me saying Corbyn and May are similarly ineffectual amounts to me saying the Tories suck. Quite happy to park it here but the embarrassment, like the misrepresentation, is not mine.
To be fair, both suck. As a working class person I could never bring myself to vote Tory. As for Labour, they've for a long time no longer a traditional working class movement, but a hub for middle class wankers obsessed with identity politics.
-
The case regarding whether or not the UK Parliament can revoke Article 50 without the consent of the EU to come up next month - should be interesting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45760209
-
Looks like attempts to find a fudge to the NI border complication isn't going well: how surprising!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45753188
-
OK, bringing this back on topic. David Davis has stuck his oar in again. Apparently the rat that left the sinking ship thinks May will face a backlash over her plan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45795833
I really think he should shut the fuck up.
-
Moderator:
There were a number of posts in this thread on the subject of Same Sex Marriage and these have been moved to a new thread:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16219.msg750654#new
-
Despite all the assurances that a mythical 'good deal' is surely in the offing it looks like the contingency planning for no deal is making some natives (those in the general direction of Dover) restless on finding out they are in for a taster of what might happen if no 'good deal' occurs.
Never mind: I'm sure the Brexit zealots in the Kent area who voted 'Leave' envisaged this kind of thing and will tolerate the disruption with stoic good humour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45827197
-
I see the BBC is embracing our new American overlords: “parking lot”. Bah.
-
I see the BBC is embracing our new American overlords: “parking lot”. Bah.
That campaign was lost a long time ago. How often do you hear anyone pronounce "harrass" in its correct English way?
-
Reading the news this morning, it's obvious that the DUP and the Tory rebels are going to tank any deal. That will force a general election but instead of that being a cause for celebration, we will get Corbyn who also intends to tank any deal - he's consistently voted against all EU treaties in his career.
The only saving grace would be if the government at the highest level decided to put the brakes on leaving, but the cabinet is stuffed with Brexiters and David Davis is stoking them up to vote down any deal or to resign. Unless the HoL comes up with a genius plan or a plot from House of Cards appears before our eyes and Her Maj steps up, we're screwed.
-
I thought Labour were talking about a customs union, not the customs union, but who knows what that means. If Labour won an election, it would be odd to opt for hard Brexit, especially as Momentum are pro-remain.
-
I thought Labour were talking about a customs union, not the customs union, but who knows what that means. If Labour won an election, it would be odd to opt for hard Brexit, especially as Momentum are pro-remain.
Hope you are right, but this is the Cult of Jezza.
-
Rumours flying around as Raab goes to Brussels, EU ambassadors meet, is a deal brewing? May just has to find out if she can survive her own party.
-
In news from Scotland: Davidson and Mundell threaten to resign if there is any separate deal for NI - neither will be any great loss, though the latter is by all accounts a decent bloke - on the basis that it will encourage the independence movement here if there are different customs arrangements allowed the NI.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45856784
So, since it seems all the UK staying in the/a customs is problematic for the Tories Davidson and Mundell's position is that Scotland should endure a less favourable 'no deal' hard Brexit rather than have any separate customs arrangements like NI could have but won't, and which the DUP won't accept anyway - since if NI gets to stay in a customs union why can't Scotland: rock/hard place!
When will the penny drop for even the dumbest Brexit enthusiast that Brexit is shite.
-
When will the penny drop for even the dumbest Brexit enthusiast that Brexit is shite.
Good luck with that particular wish. :(
-
In news from Scotland: Davidson and Mundell threaten to resign if there is any separate deal for NI - neither will be any great loss, though the latter is by all accounts a decent bloke - on the basis that it will encourage the independence movement here if there are different customs arrangements allowed the NI. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45856784 So, since it seems all the UK staying in the/a customs is problematic for the Tories Davidson and Mundell's position is that Scotland should endure a less favourable 'no deal' hard Brexit rather than have any separate customs arrangements like NI could have but won't, and which the DUP won't accept anyway - since if NI gets to stay in a customs union why can't Scotland: rock/hard place! When will the penny drop for even the dumbest Brexit enthusiast that Brexit is shite.
Come on! To say that Mundell is useless is the understatement to end all understatements! The secretary-in-a-state fore Scotland could dye his hair magenta, dance a can-can on "Rape clause Ruthie's" doorstep and no-one would notice him. As for Ruthie herself? She ain't no Annabel Goldie - more's the pity.
-
The rumours have gone negative, no meetings until Wednesday. Maybe it's choreography, but it looks grim. What a disgrace if It's no deal. Self-humiliation.
-
The rumours have gone negative, no meetings until Wednesday. Maybe it's choreography, but it looks grim. What a disgrace if It's no deal. Self-humiliation.
A deal might b done. But then May won't get it through parliament.
-
A deal might b done. But then May won't get it through parliament.
The best way to solve this issue is for Norway type deal with Labour support. Do not think that Labour would support anything since they will gamble on new election.
Even if Labour win Brexit will still happen, be odd if Labour got into power and fail their own six tests. If Labour win Brexit will be least of our troubles, Venezuela for us. :(
Would think both manifestos in an election would have a clear position on Brexit.
-
JC4PM.
-
JC4PM.
That would damage the country even more.
-
Why?
-
Why?
Because he would make a very wimpy and pathetic PM, imo.
-
And that is a very wimpy and pathetic answer. IMO.
-
And that is a very wimpy and pathetic answer. IMO.
Dear, dear I must be following in your footsteps then! ;D
-
Why?
Have posted in the thread;-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15962.200
-
I hope to formally emigrate to Romania and take my family with me before next spring. Brexiteers will not cry my departure, but then I do not care to share any place with them either.
Let 'em marry their sisters if they want to.
-
The best way to solve this issue is for Norway type deal with Labour support.
The best way to solve this issue is clearly not to have a Brexit at all, at least for now. Surely even the most extreme Brexiteers can recognise that being in the EU with full voting rights is a better deal than being in the EU with very few voting rights.
Then, if the Brexiteers still want to leave the EU even after the utter shambles that this attempt to leave has been, they can spend some time planning it better and coming up with a coherent alternative to EU membership.
-
The best way to solve this issue is clearly not to have a Brexit at all, at least for now. Surely even the most extreme Brexiteers can recognise that being in the EU with full voting rights is a better deal than being in the EU with very few voting rights.
Then, if the Brexiteers still want to leave the EU even after the utter shambles that this attempt to leave has been, they can spend some time planning it better and coming up with a coherent alternative to EU membership.
I don't think it would solve the issue in that this isn't going to get through Parliament. A Norway type deal could get through Parliament.
It possibly represents being 48% in the EU. :)
I know you want to reverse Brexit, the only viable path for this to happen is Election (where LibDems hold balance of power) -> referendum.
Actually May saying that she will go back to Parliament rather than go for no deal sets up a Norway deal.
-
I don't think it would solve the issue in that this isn't going to get through Parliament. A Norway type deal could get through Parliament.
Which is absurd when you think about it. Parliament would eschew a better deal for a worse one.
It possibly represents being 48% in the EU. :)
48% of people who actually voted over two years ago. Do you think the result would be the same if we had the same referendum now?
I know you want to reverse Brexit, the only viable path for this to happen is Election (where LibDems hold balance of power) -> referendum.
A week is a long time in politics.
Actually May saying that she will go back to Parliament rather than go for no deal sets up a Norway deal.
Norway would be better than no deal IMO, but it is a deal that nobody in this country is happy with. The Norway deal is the deal that the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage were telling us we have now.
-
Never mind: I'm sure the Brexit zealots in the Kent area who voted 'Leave' envisaged this kind of thing and will tolerate the disruption with stoic good humour.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45827197
If you mean the Isle of Thanet, I suggest digging the silt out of the Wantsum, and splitting them from the mainland again. They can drink in their local Wetherspoons, and curse the foreigners from the Kentish mainland for taking "their" jobs as they booze away their dole money. It will be their version of Zion.
-
Which is absurd when you think about it. Parliament would eschew a better deal for a worse one.
Parliament voted through the EU Referendum Bill, there isn't a majority for not doing Brexit.
48% of people who actually voted over two years ago. Do you think the result would be the same if we had the same referendum now?
It was a side point.
A week is a long time in politics.
That quip refers to politicians holding positions, not the positions that politicians hold. You honestly think that in a week there could be a Parliamentary majority for another referendum?
Norway would be better than no deal IMO, but it is a deal that nobody in this country is happy with. The Norway deal is the deal that the Daily Mail and Nigel Farage were telling us we have now.
A parliamentary democracy doesn't work on the basis on what people are happy with but what that Parliament is able to pass into Law.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/16/false-promises-brexit-john-major
-
From the Beeb
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
-
From the Beeb
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
That's just a link to the main BBC news page, which will be different when people access it.
-
This is deeply depressing and I think that it is way over the top
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/england-ireland-border-brexit.html
But then I see this
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/stanley-johnson-irish-will-shoot-each-other-brexit-news-gmb/
-
This is deeply depressing and I think that it is way over the top
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/england-ireland-border-brexit.html
But then I see this
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/stanley-johnson-irish-will-shoot-each-other-brexit-news-gmb/
Why is the media concentrating on the likes of Johnson?
-
Why is the media concentrating on the likes of Johnson?
Maybe because Corbyn is useless.
-
Maybe because Corbyn is useless.
Do you really believe that or have you ever thought that Johnson reflects their right wing gammonry?
-
Do you really believe that or have you ever thought that Johnson reflects their right wing gammonry?
I suggested an alternative. You are suggesting a conclusion. Evidence?
-
Maybe because Corbyn is useless.
Isn’t he May’s enabler?
-
Isn’t he May’s enabler?
How does that work then?
-
How does that work then?
You ever watched PMQs?
-
You ever watched PMQs?
Not these days. I rather like my TV set and I would not wish to risk the damage which would ensue from me watching PMQ.
-
Oh, you're back.
As for Corbyn being useless, he demolished May's majority at the last election, against all expectations.
-
Oh, you're back.
As for Corbyn being useless, he demolished May's majority at the last election, against all expectations.
And his position on Brexit is?????????????
-
Oh, you're back.
As for Corbyn being useless, he demolished May's majority at the last election, against all expectations.
Do you really think so? I thought that she did it all by herself.
This raises another point. In the United Kingdom we do not vote for prime ministers. Prime ministers are selected by parliamentary political parties and appointed by the monarch. It is quite feasible for an election campaign to be led by a particular individual resulting in the party concerned winning the greatest number of seats but that individual either not being elected in his or her constituency or not being supported by the elected MPs. Constitutionally we vote for individuals not for governments.
-
Do you really think so? I thought that she did it all by herself.
This raises another point. In the United Kingdom we do not vote for prime ministers. Prime ministers are selected by parliamentary political parties and appointed by the monarch. It is quite feasible for an election campaign to be led by a particular individual resulting in the party concerned winning the greatest number of seats but that individual either not being elected in his or her constituency or not being supported by the elected MPs. Constitutionally we vote for individuals not for governments.
Theoretically, yes. In practise, we vote for parties.
-
And his position on Brexit is?????????????
A customs union?
-
Labour seem to be saying that they could negotiate a customs union (not the customs union), more easily. I have no idea if this is correct, and similarly with the Irish border. Corbyn is certainly suspect on Brexit, as he seemed all agog for it, until recently. However, I would take a chance on them doing a better deal, partly because Starmer shows some intelligence.
-
Seeing a lot of stuff on Twitter that there is either a customs union deal or no deal as far as EU are concerned. If it is that then surely Labour end up saving May?
-
I would think that the possibility of (say) Vauxhall ceasing manufacture of motor vehicles in the UK and of other motor manufacturers expressing their concerns about the practicality of manufacture in the UK (after all, the Indian-owned "British" company Jaguar-Land Rover has a plant in Slovakia...) is concerning Jeremy Corbyn. It cannot be easy for a Labour Party leader to consider the wholesale closure of a manufacturing industry.
-
Parliament voted through the EU Referendum Bill, there isn't a majority for not doing Brexit.
That doesn't make it not absurd.
It was a side point.
So you don't think Brexit would get through if we had a referendum now.
That quip refers to politicians holding positions, not the positions that politicians hold. You honestly think that in a week there could be a Parliamentary majority for another referendum?
The quote - attributed to Harold Wilson - reflects the fact that things change fast in politics. It does not mean that I expect things to literally change in a week.
A parliamentary democracy doesn't work on the basis on what people are happy with but what that Parliament is able to pass into Law.
Why didn't they ignore the stupid referendum then? At the time it happened, a majority of MPs were against leaving the EU. It's probably still true now, but they're all too cowardly to challenge the idea of Brexit in spite of the fact that this is, as you rightly point out, a parliamentary democracy and we shouldn't be defining policy based on the basis of what people were happy with on one day in June 2016.
-
I would think that the possibility of (say) Vauxhall ceasing manufacture of motor vehicles in the UK and of other motor manufacturers expressing their concerns about the practicality of manufacture in the UK (after all, the Indian-owned "British" company Jaguar-Land Rover has a plant in Slovakia...) is concerning Jeremy Corbyn. It cannot be easy for a Labour Party leader to consider the wholesale closure of a manufacturing industry.
Yes, Corbyn's inner mantra of "British jobs for British workers' is meaningless if there are no jobs to be had in the first place.
-
Oh, you're back.
As for Corbyn being useless, he demolished May's majority at the last election, against all expectations.
It's depressing that so many Corbynites and people of the left treat that election as a victory. The prime minister is still Theresa May.
Yes Corbyn did very well compared to to his polling before the election campaign started, but you have to ask why was his polling so bad? He was up a against a government that was chiefly remembered for cutting public services to the bone for austerity and holding a referendum just to stop the Conservative party from tearing itself apart. After the referendum, the prime minister ran away leading to a period of back stabbing that didn't really stop even after a new leader was elected. Any half way decent party would have been miles ahead in the polls and would have destroyed the Tories if May had been stupid enough to call an election.
Corbyn is totally useless.
-
It's depressing that so many Corbynites and people of the left treat that election as a victory. The prime minister is still Theresa May.
Yes Corbyn did very well compared to to his polling before the election campaign started, but you have to ask why was his polling so bad? He was up a against a government that was chiefly remembered for cutting public services to the bone for austerity and holding a referendum just to stop the Conservative party from tearing itself apart. After the referendum, the prime minister ran away leading to a period of back stabbing that didn't really stop even after a new leader was elected. Any half way decent party would have been miles ahead in the polls and would have destroyed the Tories if May had been stupid enough to call an election.
Corbyn is totally useless.
I agree with this, at best we now have a weak government that is incapable of getting a vaguely decent Brexit deal. What we could have had is a strong Labour government which would be better on every level, or a strong and determined opposition. We have neither.
-
Why didn't they ignore the stupid referendum then? At the time it happened, a majority of MPs were against leaving the EU. It's probably still true now, but they're all too cowardly to challenge the idea of Brexit in spite of the fact that this is, as you rightly point out, a parliamentary democracy and we shouldn't be defining policy based on the basis of what people were happy with on one day in June 2016.
So you would advocate after Parliament decided to give the people a vote get the result they don't want and just ignore it?
Can you see how that might be something of a problem?
And before you start with the fake news, i.e. it was just done to calm a wing of the Tory party, UKIP won an EU election and the referendum passed through Parliament with an overwhelming majority with support from all sides.
-
Oh, you're back.
As for Corbyn being useless, he demolished May's majority at the last election, against all expectations.
Former LibDem speaking here can't support that party currently because of their position on Brexit, couldn't vote for Corbyn since I think he would bankrupt the country, left me with Tories. Then May starts her campaign, actually mentions foxhunting and announces policy that was defensible and folds under slightest scrutiny, the worst election campaign I can ever recall.
A centrist Labour MP would have won that election by a landslide would certainly have got my vote.
I challenged your Corbyn economic policy on the Corbyn thread no defence to be heard, in fact the only defence of Corbyn policy I have ever heard is 'what about the Tories', literally whataboutery.
-
Owen Paterson MP has just told Sky News that he saw European workers leaving a construction site covered in dust, and that "British " workers told him "We are voting to get rid of THEM" indicating the Europeans. And he is behaving as if he is proud of the same.
I have no comment.
-
So you would advocate after Parliament decided to give the people a vote get the result they don't want and just ignore it?
Well parliament should never have given the people the referendum in the first place, but yes, the politicians should be ignoring it. Maybe not at the time, but it has since become very clear that leaving the EU in an orderly, non destructive fashion is next to impossible.
Can you see how that might be something of a problem?
As you said, this is a parliamentary democracy. We shouldn't be using referendums at all.
And before you start with the fake news, i.e. it was just done to calm a wing of the Tory party,
Why would you describe that as fake news when it is true?
UKIP won an EU election
You mean they got some seats.
and the referendum passed through Parliament with an overwhelming majority with support from all sides.
Which is another abrogation of the principle of parliamentary democracy. These guys are really pathetic.
-
Well parliament should never have given the people the referendum in the first place, but yes, the politicians should be ignoring it. Maybe not at the time, but it has since become very clear that leaving the EU in an orderly, non destructive fashion is next to impossible.
As you said, this is a parliamentary democracy. We shouldn't be using referendums at all.
A parliamentary democracy can pass into law a referendum, if the should depends on if there is a democratic consensus in Parliament.
Why would you describe that as fake news when it is true?
For that to be true then only Tory MP's would have put through the EU Referendum Bill, there was support from Labour for it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157
You mean they got some seats.
Nope.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-27572451/farage-hails-extraordinary-ukip-win-in-european-election
-
A parliamentary democracy can pass into law a referendum,
It's hardly a parliamentary democracy if it is too cowardly to make the decision without a referendum.
For that to be true then only Tory MP's would have put through the EU Referendum Bill, there was support from Labour for it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33067157
I don't follow the logic. Why does Labour voting for the referendum exclude the possibility that it was proposed as a way to keep the Tory Party together? Also Labour was pretty well split over the EU in the same way as the Tories.
I will concede one point though. It wasn't proposed just to keep the Tory Party together but also to boot in to UKIP.
Nope.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-27572451/farage-hails-extraordinary-ukip-win-in-european-election
You're claiming that getting a little over a quarter of the seats is a victory? OK, so they got more votes than any other individual party but it was still less than one third. And guess what? Most ofd the seats in the EU Parliament are not occupied by Euro sceptics.
-
It's hardly a parliamentary democracy if it is too cowardly to make the decision without a referendum.
It can't make the decision having given a referendum, take a centrist Politician, could be Tory - LibDem - Labour and they are very concerned about UKIP so they support a vote. They can't then simply ignore it.
I don't follow the logic. Why does Labour voting for the referendum exclude the possibility that it was proposed as a way to keep the Tory Party together? Also Labour was pretty well split over the EU in the same way as the Tories.
I said this was would be fake 'it was just done to calm a wing of the Tory party' it wasn't just the Tories that were spooked by UKIP it was all parties.
I will concede one point though. It wasn't proposed just to keep the Tory Party together but also to boot in to UKIP.
You concede the point I was making.
You're claiming that getting a little over a quarter of the seats is a victory? OK, so they got more votes than any other individual party but it was still less than one third. And guess what? Most ofd the seats in the EU Parliament are not occupied by Euro sceptics.
Does that matter to the point I was making; is that all politicians were spooked by UKIP.
You seem to think that Parliament will simply not do Brexit by means of some magic, the only way to reverse Brexit is another vote, no other options exist, you might think there should be but given MP's voting history it is not going to happen.
-
My gut feeling is that there will be another vote.
It may not come immediately. I think that it is likely that the date of the final departure will be put back another year. The process of "unravelling" which starts in March will be so troublesome that - at some point during the process - public disquiet will have grown so great that the question will have to be put again to the population.
The likelihood then is that the disentangling process will be aborted and the United Kingdom will simply assume the position it had held before Cameron's act of political stupidity.
A possible bonus is that the whole affair might prompt a serious examination of the United Kingdom constitution - including a consideration of whether a Parliamentary system designed in the early part of the nineteenth century is fit for purpose in the twenty first.
-
It can't make the decision having given a referendum, take a centrist Politician, could be Tory - LibDem - Labour and they are very concerned about UKIP so they support a vote. They can't then simply ignore it.
Yes they can. They just don't have the balls.
You seem to think that Parliament will simply not do Brexit by means of some magic, the only way to reverse Brexit is another vote, no other options exist, you might think there should be but given MP's voting history it is not going to happen.
Theresa may could stop Brexit today if she had the nerve. Yes, it would probably bring about the collapse of the government, but we can have a general election and get a new government. Once Brexit is done, it will take years, maybe decades to repair the damage.
Be honest, do you think the negotiations are going well?
-
Yes they can. They just don't have the balls.
They do not have the political capital to do it.
Theresa may could stop Brexit today if she had the nerve. Yes, it would probably bring about the collapse of the government,
LOL its democracy she would lose the support of her party and be out of job in no time, there are already murmurings she might face a challenge this week.
but we can have a general election and get a new government. Once Brexit is done, it will take years, maybe decades to repair the damage.
What new government, the best you can hope for is a hung Parliament with the LibDems getting into a coalition and forcing another vote. Labour would do Brexit, hard to tell what they will do actually because the Marxists will want out.
The damage caused... yeah try Corbyn we will be bankrupt in fours years make Brexit insignificant.
Be honest, do you think the negotiations are going well?
The EU have offered Norway or Canada +++, if Labour were not holding the country hostage for political gain a Norway type deal would get through Parliament.
Whatever happens has to get through Parliament, no scenario you present will happen, that is political reality.
-
They do not have the political capital to do it.
What do you think "political capital" is. All it means is that they can't do it without risking the end of their careers. They could do it if they had the balls.
LOL its democracy she would lose the support of her party and be out of job in no time, there are already murmurings she might face a challenge this week.
But she would have done the right thing.
Whatever happens has to get through Parliament, no scenario you present will happen, that is political reality.
Because nobody has the courage to do the right thing. And we will inevitably end up with no deal because all the politicians are putting their own jobs ahead of the welfare of everybody else. It's disgusting.
-
They do not have the political capital to do it.
LOL its democracy she would lose the support of her party and be out of job in no time, there are already murmurings she might face a challenge this week.
What new government, the best you can hope for is a hung Parliament with the LibDems getting into a coalition and forcing another vote. Labour would do Brexit, hard to tell what they will do actually because the Marxists will want out.
The damage caused... yeah try Corbyn we will be bankrupt in fours years make Brexit insignificant.
Corbyn need not do anything and still be a giant of a leader.
Here is the record of the tories.
2016 A deal with the EU will be the easiest thing in the world.
2017 Nobody said that a deal would be easy.
2018 We will not know what the benefits are until 50 years after Brexit
2018 We are turning the M26 into acar park for delayed vehicles.
2018 There will food and drug shortages.
-
2019 - state of emergency.
2020 - zombie apocalypse.
2021 - nuclear armageddon.
-
What do you think "political capital" is. All it means is that they can't do it without risking the end of their careers. They could do it if they had the balls.
Technically they could do it, they won't though.
But she would have done the right thing.
Explain the process, for Art50 to be reversed it has to get through Parliament, May can present a Bill that would reverse Art50 but it would not get through Parliament.
Because nobody has the courage to do the right thing. And we will inevitably end up with no deal because all the politicians are putting their own jobs ahead of the welfare of everybody else. It's disgusting.
The 'right thing' according to you, each politician does the right thing according to them.
-
Corbyn need not do anything and still be a giant of a leader.
Here is the record of the tories.
2016 A deal with the EU will be the easiest thing in the world.
2017 Nobody said that a deal would be easy.
2018 We will not know what the benefits are until 50 years after Brexit
2018 We are turning the M26 into acar park for delayed vehicles.
2018 There will food and drug shortages.
Whataboutery 101, this is all the Marxists have. :(
-
Whataboutery 101, this is all the Marxists have. :(
::) Given our undemocratic FPTP voting system, choosing who to vote for is (at least for me) all about which party/leader is the least bad. UK politics is all about 'whataboutery'.
Also, calling people who think Corbyn is the least bad option, or even his ardent supporters, 'Marxists' is childish in the extreme.
-
::) Given our undemocratic FPTP voting system, choosing who to vote for is (at least for me) all about which party/leader is the least bad. UK politics is all about 'whataboutery'.
So in defence of Tory policy its ok for a Tory to defend it by saying how bad labour would be.
Also, calling people who think Corbyn is the least bad option, or even his ardent supporters, 'Marxists' is childish in the extreme.
Well since one of his biggest supporters, the shadow chancellor, is on the record as being a Marxist I think you have wildly overstated your position, making yourself look very silly, you might say childish.
-
Explain the process, for Art50 to be reversed it has to get through Parliament, May can present a Bill that would reverse Art50 but it would not get through Parliament.
No it doesn't. It would have to be OK'd by the EU, but the government could stop it now if the EU agreed.
The 'right thing' according to you, each politician does the right thing according to them.
Does the Brexit thing look like it's going well to you? Can't you agree that, whether or not Brexit is good in principle, what is actually happening is a complete shambles?
-
No it doesn't. It would have to be OK'd by the EU, but the government could stop it now if the EU agreed.
It took me 2 seconds I'm not evening opening the page but here is a result of a Google search.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 — UK Parliament
https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016.../europeanunionnotificationofwithdrawal.htm...
A Bill to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the EU.
I think the PM cannot revoke Art50 without another act.
Oh and here JC on that Bill; Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "I am asking all our MPs not to block Article 50 and make sure it goes through next week".
Does the Brexit thing look like it's going well to you? Can't you agree that, whether or not Brexit is good in principle, what is actually happening is a complete shambles?
A Norway type or Canda +++ deal is on the cards, as stated I would expect a Norway deal to get through Parliament. Labour could come out tomorrow and say they would support Norway type deal and it would get through, Labour could also support another vote but don't seem to want to, maybe as they were Pro-Brexit at the last election.
-
Oh and here JC on that Bill; Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "I am asking all our MPs not to block Article 50 and make sure it goes through next week".
The MPs don't have to follow his lead. If all the MPs in parliament that privately thought Brexit was wrong got together and stood up for their principles, Brexit wouldn't happen. It might be the ends of their careers, but they would be sacrificing their jobs for the future of their country. This is not unprecedented although it seems unlikely now.
A Norway type or Canda +++ deal is on the cards, as stated I would expect a Norway deal to get through Parliament. Labour could come out tomorrow and say they would support Norway type deal and it would get through, Labour could also support another vote but don't seem to want to, maybe as they were Pro-Brexit at the last election.
The Norway deal won't get through the Tory Party. It's a bad deal for in pretty much everybody in Britain's opinion in that it is the same as being in the EU but without having any control over EU law. So for the Remainers, staying in would be better and for the Leavers, pretty much anything else would be better except staying in.
-
The MPs don't have to follow his lead. If all the MPs in parliament that privately thought Brexit was wrong got together and stood up for their principles, Brexit wouldn't happen. It might be the ends of their careers, but they would be sacrificing their jobs for the future of their country. This is not unprecedented although it seems unlikely now.
MPs in parliament might privately think Brexit was a bad idea but stick to the principle that since they opted to give the country a vote they have to honour the result.
The Norway deal won't get through the Tory Party. It's a bad deal for in pretty much everybody in Britain's opinion in that it is the same as being in the EU but without having any control over EU law. So for the Remainers, staying in would be better and for the Leavers, pretty much anything else would be better except staying in.
A Norway type deal has to get through Parliament, if it doesn't get a majority of Tory MP support that doesn't matter.
So given the choice would you prefer Norway or Canada +++?
-
http://newsthump.com/2018/10/23/hard-brexit-supporter-james-dyson-to-build-patriotic-new-car-plant-in-nearby-singapore/
-
So given the choice would you prefer Norway or Canada +++?
Remain would possibly be better than those?
-
Remain would possibly be better than those?
Spud, well done. You've seen the light.
-
Spud, well done. You've seen the light.
I'm pro-EU but I don't agree with unlimited migration. But I think the idea of limiting immigration to those earning over a certain very high amount isn't good. I know migration is complex but that's not a fair solution. Perhaps there should be something akin to a waiting list, it seems to work quite well for the local allotments?
-
I'm pro-EU but I don't agree with unlimited migration. But I think the idea of limiting immigration to those earning over a certain very high amount isn't good. I know migration is complex but that's not a fair solution. Perhaps there should be something akin to a waiting list, it seems to work quite well for the local allotments?
Erm...
-
I'm pro-EU but I don't agree with unlimited migration. But I think the idea of limiting immigration to those earning over a certain very high amount isn't good. I know migration is complex but that's not a fair solution. Perhaps there should be something akin to a waiting list, it seems to work quite well for the local allotments?
Except since we also need people to provide their skills that is a specious analogy.
-
MPs in parliament might privately think Brexit was a bad idea but stick to the principle that since they opted to give the country a vote they have to honour the result.
Don't you think that is craven cowardice though? If the MP truly believes Brexit will be a disaster, shouldn't they be doing everything they can to stop it?
A Norway type deal has to get through Parliament, if it doesn't get a majority of Tory MP support that doesn't matter.
It does matter if the dissenters force a leadership election or a general election.
So given the choice would you prefer Norway or Canada +++?
Norway. But if we decide on Norway, don't you agree that it would be better to stay in the EU?
-
Don't you think that is craven cowardice though? If the MP truly believes Brexit will be a disaster, shouldn't they be doing everything they can to stop it?
No, for a start I don't think that many MP's think it will be a disaster, the centrists sure, others think it is better to stay than leave but they are like Corbyn, i.e. 7/10. Given a 7/10, ignoring a vote, having given the public a vote in the first place would undermine the entire country.
It does matter if the dissenters force a leadership election or a general election.
I think the time for this has gone, if it was going to happen it would have happened.
Norway. But if we decide on Norway, don't you agree that it would be better to stay in the EU?
No, I want an end to political union, Norway is result I hoped for.
-
Open the border and let 'em all in. If Tories, Kippers and BNPers hate it, it must be right.
-
No, for a start I don't think that many MP's think it will be a disaster
That wasn't the point. You were asked to hypothesise a situation in which an MP believes Brexit to be a disaster and answer if that MP is a coward for supporting Brexit.
As a concrete example, in one debate Margaret Beckett said she thought Brexit would be a catastrophe but she would support the party line anyway. Don't you think that is craven cowardice?
No, I want an end to political union, Norway is result I hoped for.
Norway doesn't end political union. It's exactly the same as being in the EU but without any say as to what its rules are. How can that possibly be better than being properly in the EU?
-
Wow! I didn't know that. And there was I thinking that we joined the Common Market following a general election called by Edward Heath in which such joining was a stated policy. I have no idea what mind bending substance I must have been on to have imagined something as bizarre as that! Was it co-ordinated by the same people that produced the fake lunar landings?
Of course, Sass, it may have been you that was taking mind bending substances. Why else would you make up this tripe?
Harrowby, the tone is not necessary. Everyone voted but the ballot papers were not counted regionally. They were sent to London and all counted together. I was too young to vote but I do remember everyone complaining about the way they counted the votes all together in London.
-
The days of the Scottish tail being wagged by the Westminster dog are long gone, Sass.
There is seething resentmrnt here - and not just amongst Nationalists - that, as the late Labour Frirst Minister said "The democratic will of the Scottiah people" is being steamrollered.
This will lead to asecond Indy ref once the burach of Brexit isworked out and we see just how terrible things will be in Scotland.
What you SHOULD worry about, though, is Northern Ireland.
It's all very well saying the majority of the so-called UK voted to leave - the majority in NI - both sides - voted to remain.
That Westminster ignores their wishes and creates a division that the albeit very fragile peace process healed between north and south, should worry you just as much as the problems finding medicines, paying more for your food, etc, will.
There isn't an argument is there. The vote is to exit...The truth is for myself, I like Scotland and the way they support their disabled, no time limit badges for parking and the way they ensure their needs looked after. But if we are both honest and truthful, we know that votes which concern us as a United Kingdom cannot be based on history or personal vendetta. We won't all agree on everything but brexit needs to happen. How planned do you think Gods end is?
-
Harrowby, the tone is not necessary. Everyone voted but the ballot papers were not counted regionally. They were sent to London and all counted together. I was too young to vote but I do remember everyone complaining about the way they counted the votes all together in London.
I take it you're talking about the 1975 referendum, in which case you and HH are talking at cross purposes.
-
I take it you're talking about the 1975 referendum, in which case you and HH are talking at cross purposes.
Yes, because we didn't join the Common Market as a result of a referendum. Edward Heath took us in as a manifesto pledge. Harold Wilson then organised the referendum to decide whether we should stay in.
-
The votes weren't all taken to London to be countrd, but the official result in terms of the total votes was announced in London.
-
a view from Canada
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-a-self-destructive-madness-grips-the-uk-as-a-no-deal-brexit-looms/
-
That wasn't the point. You were asked to hypothesise a situation in which an MP believes Brexit to be a disaster and answer if that MP is a coward for supporting Brexit.
If MP's thought the moon was made of cheese then whatever.
As a concrete example, in one debate Margaret Beckett said she thought Brexit would be a catastrophe but she would support the party line anyway. Don't you think that is craven cowardice?
I presume she voted for the EU Referendum Bill in the first place and feels she has little choice. I don't get what point you are making, you think they are all cowards, I've no interest in changing your opinion.
Norway doesn't end political union. It's exactly the same as being in the EU but without any say as to what its rules are. How can that possibly be better than being properly in the EU?
The rules relating to goods, out of Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy and no ECJ.
It is your most preferred choice.
-
Budget gives the impression that the Tory party are like the spoilt child forced to invite the dull kids to its birthday party, taking their presents and congratulating itself on grudgingly allowing them garibaldi biscuits and squash while it laid into the vol a vents, jelly and cherryade.
-
Arron Banks is apparently fishing in Bermuda...……..I wonder if he'll be going to Nicaragua.
-
He can go to hell in a handbasket for all I care.
-
And in today's Brexit is shit...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/05/brexit-metropolitan-police-rush-set-up-no-deal-safety-net-unit
-
Personally, I find it surprising that you need to have a law that says animals feel pain, but we will be getting rid of it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html
This is worrying because it paves the way to getting rid of the laws that do actually provide protection for animals and thence for doing away with the laws that protect us.
-
This is laugh/cry territory - in the event of no deal, hauliers would need permits to drive in the EU. There would not be enough, so there would be a lottery. Is this stuff for real?
-
Personally, I find it surprising that you need to have a law that says animals feel pain, but we will be getting rid of it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html
This is worrying because it paves the way to getting rid of the laws that do actually provide protection for animals and thence for ing away with the laws that protect us.
Really?...…...I wonder if Dawkins and his little wizards realised the dangers of casually bandying stuff about glorified chimpanzees and glorified apes.
-
Really?...…...I wonder if Dawkins and his little wizards realised the dangers of casually bandying stuff about glorified chimpanzees and glorified apes.
Why don't you ask him yourself?
Or has your stalking ban not expired? ;)
-
A new poll on Brexit has Remain leading by eight points
https://www.channel4.com/news/major-new-brexit-poll-shows-voters-swinging-towards-remain
The democracy argument is wearing a bit thin.
-
A new poll on Brexit has Remain leading by eight points
https://www.channel4.com/news/major-new-brexit-poll-shows-voters-swinging-towards-remain
The democracy argument is wearing a bit thin.
Be sure to lets us know when someone makes that argument?
-
Be sure to lets us know when someone makes that argument?
This one?
British Prime Minister Theresa May has categorically ruled out a second Brexit referendum, saying it would be a "gross betrayal" of democracy and trust.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-rules-out-another-brexit-referendum-2018-9
-
Be sure to lets us know when someone makes that argument?
That's a joke right?
-
That's a joke right?
Whom is making the arguement we should leave EU because opinion polls show majority support leaving.
-
Whom is making the arguement we should leave EU because opinion polls show majority support leaving.
Are you answering questions only you can hear?
-
Whom is making the arguement we should leave EU because opinion polls show majority support leaving.
You tell me. I have never claimed that anybody is making that argument.
I have heard many people claim that we need to leave the EU because the referendum was "democracy". However, it really only showed the will of the people on one particulate day in June 2016. The evidence, with Remain having an eight point lead in the polls, is that that will no longer exists.
-
You tell me. I have never claimed that anybody is making that argument.
I have heard many people claim that we need to leave the EU because the referendum was "democracy". However, it really only showed the will of the people on one particulate day in June 2016. The evidence, with Remain having an eight point lead in the polls, is that that will no longer exists.
You implied that was the arguement from citing polls.
Ok so you are now arguing that the if the people vote and an opinion polls comes in showing people would vote differently then you have to go back the people?
I don't agree but it is a valid argument.
-
You implied that was the arguement from citing polls.
No I didn't. I actually just said "the democracy argument". There was an implication, but given my posting history on this, you probably could have inferred the right one.
Ok so you are now arguing that the if the people vote and an opinion polls comes in showing people would vote differently then you have to go back the people?
I am arguing that the "we had a referendum therefore we have to do it because democracy" argument is unsustainable. If the government were to decide to stop Brexit, I don't think it is something that can be used against them with any credibility.
-
No I didn't. I actually just said "the democracy argument". There was an implication, but given my posting history on this, you probably could have inferred the right one.
I am arguing that the "we had a referendum therefore we have to do it because democracy" argument is unsustainable. If the government were to decide to stop Brexit, I don't think it is something that can be used against them with any credibility.
Yes I know you think that, the politician's don't though and since they are the ones with the power to stop Brexit it is their opinions that matter.
-
Yes I know you think that, the politician's don't though
And my point is that they are wrong to do so.
Anyway, it looks like at least one politician has seen the error of his ways
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46162114
-
Yes I know you think that, the politician's don't though ...
Bit by bit we are seeing politicians changing their minds - latest being Jo Johnson. And there is only one direction of travel here.
-
Yes I know you think that, the politician's don't though and since they are the ones with the power to stop Brexit it is their opinions that matter.
Of late, it seems your entire argument boils down to "we must do Brexit because the politicians won't stop". Have you got anything more positive to say in its favour still left?
-
Of late, it seems your entire argument boils down to "we must do Brexit because the politicians won't stop". Have you got anything more positive to say in its favour still left?
Agrred.
That reminds me of the origins of WW1.
As one MP said....We must go to war....we have treaties to uphold, and gentlemen cannot rewrite them"
-
Agrred.
That reminds me of the origins of WW1.
As one MP said....We must go to war....we have treaties to uphold, and gentlemen cannot rewrite them"
Are you suggesting we should have reneged on our treaty with Belgium and that we should have turned our backs on our European allies?
-
Are you suggesting we should have reneged on our treaty with Belgium and that we should have turned our backs on our European allies?
With hindsight - a gift those who formulated the 'gentlemens agreements' which led to WW1did not have...the posturing gesures of imperial sabre rattling which led to the slaughter of so many disenfranchised cannon fodder in the trenches was preventable; as is the 'littkle englander' attitude which infests Torysism and is so repugnant to those in my nation who rejected it in 2016.
-
With hindsight - a gift those who formulated the 'gentlemens agreements'
They were not gentlemen's agreements, they were international treaties.
which led to WW1did not have
Well I suppose it is progress that you acknowledge we have the advantage of knowing how bad the First World War was going to be.
the posturing gesures of imperial sabre rattling which led to the slaughter of so many disenfranchised cannon fodder in the trenches was preventable; as is the 'littkle englander' attitude which infests Torysism and is so repugnant to those in my nation who rejected it in 2016.
You still haven't answered the question I posed. Should we have reneged on our obligations to our European friends?
It's obvious from our advantageous point of view that it would have been better for us to keep out of it or, if the Germans had knocked out France in the first few months of the war (as they nearly did). But I don't think it was politically (or legally) possible for the British leaders of the time to stay out of the war.
-
Bit by bit we are seeing politicians changing their minds - latest being Jo Johnson. And there is only one direction of travel here.
JeremyP's position is that the Govt should just not do Brexit and any democratic argument thrown against them would fail. Jo Johnson argues for another vote, a different position.
-
Haven't the govt painted themselves into a corner? They have rejected something like a Norway deal, Chequers is disliked by most Tory MPs, maybe some kind of withdrawal agreement is possible, which will give them a delay. Is this what anyone wanted?
-
Of late, it seems your entire argument boils down to "we must do Brexit because the politicians won't stop". Have you got anything more positive to say in its favour still left?
No I've not argued recently for Brexit that argument is over for now. Your view is that politicians should not do Brexit, I'm just trying to explain to you why that won't happen, you might get another vote though, odds on Betfair of that happening 3.5, c. 25% implied probability.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.132100845
Give you a hot betting tip, bet the opposite way that Davey predicts, his track record is one of epic wrongness. :)
The worry I would have if I were you is this; if you get another vote I think Corbyn will back the question being binary, i.e. accept deal or leave no deal.
-
JeremyP's position is that the Govt should just not do Brexit and any democratic argument thrown against them would fail. Jo Johnson argues for another vote, a different position.
No, my position is that “the referendum said so, so we must” can no longer be claimed as an argument from democracy.
Not that “because it is the will of the people” was ever an argument that whatever the will of the people is right.
-
No I've not argued recently for Brexit that argument is over for now.
No it isn’t.
you might get another vote though, odds on Betfair of that happening 3.5, c. 25% implied probability.
You understand that betting odds are nothing more than a reflection of what options people are putting money on, don’t you?
The worry I would have if I were you is this; if you get another vote I think Corbyn will back the question being binary, i.e. accept deal or leave no deal.
I agree that is a worry. The correct question would be “accept the deal or stay in the EU?” Or probably a two stage question e.g. “Accept the deal or don’t?” followed by “if we reject the deal should we go for no deal or stay in the EU?” On the same ballot.
-
No, my position is that “the referendum said so, so we must” can no longer be claimed as an argument from democracy.
I think that misrepresents the argument May made but take it up with her.
-
No it isn’t.
For me it is.
You understand that betting odds are nothing more than a reflection of what options people are putting money on, don’t you?
Of course I think, the probability of another vote at about 25% sounds about right, I'm not putting money on it. If you think the probability is higher than put your money where your mouth is, quite literally!
I agree that is a worry. The correct question would be “accept the deal or stay in the EU?” Or probably a two stage question e.g. “Accept the deal or don’t?” followed by “if we reject the deal should we go for no deal or stay in the EU?” On the same ballot.
The correct question? The question in your opinion.
-
put your money where your mouth is, quite literally!
If he took all his money out of his wallet and held it to his mouth, he'd be literally putting his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, it's metaphorical.
-
The correct question? The question in your opinion.
And my opinion is right in this instance. The only reason to leave "stay in the EU off the ballot would be because Brexit politicians fear it would be the most popular answer.
-
And my opinion is right in this instance. The only reason to leave "stay in the EU off the ballot would be because Brexit politicians fear it would be the most popular answer.
Do you mean that if there is another vote you are 100% certain there will be a stay option?
-
Do you mean that if there is another vote you are 100% certain there will be a stay option?
The fear is there won't be.
What is certain is that brexitters will mentally have to divide themselves between what they have done and the consequences of what they have done.
-
Do you mean that if there is another vote you are 100% certain there will be a stay option?
No. I think there is a realistic concern that there won't be. The choice should be between "take the deal" and "do nothing", not "take the deal" and "hit the nuclear button". Unfortunately, the Brexit politicians seem to one mostly in denial about our current situation and unable to contemplate the possibility that we might want to reject their ideas.
-
No. I think there is a realistic concern that there won't be. The choice should be between "take the deal" and "do nothing", not "take the deal" and "hit the nuclear button". Unfortunately, the Brexit politicians seem to one mostly in denial about our current situation and unable to contemplate the possibility that we might want to reject their ideas.
Still don't understand 'my opinion is right' statement.
You can flip your last statement 'the remain politicians seemed to have been mostly in denial about our previous situation and unable to contemplate the possibility that we might want to reject their ideas' to apply to pre-2016 as they gave us the referendum in the first place.
-
You can flip your last statement 'the remain politicians seemed to have been mostly in denial about our previous situation and unable to contemplate the possibility that we might want to reject their ideas' to apply to pre-2016 as they gave us the referendum in the first place.
We all knew what it was like to live in the EU because we experienced it every day. Nobody was in denial about it, although its character was often lied about in the press and by the more extreme Brexiteers. But only the Brexiteers are in denial about the chaotic nature of the current Brexit process.
-
Reports that a deal has been done. Resignations to follow?
-
No, my position is that “the referendum said so, so we must” can no longer be claimed as an argument from democracy.
Interestingly, your tag in quotes seems to be Jeremy Corbin's view, in one of his increasingly rare comments on the matter. But not Keir Starmer's - who thinks the opposite.
Some interesting waffle from labour spokespersons trying to reconcile these antithetical positions as if they expressed consistent Labour policy.
-
We all knew what it was like to live in the EU because we experienced it every day. Nobody was in denial about it, although its character was often lied about in the press and by the more extreme Brexiteers. But only the Brexiteers are in denial about the chaotic nature of the current Brexit process.
Is this the EU without an Army or a future that has one. :)
-
Is this the EU without an Army or a future that has one. :)
I have no preference either way, although I think it would be a good idea if the EU cooperated on defence in some form.
-
I think we've now reached the stage of Brexit where I will hide under the duvet for a bit. Tell me when it's over.
-
Is this the EU without an Army or a future that has one. :)
What's wrong with an EU defence force?
Would they park weapons of mass destruction next to a nation'ssecondcity asWestminster has, despite manifest opposition from all quarters for decades?
No, such aforce might stop some of the useless wars we sent our young men to die in.
-
I think we've now reached the stage of Brexit where I will hide under the duvet for a bit. Tell me when it's over.
I wonder if it ever will be. The present "text" is presumably for a withdrawal agreement, during which negotiations will continue. And maybe after that.
-
I was talking to a HGV driver at the weekend, who tells a very similar story to my mate up in Grimsby - voted Leave after wage cuts and a loss of job security following in influx of drivers from Poland and Romania. Now, he says, a lot of the Poles have left - partly Brexit, partly the fact that Poland is now doing rather well, and partly the fact that a lot of the drivers have finished what they came here to do - make enough to buy a house or give their kids a leg up. This pleases him as he now feels more secure. We were discussing his working patterns: 'the boats come in from Rotterdam on a Tuesday morning...' and I didn't like to ask what happens when the ships stop coming, or can't unload due to regs and customs.
-
...' and I didn't like to ask what happens when the ships stop coming, or can't unload due to regs and customs.
That was uncharacteristically reticent of you, Rhi. ;)
It is a pity you didn't ask. It would have been interesting to learn how he now perceived the consequences of his vote.
-
It looks like there might be a deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46203425
However, I suspect, if Labour doesn't get behind it, it might get rejected by parliament.
-
They thrashed out the final details over a working Brexit.
-
Tory Helen Whately smirking on BBC news now.
-
The Brexiteer if only'
If only there had been a brexiteer PM............They all bottled out.
If only A brexiteer had been in charge of negotiations".......................what was David Davis doing.
If only David Davis had been allowed to go in hard.............................How can anyone who seeks to be allowed possibly be capable of going in hard.
-
If only there was a second referendum, I suspect the majority would vote to remain this time around. It appears that the UK will be much worse off economically, and in others ways too, if Brexit goes ahead.
-
And now Dominic Raab - the Brexit Secretary - has resigned.
May we live in interesting times ...
-
It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry: and it ain't over yet.
-
And now Dominic Raab - the Brexit Secretary - has resigned.
May we live in interesting times ...
I wouldn't be surprised if there are more resignations today, which could topple May, or even bring about a general election.
-
Self centred prick.
-
And now Dominic Raab - the Brexit Secretary - has resigned.
May we live in interesting times ...
Evrybody's high on consolation.........he's go-o-o-o-o-ne.............what went wroooooooooooong?
-
Weird that somebody who was part of negotiation, has jumped ship. It suggests that he was peripheral. Who's next?
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there are more resignations today, which could topple May, or even bring about a general election.
We can but hope.
-
I think the Ultras would love to topple May, but they will be wary of an election, too unpredictable. I wonder if Johnson is preparing his acceptance speech.
-
Please let McVey go.
-
I wonder if Johnson is preparing his acceptance speech.
Well. He's a dead cert for PM. isn't he. I mean, as Foreign Secretary he was superb. The assured way he negotiated the freedom of Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe ...
-
Could mean Jo?
I wouldn't mind having a flutter on a Miliband moment there.
-
She's gone!
-
McVey flew away!
Raab drove off in a Saab!
Johnson sang his swan-song!
-
Blackford was right. May consulted Giberalterand Isle of man....but not Scotland. NI will have specialstatus...they votedremain. So did Scotland. We deserve the same status. We will not play second fiddle to anyone, far less the DUP.
-
Breaking news - Larry the Downing Street cat has just resigned. Here he is leaving. (https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2720580.1468426462!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg)
-
Yes, I saw May's reply. "Scotland was not mentioned as it is part of the UK". I reckon the SNP could just use that line in their literature.
-
Someone else has resigned too. And another person.
-
Yes, I saw May's reply. "Scotland was not mentioned as it is part of the UK". I reckon the SNP could just use that line in their literature.
Just listened to FMQs from Holyrood.
Yes, there were calls for independence....fromPatrick Harvie, leader of the Scottish Greens.
-
And now Dominic Raab - the Brexit Secretary - has resigned.
May we live in interesting times ...
To lose one Brexit secretary may be regarded as misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.
-
Blackford was right. May consulted Giberalterand Isle of man....but not Scotland. NI will have specialstatus...they votedremain. So did Scotland. We deserve the same status. We will not play second fiddle to anyone, far less the DUP.
Scotland and Northern Ireland did not vote remain. Regions did not vote in the referendum, people did.
Northern Ireland gets special status because it has a land border with the EU and has particularly close ties with the people on the other side of it, not because a majority of the people there voted Remain.
-
Mundell, occupier of the most innefective cabinet seat, wrote a thret filled missive to May last night. Now he has decided not to resign...even though the fishing rights he demanded were not conceded. As Salmond oncesaid of a Tory; "He is like ashiver desperately seeking a spine to crawl up."
-
Scotland and Northern Ireland did not vote remain. Regions did not vote in the referendum, people did.
Northern Ireland gets special status because it has a land border with the EU and has particularly close ties with the people on the other side of it, not because a majority of the people there voted Remain.
Scotland is NOT a region.
And May kept bleating on about her 'precious union'....either she treats usall the same or we demand the same rights as NI.
-
Scotland is NOT a region.
Yes it is. Scotland is a region. England is a region. Great Britain is a region. The UK is a region.
And May kept bleating on about her 'precious union'....either she treats usall the same or we demand the same rights as NI.
Scotland does not have a land border with the EU. How hard is that to understand?
-
In my opinion, Scotland, Wales and England are regions, which need each other and cannot function alone. As for NI it never should have been separated from the rest of Ireland, and should be returned,
-
Breaking news - Larry the Downing Street cat has just resigned. Here he is leaving. (https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.2720580.1468426462!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_620_330/image.jpg)
They do that if they have a better offer elsewhere .......either that or we will learn that Larry was the mastermind behind Brexit and is doing a Davis and Johnson to avoid the opprobrium.
-
If you think about it Brexit does have the hallmarks of a cat thing......in.....out......half in......half out...........perhaps you could make up my mind for me.........
-
In my opinion, Scotland, Wales and England are regions, which need each other and cannot function alone. As for NI it never should have been separated from the rest of Ireland, and should be returned,
This is why you make treaties.
At the moment I think England on its own would be run along the lines of Lord of the Flies.
-
In my opinion, Scotland, Wales and England are regions, which need each other and cannot function alone. As for NI it never should have been separated from the rest of Ireland, and should be returned,
Your opinion is in error.
This is becauseScotland is not, nor hasever been, a region.
According to the Act of Union, Scotland, Like England, is a nation.
According to the Scotland Act (1998) passed by Westminster, Scotland is a nation.
According to Elizabeth Windsor;Scotland is a nation.
Are they wrong?
-
Rees Mogg is doing something that sounds significant. I wonder if his fool supporters will take this as some kind of signal and start putting the Bandana's on
-
In my opinion, Scotland, Wales and England are regions, which need each other and cannot function alone. As for NI it never should have been separated from the rest of Ireland, and should be returned,
I understand the simplistic appeal of "Give Ireland back to the Irish", but that is what it is, simplistic. The method by which you would do this needs to be thought out thoroughly, and even then the sectarianism prevalent in NI is such that it would still be a bloody nasty transition. I use "bloody" literally in this instance.
Still we only need apply the clear thinking used to solve the Brexit issue and I'm sure all will turn out well........
-
I understand the simplistic appeal of "Give Ireland back to the Irish", but that is what it is, simplistic. The method by which you would do this needs to be thought out thoroughly, and even then the sectarianism prevalent in NI is such that it would still be a bloody nasty transition. I use "bloody" literally in this instance.
Still we only need apply the clear thinking used to solve the Brexit issue and I'm sure all will turn out well........
While I'm in favour of a united Ireland, that must be a matter for the people of both parts of the island.
Frommy friends in the Republic, they don't want the scurge of the sectarian neanderthals of Orangeist politics blighting their more enlightened society.
-
I understand the simplistic appeal of "Give Ireland back to the Irish", but that is what it is, simplistic. The method by which you would do this needs to be thought out thoroughly, and even then the sectarianism prevalent in NI is such that it would still be a bloody nasty transition. I use "bloody" literally in this instance.
Still we only need apply the clear thinking used to solve the Brexit issue and I'm sure all will turn out well........
I have dual British/Irish nationality, so a united Ireland is my preference. I know it is highly unlikely to happen, and would probably cause an uprising if it was ever a serious proposition.
-
I have dual British/Irish nationality, so a united Ireland is my preference.
That doesn't make any sense.
I have sole British nationality, so good weather is my preference.
-
Sky News have said that a poll shows a three way vote (stay in, soft brexit, no deal) would result in a comfortable win for staying in the EU.
-
Yes, but that's not democracy. (Sarcasm).
-
So, What's TM going to say in her upcoming press conference? She's being meeting with the 1922 chap.
-
So, What's TM going to say in her upcoming press conference? She's being meeting with the 1922 chap.
"I resign" - well, a chap can dream.
-
"I resign" - well, a chap can dream.
I want her to come out to to i'm Too Sexy. That would make my life.
-
Brady doesn't have the 48 letters that trigger a challenge to the leadership apparently.
-
If TM resigns, or a no confidence vote goes against her, Rees Mogg or Boris could take her place, which would be infinitely worse, imo. :o
-
If TM resigns, or a no confidence vote goes against her, Rees Mogg or Boris could take her place, which would be infinitely worse, imo. :o
In order to form a government, Rees Mogg or Johnson will require 325 seats. The Conservatives won 317 at the last election. Theresa May only managed to maintain her government by forming a support alliance with Ulster boneheads. My judgement is that Rees Mogg and Johnson would find it impossible to find any nonConservative allies at all. Any government headed by either of them would fall at the first important division.
There will be a general election if May resigns.
-
They do that if they have a better offer elsewhere
He's probably just following his lunch off the sinking ship.
-
According to the Act of Union, Scotland, Like England, is a nation.
Guess what. Nations are regions.
-
I have dual British/Irish nationality, so a united Ireland is my preference. I know it is highly unlikely to happen, and would probably cause an uprising if it was ever a serious proposition.
I think it is highly likely to happen, but probably not for a few decades.
-
My judgement is that Rees Mogg and Johnson would find it impossible to find any nonConservative allies at all.
What's your reasoning for believing that the DUP would not be willing to do a deal with either of them?
Any government headed by either of them would fall at the first important division.
You're assuming that everybody apart from the Tories would vote against such a division. There's nothing to prevent a future Tory Prime Minister from doing a deal with other parties even on a case by case basis. On any individual issue, they need to find five extra votes (because Sinn Fein with seven seats never turns up and the Speaker (currently Conservative) only votes in the event of a tie).
Personally, I hope that neither Rees Mogg nor Boris Johnson ever manages to form a government. Unfortunately, reality is not based on my hopes. I don't see any reason why the DUP would withdraw from the deal if one of them did become Tory leader though. In fact, I think the new Tory leader would give them pretty much anything they ask for because the alternative would be a general election in which the Tories would probably lose badly.
-
You are also ignoring the fact that the majority (large majority it is believed) of Conservative MPs oppose Brexit. It is quite possible that a post-May parliamentary Conservative Party could isolate Johnson or Rees Mogg and move in a totally different direction.
How about Ken Clarke as interim party leader? (Yes, I know he is too old ...)
-
Guess what. Nations are regions.
Not actually true - under the accepted definition of highest level regions (so called NUTS 1 regions), Wales, Scotland and NI are regions. England on the other hand is comprised of 9 separate regions.
-
There will be a general election if May resigns.
There can only be a snap general election under certain circumstances and there is no guarantee they'd materialise even if May resigned. It would require either a vote of no confidence in the government (not the PM), which would require the DUP to vote against the Tories - I'm not convinced they would. Alternatively it would require a two thirds majority in parliament to vote for a general election. That isn' likely to happen as Tory back-benchers in marginal seats are unlikely to vote for an election where they aren't expected to improve their position. Also for that to be even tenable the Tories would need a new leader, something that might take a while as I'm not convinced a May-style coronation without the top two being put to the membership is on the cards this time.
-
Not actually true - under the accepted definition of highest level regions (so called NUTS 1 regions), Wales, Scotland and NI are regions. England on the other hand is comprised of 9 separate regions.
Well I just meant that a region is simply any defined area of the globe. When I called Scotland a region, I just meant that. It just winds me up that Anchorman thinks it’s an insult.
-
Well I just meant that a region is simply any defined area of the globe. When I called Scotland a region, I just meant that. It just winds me up that Anchorman thinks it’s an insult.
It is.
-
Not actually true - under the accepted definition of highest level regions (so called NUTS 1 regions), Wales, Scotland and NI are regions. England on the other hand is comprised of 9 separate regions.
Can you not see how insulting that is though? Since it implies that England is a nation made of nine regions and Scotland only makes it to region status, is not a nation. What nation is it a region of?
-
Can you not see how insulting that is though? Since it implies that England is a nation made of nine regions and Scotland only makes it to region status, is not a nation. What nation is it a region of?
The United Kingdom.
And England isn't a nation either under these definitions, indeed it doesn't even have the same identity as Wales, Scotland or NI as it isn't a single region but an amalgam of none regions.
-
Can you not see how insulting that is though? Since it implies that England is a nation made of nine regions and Scotland only makes it to region status, is not a nation. What nation is it a region of?
Isn't the definition decided by the EU?
-
Victoria Derbyshire suppressing talk of second referendum and that remain is better than the May deal in favour of the shenanigans over the 48 letters. This makes Derbyshire a sensationalist who's present effortwould not qualify to take the role of a journalists arsehole let alone journalist....imho.
-
Remain is better than the May deal which is better than no deal.
-
Isn't the definition decided by the EU?
Yes, but internationally recognised.
-
Remain is better than the May deal which is better than no deal.
True. However, in trying to get to Remain from where we are risks ending up with No Deal.
The deal being rejected in parliament does not guarantee an election or second referendum.
Also, if the withdrawal deal was accepted there is still a fair possibility of a long term arrangement where the UK is in a customs union with the EU, with voting rights - which seems to be the Labour policy.
-
Yes, but internationally recognised.
And that therefore makes it rather puzzling that people are taking offence at the govt also recognising them.
-
Can you not see how insulting that is though? Since it implies that England is a nation made of nine regions and Scotland only makes it to region status, is not a nation. What nation is it a region of?
It's to do withpopuation. England's is much greater than Scotlands, Wales's, or Northern Irelands. Talking of insults, though, how about the fact that, when postcodes were introduced in the early 70s, N.Ireland was given only one - BT - for all of it?
-
It is.
Only in your mind.
-
Can you not see how insulting that is though? Since it implies that England is a nation made of nine regions and Scotland only makes it to region status, is not a nation. What nation is it a region of?
Scotland is a nation of one region. Great Britain is a region of three nations. Get over it.
-
Can you not see how insulting that is though? Since it implies that England is a nation made of nine regions and Scotland only makes it to region status, is not a nation. What nation is it a region of?
Exactly.
Scotland HAD regions of her own....when local government was 'reorganised'(in asomewhat cackhanded attempt to jerrymander electoral boundaries.)
The regional structure wasdismantled under the Blair government..to therelief of most.
-
Exactly.
Scotland HAD regions of her own....when local government was 'reorganised'(in asomewhat cackhanded attempt to jerrymander electoral boundaries.)
The regional structure wasdismantled under the Blair government..to therelief of most.
These are lower level regions.
The official definitions have a series of sub-nation region levels. The top being NUTS1 - The nation state of the United Kingdom has 12 NUTS1 regions -Scotland, Wales, NI, and 9 in England.
There are then NUTS2 (there are 4 in Scotland and 30 in England) and then NUTS3, where there are 23 in Scotland, aligning with council areas.
Read all about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_statistical_regions_of_the_United_Kingdom
-
...
Read all about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUTS_statistical_regions_of_the_United_Kingdom
Wonderful stuff.
Now, when we have left the EU we can rearrange all this. How about "The Great British Bake Off Federation" made up of the nations of England Scotland Wales and Cornwall with various other associated territories? :P
-
For there to be a "federation" Westminster would have to give up much of its current power. Federation implies powers being decentralised to the lowest feasible level. Consider changes in education - central government is working hard to abolish local education authorities (LEAs). One of the purposes of academies is to permit central government to have direct control of primary and secondary education.
Westminster's primary objective appears to be to micromanage everything. The complete antithesis of federal government.
-
For there to be a "federation" Westminster would have to give up much of its current power. Federation implies powers being decentralised to the lowest feasible level. Consider changes in education - central government is working hard to abolish local education authorities (LEAs). One of the purposes of academies is to permit central government to have direct control of primary and secondary education.
Westminster's primary objective appears to be to micromanage everything. The complete antithesis of federal government.
Pie in the sky at the moment, anyway;
Neither the SNPnor the Scottish greenswould countenance a federation.
To do so would destroy both parties.
-
Nigel Farage has called the Irish border issue the "greatest hoax in modern history".
The second biggest Nigel the biggest being that big red bus with £350 million for the NHS.
-
Was the biggest not the economic armageddon there would be following a leave vote?
-
Was the biggest not the economic armageddon there would be following a leave vote?
We haven't left yet - the economic armageddon will follow when we do.
-
On a leave vote the Treasury forecast an instant recession. Half a million job losses just for voting leave, not even in the longer term and there would have to be an emergency budget.
Carney claimed that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave and warned it would stoke inflation and raise unemployment.
Just for a leave vote. All wrong.
-
On a leave vote the Treasury forecast an instant recession. Half a million job losses just for voting leave, not even in the longer term and there would have to be an emergency budget.
Carney claimed that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave and warned it would stoke inflation and raise unemployment.
Just for a leave vote. All wrong.
https://www.ft.com/content/dfafc806-762d-11e8-a8c4-408cfba4327c
https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-7147-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
-
On a leave vote the Treasury forecast an instant recession. Half a million job losses just for voting leave, not even in the longer term and there would have to be an emergency budget.
Carney claimed that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave and warned it would stoke inflation and raise unemployment.
Just for a leave vote. All wrong.
Things aren't great since the UK unwisely voted to leave the EU, I think they will be infinitely worse when we actually leave.
-
One of the weird things at the moment is seeing some Brexiters saying, to Remain voters you lost, etc., but also they hate May's deal. So apparently we haven't yet attained the perfect Brexit, which people voted for, without realizing it. A bit like religion.
-
One of the weird things at the moment is seeing some Brexiters saying, to Remain voters you lost, etc., but also they hate May's deal. So apparently we haven't yet attained the perfect Brexit, which people voted for, without realizing it. A bit like religion.
Gratuitous inclusion of religion?
-
https://www.ft.com/content/dfafc806-762d-11e8-a8c4-408cfba4327c
https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-7147-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
Paywalled. What do they say?
-
On a leave vote the Treasury forecast an instant recession. Half a million job losses just for voting leave, not even in the longer term and there would have to be an emergency budget.
Carney claimed that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave and warned it would stoke inflation and raise unemployment.
Just for a leave vote. All wrong.
I have to admit that I have no memory of that. I'm pretty sure it was all about when we actually leave. Of course, my memory is not perfect, so if you can find some contemporary citations that support your point, I'd be grateful.
-
On a leave vote the Treasury forecast an instant recession. Half a million job losses just for voting leave, not even in the longer term and there would have to be an emergency budget.
Carney claimed that Britain could slide into recession in the aftermath of a vote to leave and warned it would stoke inflation and raise unemployment.
Just for a leave vote. All wrong.
If it does go wrong will you blame Europe or the incompetence of your Generals?
-
Gratuitous inclusion of religion?
Far from it. A very perceptive comment about the fanciful, magical, improbable fairyland that the archpriest Farage has conjured in the minds of the credulous.
-
Far from it. A very perceptive comment about the fanciful, magical, improbable fairyland that the archpriest Farage has conjured in the minds of the credulous.
I agree.
-
Paywalled. What do they say?
That's odd - I was able to read them first time, but now access is restricted, as you say.
-
One of the weird things at the moment is seeing some Brexiters saying, to Remain voters you lost, etc., but also they hate May's deal. So apparently we haven't yet attained the perfect Brexit, which people voted for, without realizing it. A bit like religion.
Gratuitous inclusion of religion?
Yes, it is - a typical non-believer's sneer, and a straw-man sneer at that, as they know perfectly well that intelligent religious believers do not hold such simplistic views.
-
Gratuitous inclusion of religion?
Yes, it is - a typical non-believer's sneer, and a straw-man sneer at that, as they know perfectly well that intelligent religious believers do not hold such simplistic views.
How do you know that not being one of their number? :P ;D
-
How do you know that not being one of their number? :P ;D
Absolutely pathetic and childish, and thus typical of your posts. Most people grow out of that sort of playground taunt when the go up to secondary sbhool.
-
Absolutely pathetic and childish, and thus typical of your posts. Most people grow out of that sort of playground taunt when the go up to secondary sbhool.
WOW, I have hit a raw nerve. ;D As most of your posts directed at me are of the sort you describe above, you should address that comment to yourself. ::)
Anyway back to Brexit, I see May is hoping to get business leaders to support her Brexit plan.
-
One interesting point is that the present deal is for withdrawal, so the next phase could lead to EEA, or the Norway solution. Of course, the headbangers will fight against this, as will May. Many journos are saying there is a majority in the Commons for this, but of course, this is not the will of the people, laaf.
-
Gratuitous inclusion of religion?
Yes, it is - a typical non-believer's sneer,
IIRC Wigginhall isn't a non believer.
and a straw-man sneer at that, as they know perfectly well that intelligent religious believers do not hold such simplistic views.
Not all religious believers are intelligent. And even the intelligent ones hold some simplistic views. This is also true of the population in general.
-
WOW, I have hit a raw nerve.
Well you did just call Steve H stupid. I'm not surprised he took the bait.
-
If something reminds Wiggs of religion then surely he shouldn't have to censor that?
-
If something reminds Wiggs of religion then surely he shouldn't have to censor that?
No-one suggested that he should.
-
No-one suggested that he should.
Phil thinks he's shoehorning something in. The implication being that it's insincere and should be omitted.
-
Far from it. A very perceptive comment about the fanciful, magical, improbable fairyland that the archpriest Farage has conjured in the minds of the credulous.
So Brexiteers will blame Europe and atheist remainers are blaming religion and nobody is prepared to blame them fucking selves.....
Brilliant.
-
It seems that we only have two options now:
1. Northern Ireland leaves the UK so Great Britain can leave the customs union.
2. The whole UK stays in the customs union for good.
I would like to know if voters in the referendum were aware of the issue of the irish border when they voted? If not, isn't that a good reason for having another referendum?
Or are there any other options? "No deal" seems not to be one.
-
It seems that we only have two options now:
1. Northern Ireland leaves the UK so Great Britain can leave the customs union.
2. The whole UK stays in the customs union for good.
I would like to know if voters in the referendum were aware of the issue of the irish border when they voted? If not, isn't that a good reason for having another referendum?
Or are there any other options? "No deal" seems not to be one.
3. Bin Brexit.
-
3. Bin Brexit.
We'd have to leave then reapply to join, apparently.
-
We'd have to leave then reapply to join, apparently.
No we wouldn't provided there is agreement to extend article 50 before the 29th March.
-
No-one suggested that he should.
Still, you suggested that his comment was "Yes, it is - a typical non-believer's sneer, and a straw-man sneer at that". Well, whatever Wiggs is, he is certainly not a "typical non-believer", and his attitude to matters 'spiritual' is as deeply thought out as yours, perhaps more so. You - with your 'non-realist theology' - and Wiggs probably agree on quite a lot.
However, the dog's breakfast which is Brexit....
Theresa May, it seems to me, has agreed to the only possible terms that give due deference to the Irish question in all its ramifications. The loathsome Rees-Mogg and the blabber-mouth Boris would happily allow sweep the matter under the carpet as it were of no significance. The sad thing is that there are so many English people (particularly) who would agree with them.
-
3. Bin Brexit.
If only.
-
No we wouldn't provided there is agreement to extend article 50 before the 29th March.
The nationwide poll a week or so back seemed to indicate that there has been a very significant change in the outlook of previous pro-Brexiteers on the matter.
-
Speculation now that May will offer Corbyn a spring election if he helps get this through!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46263140
-
The nationwide poll a week or so back seemed to indicate that there has been a very significant change in the outlook of previous pro-Brexiteers on the matter.
I suspect if there is another referendum the remainers would hold sway. Sadly it isn't likely to happen. :(
-
I would like to know if voters in the referendum were aware of the issue of the irish border when they voted? If not, isn't that a good reason for having another referendum?
Judging by the vote breakdown in NI, which surprised me, I would say that the residents of Northern Ireland, were definitely aware of the issue. Most of the rest of us? Not so much.
-
3. Bin Brexit.
That’s a subsection of option 2.
-
We'd have to leave then reapply to join, apparently.
I think the rest of the EU would be quite happy to bend the rules to let us stay. Don’t forget that we are a net contributor - one of only four. The EU is stronger with us in it.
-
Supreme court rules against government; https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal-application-for-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union-v-wightman-and-others.html?fbclid=IwAR2pG7GkX-Yil1n9VKMUv7_d_r-k1fLTzr4l8jv1SbHBigcfW6VRb20S9LI
-
Brexit UK - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hrhcGzcTGI)
The first five minutes are the bit from the latest episode that was not broadcast in the UK.
-
Brexit UK - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hrhcGzcTGI)
The first five minutes are the bit from the latest episode that was not broadcast in the UK.
Very good ... thanks, I'd never have known.
-
Leave March 19 is still odds on.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.130856098
Politics Live today suggested that Corbyn is not going to back the SNP - LibDems fall back position.
-
I think the rest of the EU would be quite happy to bend the rules to let us stay. Don’t forget that we are a net contributor - one of only four. The EU is stronger with us in it.
It would be a bit much to expect to be able to revoke Article 50 given that we voted to leave, effectively saying we don't want to be a member. If we had a genuine reason for U-turning, then I think they would let us apply to rejoin. Few voters were aware that leaving would be a huge problem for the Belfast Agreement (in fact it seems to violate this treaty, given that the majority of people of N. Ireland appear to want to remain in the UK), and it now seems clear that we must stay in the Customs Union if we are to honor that agreement. The fact that we would also like to be able to influence the EU by being a member is a privilege we have lost for the moment. A lot of us have to go through the process of learning how it all works before we can know what is the right choice to make. If the EU helps prevent conflict among its members, like the Belfast Agreement does, then maybe it would be wise to stay in the EU. However, there may be unforeseen advantages in being outside the EU, such as being able to be neutral in a conflict.
-
It would be a bit much to expect to be able to revoke Article 50 given that we voted to leave...
"We" did nothing of the sort. You may have, but almost two-thirds of the electorate didn't.
-
"We" did nothing of the sort. You may have, but almost two-thirds of the electorate didn't.
Techincally that may be true, but only those votes which were cast count.
-
Techincally that may be true, but only those votes which were cast count.
But the legal state of vote is that it was only advisory. May's response to the result was that it could be used to hoover up UKIP votes and make the Conservative Party invincible in an election.
I think (hope) that this cautionary affair about out-of-their-depth politicians putting party interests before national interest will turn round and bite her in the bum.
-
I think the ECJ ruling on whether article 50 can be withdrawn unilaterally by the UK is due this week.
If so, and if it says article 50 can be withdrawn by the UK, and if the Court of Session in Edinburgh (that referred to case to the ECJ) rules on this basis, then surely stopping the current politically divisive process would become an option if Westminster votes the proposed agreement down - and one that avoids 'no deal' or a second referendum.
Nothing then to stop parties presenting a revised plan for Brexit, or a policy of no Brexit, in their manifestos for the next GE.
-
But the legal state of vote is that it was only advisory. May's response to the result was that it could be used to hoover up UKIP votes and make the Conservative Party invincible in an election.
Good grief how many times do I have to say the same thing. The referendum was passed through Parliament with a massive majority, all major parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.
How could any politician, having voted on giving the people the vote than decide to ignore it have any credibility.
I think (hope) that this cautionary affair about out-of-their-depth politicians putting party interests before national interest will turn round and bite her in the bum.
If Parliament ditch Brexit, you will see the far right in this country, caution enough for you?
The only majority in Parliament is for Norway type deal.
May's Deal - no majority
Referendum - no majority
No Deal - no majority
Election - no majority ( think that would need super-majority)
Norway - majority
-
Good grief how many times do I have to say the same thing. The referendum was passed through Parliament with a massive majority, all major parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.
How could any politician, having voted on giving the people the vote than decide to ignore it have any credibility.
If Parliament ditch Brexit, you will see the far right in this country, caution enough for you?
The only majority in Parliament is for Norway type deal.
May's Deal - no majority
Referendum - no majority
No Deal - no majority
Election - no majority ( think that would need super-majority)
Norway - majority
Problem is that Norway isn't on offer, and to be so would require the EU to offer it. So it isn't within the power of parliament to provide a Norway option, regardless of whether there might be a hypothetical majority for it and I'm not even sure you are right that there would be a majority for Norway either.
-
...
Nothing then to stop parties presenting a revised plan for Brexit, or a policy of no Brexit, in their manifestos for the next GE.
So ... which parties will offer either option in a GE before next March?
I think it is just wishful thinking; If May's deal is voted down, hard brexit supporters will try to keep delaying decisions being made until we leave with no deal.
-
So ... which parties will offer either option in a GE before next March?
I think it is just wishful thinking; If May's deal is voted down, hard brexit supporters will try to keep delaying decisions being made until we leave with no deal.
I was thinking that if the ECJ ruling allows article 50 to be withdrawn, and it is withdrawn, then nothing happens in March - the current Brexit disaster gets halted in its tracks - and in readiness for the 2022 GE the various parties can present their approach to Brexit, or no Brexit, in their manifestos thereby allowing the electorate to make a more informed choice than was the case in 2016.
-
Some of the Remain MPs seem to think that enough opposition to May, will force her to withdraw her deal. Then what? Some of them (e.g., Umunna), are talking about a 2nd vote, but they don't seem to suggest how that will happen, and its dangers. I wonder if May will convert them?
-
I was thinking that if the ECJ ruling allows article 50 to be withdrawn, and it is withdrawn, then nothing happens in March - the current Brexit disaster gets halted in its tracks - and in readiness for the 2022 GE the various parties can present their approach to Brexit, or no Brexit, in their manifestos thereby allowing the electorate to make a more informed choice than was the case in 2016.
Not going to happen - unlikely ECJ will find provision for unilateral withdrawal of Article 50, and even if possible, doubt we will have a government that would invoke it.
-
Interesting take on who benefits trade-wise from Brexit: according to the Tango-ed one it ain't us - maybe somebody should tell Liam Fox!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-46351829/donald-trump-brexit-agreement-is-great-deal-for-eu
-
Theresa May seems to get around every difficult question by saying "I believe" this or that. I'm not sure this is the right way to do politics. What if she is wrong?
-
It would be a bit much to expect to be able to revoke Article 50 given that we voted to leave
I voted to stay and I suspect that, if we had another referendum tomorrow, the majority would be on the same side as me.
If we had a genuine reason for U-turning, then I think they would let us apply to rejoin.
A genuine reason for U-turning would be that Brexit is clearly going to cause enormous damage to the UK.
Few voters were aware that leaving would be a huge problem for the Belfast Agreement
Well they are now. Is "the people are now better informed" not a valid reason for a u-turn?
If the EU helps prevent conflict among its members, like the Belfast Agreement does, then maybe it would be wise to stay in the EU. However, there may be unforeseen advantages in being outside the EU, such as being able to be neutral in a conflict.
Do you realise that one of the primary motivations for creating the EU was to make it impossible for Germany and France to go to war again?
-
Techincally that may be true, but only those votes which were cast count.
Indeed, but language like "the people want..." is just nonsense because the people are divided on Brexit.
-
Good grief how many times do I have to say the same thing. The referendum was passed through Parliament with a massive majority, all major parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.
How could any politician, having voted on giving the people the vote than decide to ignore it have any credibility.
Quite easily by noting that things have changed since the vote. Opinion polls suggest that Remain would win a referendum held tomorrow. We have more information about the issues and likely outcome of Brexit.
-
Some of the Remain MPs seem to think that enough opposition to May, will force her to withdraw her deal. Then what?
In her position, I would resign as prime minister.
I think there's a good chance that the government will collapse and we'll need to have a general election.
-
I voted to stay and I suspect that, if we had another referendum tomorrow, the majority would be on the same side as me.
A genuine reason for U-turning would be that Brexit is clearly going to cause enormous damage to the UK.
Well they are now. Is "the people are now better informed" not a valid reason for a u-turn?
Do you realise that one of the primary motivations for creating the EU was to make it impossible for Germany and France to go to war again?
I'm sure there are lots of people who have swung over to Renain- personally I don't think I could vote Leave in a second referendum. However, it looks like there are still many Leavers out there and I'm not so sure they are the minority yet. But I agree there should be a People's vote, with Renain as an option. Yes I knew that about France and Germany, but I hadn't realized it could apply to Ireland and the UK as well.
-
I'm sure there are lots of people who have swung over to Renain- personally I don't think I could vote Leave in a second referendum. However, it looks like there are still many Leavers out there and I'm not so sure they are the minority yet.
Recent opinion polls would suggest that they are.
On PM on R4 last night, an MP for one of the Bristol constituencies was interviewed. He had carried out a survey of his constituents and found that they were overwhelmingly in support of Remain now (over 70%) but the interesting point is that more people (80%) were in favour of a new referendum than were in favour of Remain.
-
Quite easily by noting that things have changed since the vote. Opinion polls suggest that Remain would win a referendum held tomorrow. We have more information about the issues and likely outcome of Brexit.
It is your opinion that it would be easy, no politicians agree with you.
-
It is your opinion that it would be easy, no politicians agree with you.
|All the MPs wanting a second referendum are in this camp.
-
In her position, I would resign as prime minister.
I think there's a good chance that the government will collapse and we'll need to have a general election.
You sound hopeful, there is every chance we could get Corbyn, will make Brexit insignificant as he will bankrupt the country.
-
You sound hopeful,
That's just my lack of talent at writing. I'm pretty pessimistic because, if May gets her deal through, we will be headed for some sort of non hard Brexit, but still a Brexit and still pretty damaging IMO. If she doesn't get her deal, the government might collapse and then we'll get our second referendum, which I think Remain will win, but we could also crash out with a No Deal Brexit which would be an utter disaster IMO.
there is every chance we could get Corbyn, will make Brexit insignificant
It's going to be Corbyn after the next general election anyway.
as he will bankrupt the country.
Do you really think that is is it some kind of Project Fear?
Sorry, couldn't resist the joke, but Corbyn is IMO thoroughly incompetent and will get nothing done. He couldn't bankrupt a Trump casino.
-
Someone needs to be King Solomon and say "cut all fish caught in the Channel in half, and give half of each fish to the British and the other half to the French".
In a way, this method used by Solomon can now be repeated in the UK by giving "the people" the option of leaving without a deal. I would think few of those who voted Leave in 2016 would want to do this, now they know more about what the consequences would be.
That still leaves the question of whether Remain should still be an option.
-
Solomon was wise enough to know how to call the false mother's bluff. Hopefully May will be wise enough to do something like this and do the right thing. But she seems intent on acting on the 2016 result without considering that people might want a chance to change their minds.
-
Solomon was wise enough to know how to call the false mother's bluff. Hopefully May will be wise enough to do something like this and do the right thing. But she seems intent on acting on the 2016 result without considering that people might want a chance to change their minds.
I don't equate that guy Solomon with wisdom. Blimey a bloke with apparently 700 wives and 300 concubines, can't have much in the way of thought processes in the brain, as most them would be concentrated below his belt. ;D
-
This:
Dear Mrs May
I am in France having a break having come here on the train all the way from Settle. I just read your letter to me and the rest of Britain wanting us all to unite behind the damp squib you call a deal. Unite? I laughed so much the mouthful of frogs legs I was eating ended up dancing all over the bald head of the bloke on the opposite table.
Your party’s little civil war has divided this country irreparably. The last time this happened Cromwell discontinued the custom of kings wearing their heads on their shoulders.
I had a mother who was of Irish descent, an English father who lies in a Dutch graveyard in the village where his Lancaster bomber fell in flames. I had a Polish stepfather who drove a tank for us in WW2 and I have two half Polish sisters and a half Polish brother who is married to a girl from Donegal.
My two uncles of Irish descent fought for Britain in N Africa and in Burma.
So far you have called us Citizens Of Nowhere and Queue Jumpers. You have now taken away our children and grandchildren’s freedom to travel, settle, live and work in mainland Europe.
You have made this country a vicious and much diminished place. You as Home Sec sent a van round telling foreigners to go home. You said “ illegal” but that was bollocks as the legally here people of the Windrush generation soon discovered.
Your party has sold off our railways, water, electricity, gas, telecoms, Royal Mail etc until all we have left is the NHS and that is lined up for the US to have as soon as Hannon and Hunt can arrange it
You have lied to the people of this country. You voted Remain yet changed your tune when the chance to grab the job of PM came. You should have sacked those lying bastards Gove and Bojo but daren’t because you haven’t the actual power.
You have no answer to the British border on the island of Ireland nor do you know how the Gib border with Spain will work once we are out
Mrs May you have helped to divide this country to such an extent that families and friends are now no longer talking to each other, you have managed to negotiate a deal far worse than the one we had and all to keep together a party of millionaires, Eton Bullingdon boys, spivs and WI harridans. Your party conserves nothing. It has sold everything off in the name of the free market.
You could have kept our industries going with investment and development – Germany managed it. But no – The Free Market won so Sunderland, Barnsley, Hamilton etc could all go to the devil
So Mrs May my answer to your plea for unity is firstly that it is ridiculous.
48% of us will never forgive you for Brexit and secondly, of the 52% that voted for it many will not forgive you for not giving them what your lying comrades like Rees Mogg and Fox promised them.
There are no unicorns, there is no £350 million extra for the NHS. The economy will tank and there will be less taxes to help out the poor. We have 350,000 homeless (not rough sleepers – homeless) in one of the richest countries on Earth and you are about to increase that number with your damn fool Brexit.
The bald man has wiped the frogs legs of his head, I’ve bought him a glass of wine to say sorry; I’m typing this with one finger on my phone in France and I’m tired now and want to stop before my finger gets too tired to join the other one in a sailors salute to you and your squalid Brexit, your shabby xenophobia and Little Englander mentality.
Two fingers to you and your unity from this proud citizen of nowhere. I and roughly half the country will never forgive you or your party.
Mr Mike Harding
-
I don't equate that guy Solomon with wisdom. Blimey a bloke with apparently 700 wives and 300 concubines, can't have much in the way of thought processes in the brain, as most them would be concentrated below his belt. ;D
He backslid. There was a king though who laid down his life for his people. But still, 1 Kings 3 is an example of how to distinguish whether someone is being dishonest. Parliament needs to know how many voted for their own personal good, rather than that of the nation and Europe. I was probably one of them. But how do you make sure people don't just think of themselves when voting?
-
Solomon was wise enough to know how to call the false mother's bluff. Hopefully May will be wise enough to do something like this and do the right thing. But she seems intent on acting on the 2016 result without considering that people might want a chance to change their minds.
Many brexitters were pinning hope on Trump to offer a trade deal and derided Obama for talking about the "UK going to the back of the queue for a trade deal. No it seems we won't even be in the queue.
How do you feel now?
-
That's just my lack of talent at writing. I'm pretty pessimistic because, if May gets her deal through, we will be headed for some sort of non hard Brexit, but still a Brexit and still pretty damaging IMO.
OK.
If she doesn't get her deal, the government might collapse and then we'll get our second referendum, which I think Remain will win, but we could also crash out with a No Deal Brexit which would be an utter disaster IMO.
Can't see Govt falling as Fixed Term Parliament Act, for another Referendum you would need Corbyn to have been supporting it 3 monthes ago. No deal very unlikely can't see a majority for that in Parliament.
It's going to be Corbyn after the next general election anyway.
Mmm, he is at 5.1 decimal odds to be next Prime Minister, the favourite but far from certain.
Do you really think that is is it some kind of Project Fear?
Sorry, couldn't resist the joke, but Corbyn is IMO thoroughly incompetent and will get nothing done. He couldn't bankrupt a Trump casino.
No not project fear, his spending commitments and taxes do not add up, he will have to attempt to fund all the things his bleeding heart tells him to.
I understand the left wing arguments they are coherent, lying about who is going to have to pay for them, very dangerous.
-
Many brexitters were pinning hope on Trump to offer a trade deal
How did they know he was going to win?
-
Can't see Govt falling as Fixed Term Parliament Act,
Theresa May has already shown that is worth fuck all. If the Tories can’t command a majority in the Commons, they wil be gone.
for another Referendum you would need Corbyn to have been supporting it 3 monthes ago. No deal very unlikely can't see a majority for that in Parliament.
I can see the Theresa May deal failing quite easily. I haven’t heard any MP say “yes it’s good”. I’ve heard MPs say “it’s not Remain, therefore it is bad” and I’ve heard MPs say “it gives Europe too many powers, therefore it is bad”. The only thing holding it together is that a lot of Tory MPs are frightened that they will lose their jobs if it fails.
No not project fear, his spending commitments and taxes do not add up, he will have to attempt to fund all the things his bleeding heart tells him to.
I understand the left wing arguments they are coherent, lying about who is going to have to pay for them, very dangerous.
I agree with a lot of this, but Corbyn is incompetent. It really doesn’t matter what his aspirations are: he lacks the ability to put his ideas into effect.
-
Theresa May has already shown that is worth fuck all. If the Tories can’t command a majority in the Commons, they wil be gone.
I can see the Theresa May deal failing quite easily. I haven’t heard any MP say “yes it’s good”. I’ve heard MPs say “it’s not Remain, therefore it is bad” and I’ve heard MPs say “it gives Europe too many powers, therefore it is bad”. The only thing holding it together is that a lot of Tory MPs are frightened that they will lose their jobs if it fails.
I agree with a lot of this, but Corbyn is incompetent. It really doesn’t matter what his aspirations are: he lacks the ability to put his ideas into effect.
Fixed term parliament act was only overcome before as everyone was up for it.
I'm guessing May's deal will get voted down once, might have some small concession from EU and maybe it will pass then, if not it will be Norway.
Corbyn will be PM he will spend epic amounts of cash, and for Brexit.
-
Can we have the Norway deal?
I did not think that was an option.
-
Fixed term parliament act was only overcome before as everyone was up for it.
And what makes you think they won’t be up for it this time?
-
if not it will be Norway.
Norway isn't on offer, and cannot be on offer unless the EU27 agree. Norway doesn't work if freedom of movement is to be ended. But frankly nothing does unless the UK is prepared for a border either between NI and RoI, or NI and GB.
-
You sound hopeful, there is every chance we could get Corbyn, will make Brexit insignificant as he will bankrupt the country.
Rubbish - Corbyn isn't an idiot. You've bought the tory propaganda. How would he bankrupt the country?
-
Corbyn seems rather pathetic, and appears to be prepared to go along with this Brexit debacle.
-
Why do you think he's pathetic?
-
Why do you think he's pathetic?
Corbyn just doesn't seem to be able to stand his ground unlike previous leaders of his party. I think David Milliband would have made a good one.
-
Rubbish - Corbyn isn't an idiot. You've bought the tory propaganda. How would he bankrupt the country?
Well we don't have a magic money tree. The only way he could fulfil his obligations to (for example) renationalise everything would be to devalue sterling by printing money - PQE I believe it is called. That will tank the economy.
-
Corbyn just doesn't seem to be able to stand his ground unlike previous leaders of his party. I think David Milliband would have made a good one.
I don't understand what you are talking about. Throughout his political career he has been perfectly clear on what he stands for and has stuck to his own views on these issues. The very definition of standing your ground. You may disagree with some or all of his policies, but the accusation you level at him here is false.
-
I don't understand what you are talking about. Throughout his political career he has been perfectly clear on what he stands for and has stuck to his own views on these issues. The very definition of standing your ground. You may disagree with some or all of his policies, but the accusation you level at him here is false.
I disagree. I used to think this of him but he is a Leave believer through and through who campaigned halfheartedly for Remain. It does make him look weak.
-
I disagree. I used to think this of him but he is a Leave believer through and through who campaigned halfheartedly for Remain. It does make him look weak.
Corbyn looks very weak. If he believes in remaining in the EU he should be campaigning vigorously for another referendum, which he isn't doing.
-
Well we don't have a magic money tree. The only way he could fulfil his obligations to (for example) renationalise everything would be to devalue sterling by printing money - PQE I believe it is called. That will tank the economy.
Oh perlease! Not the magic money tree crap! Governments have as much money as they choose to raise via taxation - and, as a standard-rate taxpayer, I'm happy for my tax to be raised within reason, if it's going to pay for more and better hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools, teachers, infrastructure, etc. Re-nationalising the railways needn't cost a penny, if the government takes each bit back into public ownership as franchises come up for renewal.
-
Corbyn looks very weak. If he believes in remaining in the EU he should be campaigning vigorously for another referendum, which he isn't doing.
He's a long-standing outer, as anyone who's taken the slightest interest in politics over the last few decades knows.
-
If he believes in remaining in the EU
As Rhiannon pointed out, he doesn't. He's a Leaver in charge of a party that was mostly pro-remain prior to the referendum. However, rather than stamp his own authority on the party, he deferred to the majority opinion and that's why he was never really at the races prior to the referendum and why his opposition to the government's handling of Brexit has been half hearted at best.
he should be campaigning vigorously for another referendum, which he isn't doing.
Like many Brexiteers, he opposes a new referendum because it might reverse the result.
-
Oh perlease! Not the magic money tree crap! Governments have as much money as they choose to raise via taxation
Tax revenue is not a magic money tree either. Increasing taxation puts a burden on the economy, which, if excessive, will cause a recession.
and, as a standard-rate taxpayer, I'm happy for my tax to be raised within reason, if it's going to pay for more and better hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools, teachers, infrastructure, etc.
As a tax payer, so would I, but you have to recognise that even if everybody is willing, it still will have a dampening effect on the economy.
Re-nationalising the railways needn't cost a penny, if the government takes each bit back into public ownership as franchises come up for renewal.
It will not cost anything to take the franchises back into public ownership, but the government then has to actually run the railways which is not something it has ever demonstrated any aptitude for in the past. It will probably end up costing more for a generally inferior service.
-
I am surprised Corbyn is a 'leaver' some of his comments have given me the impression he would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU. However that guy is so lily livered it is not easy to take on board what he really thinks.
-
I am surprised Corbyn is a 'leaver' some of his comments have given me the impression he would have preferred the UK to remain in the EU. However that guy is so lily livered it is not easy to take on board what he really thinks.
You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, as usual. Before becoming leader, JC spent decades defying the party whip at every turn. Whatever else he may be, he's not lily-livered.
-
You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, as usual. Before becoming leader, JC spent decades defying the party whip at every turn. Whatever else he may be, he's not lily-livered.
And do you know what you are talking about, as most of you posts don't come over as if you do?
As for Corbyn he does come over as lily-livered, May usually gets the better of him. I reckon he would be replaced as leader if there was anyone else who would do any better. At present that party seems to have lost its way, not that the Tories are doing much better. British politics appear to be in more of a mess than they have been in for a very long time, imo.
-
As for Corbyn he does come over as lily-livered, May usually gets the better of him.
You really are living in an alternative universe.
-
You really are living in an alternative universe.
In which case so are a lot of other people who see it my way, including Labour supporters.
-
In which case so are a lot of other people who see it my way, including Labour supporters.
Names and quotes, please. No-one accuses JC of being weak or cowardly, whatever they think of his policies.
-
No-one accuses JC of being weak or cowardly, whatever they think of his policies.
That's a false statement.
Little Roses does. I accuse him of incompetence, which is a way of saying he is weak. That's two counter examples already.
-
Names and quotes, please. No-one accuses JC of being weak or cowardly, whatever they think of his policies.
That is where you are so WRONG, I know of quite a number of Labour supporters who view Corbyn that way, including one of my own daughters.
-
It seems odd to call Corbyn cowardly. He has come under ferocious attacks from the media, but he seems undaunted. Also, gets attacked by some Labour MPs, but he keeps going.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46366162
Brexit will make the UK worse off financially, surprise, surprise! ::)
-
See the Corbyn cultists unable to defend their boys economic proposition again. :)
If the Labour leader was almost any other I think Labour would have won last election and have stood with another referendum in its manifesto.
Corbyn has been a huge help to Brexit. :)
-
How do you feel now?
Rather dim.. When my geography teacher taught us about the EEC, I was thinking I wouldn't ever need to know much about it and would give up Geography as soon as possible. Now 32 years later I've just looked it up in the context of EFTA and learned that the EEC is basically what was replaced by the EU. EFTA looks ok though.
-
Mc'Donnell getting close to a second referendum. Well, there isn't time. But if May's deal is rejected, who knows.
-
Mc'Donnell getting close to a second referendum. Well, there isn't time. But if May's deal is rejected, who knows.
How long does it take to organise a referendum? I would assume it takes time to organise the printing of 40 million ballot papers, but that's probably the most time consuming job.
-
How long does it take to organise a referendum? I would assume it takes time to organise the printing of 40 million ballot papers, but that's probably the most time consuming job.
I thought it was 6 months, but doesn't have to be, if Parliament says so.
-
I thought it was 6 months, but doesn't have to be, if Parliament says so.
I would stress that I don't think there is any need for a lengthy campaign. If we are not all up to speed on the pros and cons of Brexit now, we never will be.
-
The three options on the second referendum should be
No Brexit
The Deal
Economic disaster
-
I like brexit braised in stout, with spuds, carrots and onions.
What?
Oh, sorry - I mean brisket.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46380090/jacob-rees-mogg-calls-mark-carney-a-failed-second-tier-politician
I reckon Rees-Mogg was talking about his unpleasant self. >:(
I think it is important for the Government to take on board what Carney has to say on the financial effects of Brexit on the UK economy.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46380090/jacob-rees-mogg-calls-mark-carney-a-failed-second-tier-politician
I reckon Rees-Mogg was talking about his unpleasant self. >:(
I think it is important for the Government to take on board what Carney has to say on the financial effects of Brexit on the UK economy.
Carney is a liar, they are all liars.
-
I see there is a pro-Brexit march planned in London on 9th December. I am sure you remember the peoples vote march not too long ago which was able to proceed without any sort of counter protest or action against it. A very peaceful march
I would guess this will not be the case on the 9th as the lefty 'activists' are organising to counter protest and disrupt. Violence beckons.
-
I see there is a pro-Brexit march planned in London on 9th December. I am sure you remember the peoples vote march not too long ago which was able to proceed without any sort of counter protest or action against it. A very peaceful march
I would guess this will not be the case on the 9th as the lefty 'activists' are organising to counter protest and disrupt. Violence beckons.
Wrong. I was on it, and there was a counter-protest by that idiot Neil Horan and a few of his friends.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154641658@N06/31579977438/in/album-72157702636476035/
-
Carney is a liar, they are all liars.
No he isn’t.
On the other hand it seems the senior Brexiteers can’t open their mouths without a stream of lies emerging. £350 million a week anybody?
-
I see there is a pro-Brexit march planned in London on 9th December. I am sure you remember the peoples vote march not too long ago which was able to proceed without any sort of counter protest or action against it. A very peaceful march
I would guess this will not be the case on the 9th as the lefty 'activists' are organising to counter protest and disrupt. Violence beckons.
Also, whereas that march was full of mainstream, middle-of-the-road types (someone called it "the world's longest Waitrose queue"), this is organised by Tommy "ten-names" Robinson, and is really an excuse for the racist far right to show their faces. They should be resisted (peacefully, of course) wherever they appear.
-
I see there is a pro-Brexit march planned in London on 9th December.
That's reminded me to book tickets for the Pantomime.
-
Some speculation yesterday on Marr that another election is possible, with May calling an Xmas election.
Tories will have to get on board and support the deal, country is sick of it so Tories could take majority....
-
Some speculation yesterday on Marr that another election is possible, with May calling an Xmas election.
Tories will have to get on board and support the deal, country is sick of it so Tories could take majority....
Or Labour could get a majority or we could be back into minority government territory.
Whichever, a general election will solve nothing. The only vote that would finally resolve whether and/or which type of brexit should happen would be a referendum.
-
Or Labour could get a majority or we could be back into minority government territory.
Whichever, a general election will solve nothing. The only vote that would finally resolve whether and/or which type of brexit should happen would be a referendum.
I agree. We don't have either of the main party with a clear position The problem with a referendum though is that if the remain vote split between accept the deal (playing safe) and staying in the result would be for no deal, unless that is kept off the ballot.
-
I agree. We don't have either of the main party with a clear position The problem with a referendum though is that if the remain vote split between accept the deal (playing safe) and staying in the result would be for no deal, unless that is kept off the ballot.
There are a number of ways in which the referendum could be appropriately framed - the point is that all options on the ballot paper should be clear and deliverable by the government and EU - rather than the previous 'anything to anyone' Brexit option on the original referendum.
I think the fairest approach would be a primary and secondary question (this is what happened in the Scottish devolution referendum of 97). The first question would be to accept or reject May's deal. The second question would be what to do if May's deal is rejected, with remain and no deal as the two options.
-
There are a number of ways in which the referendum could be appropriately framed - the point is that all options on the ballot paper should be clear and deliverable by the government and EU - rather than the previous 'anything to anyone' Brexit option on the original referendum.
I think the fairest approach would be a primary and secondary question (this is what happened in the Scottish devolution referendum of 97). The first question would be to accept or reject May's deal. The second question would be what to do if May's deal is rejected, with remain and no deal as the two options.
No deal shouldnt be on any ballot because it means a break in supplies etc. That the state should be committed to since failure is breach of the social contract and to deliberately instigate interruption of supplies should carry a sentence of incarceration.
-
I agree. We don't have either of the main party with a clear position The problem with a referendum though is that if the remain vote split between accept the deal (playing safe) and staying in the result would be for no deal, unless that is kept off the ballot.
I think, if “stay in the EU” was an option on the ballot, it would win. Recent opinion polls suggest that Remain now has the majority and the Brexit vote would be split between no deal and the May deal.
For the vote to be fair, you would have to structure the ballot differently. You’d need either a straight yes or no on the May deal with a follow up question of “if the country rejects the May deal, should we stay in or leave”, or an STV structured vote.
-
Or Labour could get a majority or we could be back into minority government territory.
Whichever, a general election will solve nothing. The only vote that would finally resolve whether and/or which type of brexit should happen would be a referendum.
If Labour got a majority then they would do their own deal, no idea what that would be, don't ask them because they don't know either :). If there is this mass of support for another referendum then the LibDems would gain loads of seats and enter a coalition with that vote being the price.
Can you really see the wider population voting for extending this endless Brexit row, May's deal puts a line under it and we can move on.
We had a referendum because the majority in Parliament supported us having one, little sign there is enough support for another.
If there was another vote, the question should be May deal or leave with no deal.
-
I think the ECJ decision on whether or not Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn by the UK could be significant: if so, it could be a quick and clean way of stopping this incarnation of Brexit in its tracks if Westminster has the sense to take it, which doesn't of course prevent the issue of Brexit (or no Brexit) then being a key factor in the next GE now that more is known about what is actually entailed. With the news tonight about the legal advice situation it would probably be a kindness to put this Brexit out of its misery a.s.a.p since it seems to be, to use a cliche, 'toxic' on all fronts.
If it transpires that 'no deal' won't get support in Westminster, which has been said often of late, and given the impasse surrounding the current Brexit, a fresh referendum would be justified so as to provide an informed choice between May's 'deal' and remaining in the UK. The bleating about 'the people made a choice in 2016' just doesn't convince since that was an uninformed choice, and there is now much more information regarding the consequences of leaving the EU.
-
If Labour got a majority then they would do their own deal, no idea what that would be, don't ask them because they don't know either
Which is just one of many reasons why a general election will solve nothing.
-
If there was another vote, the question should be May deal or leave with no deal.
What a ridiculous notion - that isn't democracy, you'd be disenfranchising and sidelining at least 48% of the voting population.
It would be a bit like saying that because the Tories and the LibDems effectively 'won' the 2010 general election that the next general election after that should only have the Tories and the LibDems as options.
Things have changed massively since 2016 and any new vote needs to recognise that changed circumstance. There are only two viable options for the ballot - a straight choice between the agreed brexit (i.e May's deal) and remaining. Or alternatively a vote that gives an appropriate 3 way choice also including no deal, either via subsidiary question or via AV type vote.
-
What a ridiculous notion - that isn't democracy, you'd be disenfranchising and sidelining at least 48% of the voting population.
It would be a bit like saying that because the Tories and the LibDems effectively 'won' the 2010 general election that the next general election after that should only have the Tories and the LibDems as options.
Things have changed massively since 2016 and any new vote needs to recognise that changed circumstance. There are only two viable options for the ballot - a straight choice between the agreed brexit (i.e May's deal) and remaining. Or alternatively a vote that gives an appropriate 3 way choice also including no deal, either via subsidiary question or via AV type vote.
Again nodeal should not be an option because it interrupts the essential supply chain which I would have thought was illegal.
Unlike a time of war a no deal solution that was manufactured in this country would be a deliberate act of sabotage of the essential supply chain which I would have thought was illegal.
I
-
So early indications from the ECJ is that Article 50 can be revoked by the UK - will be interesting to see if there is support for doing this as a quick way out from this current madness that doesn't involve an immediate GE or another referendum.
-
So early indications from the ECJ is that Article 50 can be revoked by the UK - will be interesting to see if there is support for doing this as a quick way out from this current madness that doesn't involve an immediate GE or another referendum.
This changes the dynamic massively. The ERG have been working on an assumption that no deal is the default - in other words that all they need to do is talk down the clock until 29th March and block a deal and the outcome will be no deal. This provides an easy mechanism to ensure that no deal is impossible.
-
What a ridiculous notion - that isn't democracy, you'd be disenfranchising and sidelining at least 48% of the voting population.
It would be a bit like saying that because the Tories and the LibDems effectively 'won' the 2010 general election that the next general election after that should only have the Tories and the LibDems as options.
A referendum isn't like an election so failed analogy. For another referendum to be granted it has to pass through Parliament and that does not look likely.
Things have changed massively since 2016 and any new vote needs to recognise that changed circumstance. There are only two viable options for the ballot - a straight choice between the agreed brexit (i.e May's deal) and remaining. Or alternatively a vote that gives an appropriate 3 way choice also including no deal, either via subsidiary question or via AV type vote.
What has changed massively?
A slight change in opinion polls is no way to run a country.
Again, prior to 2016 all political parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP, so they voted, with a massive majority, on granting a referendum. The Govt of the time spent £8m sending everyone in the country a biased document in it were the following:-
"A once in a generation decision"
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
So the electorate voted leave, that decision has been made, another referendum maybe to decide how we leave, I can see that argument working.
Another referendum with remain as an option would be a betrayal by the establishment and mean years more division and uncertainty.
-
Which is just one of many reasons why a general election will solve nothing.
I don't know, it solves May's problem, her party would have to get on board and support the manifesto.
What other options does she have?
-
What has changed massively?
our understanding of what brexit might mean in reality rather than as a completely theoretical, all things to all people, concept.
-
So the electorate voted leave, that decision has been made, another referendum maybe to decide how we leave, I can see that argument working.
Another referendum with remain as an option would be a betrayal by the establishment and mean years more division and uncertainty.
Why are you so scared of democracy.
If you think that a brexit option would beat remain, then why not trust the people and provide a genuine mandate for an actual brexit rather than a theoretical one.
If you are concerned that remain would be the most popular option and therefore don't want a referendum or want remain removed from the ballot paper then, by definition, you are forcing the country into something they don't want. To do so would be a travesty for democracy and would have very, very far-reaching consequences.
What matters is what people want now, when the real decisions are being taken, the hard decisions that actually have consequences, not what people thought 2 and a half years ago when there was no detail whatsoever on what brexit actually meant.
-
Why are you so scared of democracy.
If you think that a brexit option would beat remain, then why not trust the people and provide a genuine mandate for an actual brexit rather than a theoretical one.
If you are concerned that remain would be the most popular option and therefore don't want a referendum or want remain removed from the ballot paper then, by definition, you are forcing the country into something they don't want. To do so would be a travesty for democracy and would have very, very far-reaching consequences.
What matters is what people want now, when the real decisions are being taken, the hard decisions that actually have consequences, not what people thought 2 and a half years ago when there was no detail whatsoever on what brexit actually meant.
It has little to do with outcome frankly I'm BOB, another referendum drags out the same arguments as before. If there is another referendum with remain as an option it would become clear the establishment will never actually let us leave and seriously undermine democracy. We would end up with Farage on the rampage again and who knows what else far right or left groups emerging.
The only thing there is majority for in Parliament for is Norway+ so can't see why that isn't the route being taken.
-
It has little to do with outcome frankly I'm BOB, another referendum drags out the same arguments as before.
No they will be different arguments - ones based on the reality of an achievable brexit not a hypothetical fantasy brexit.
If there is another referendum with remain as an option it would become clear the establishment will never actually let us leave and seriously undermine democracy.
How on earth can it undermine democracy to ask the people to vote - in the words of J K Rowling (paraphrased) - who do you think will be voting - the chinese people!?!
The only thing there is majority for in Parliament for is Norway+ so can't see why that isn't the route being taken.
I've no idea whether there would be a majority for it - probably not as it doesn't allow end of freedom of movement which many, certainly on the tory benches, think is key. It is easy to think that some hypothetical other option (Canada+++, Norway+-+) will be super popular, but that is largely because they are untested. However Norway (with or without a +, whatever that means) isn't an option so it is an irrelevance.
Where we are now we have to decide between deliverable options and there are only 3, remain, May's deal or no deal. That's what's on the table and as it would appear that parliament cannot decide then the people should. In fact this decision (a real one, unlike 2016) is of such significance for decades that even were parliament to have a clear view the final decision on those three options should be for the people in a referendum.
-
Sometimes you come across unusual comments and this seems one. It is from someone that works in the City and was under an LBC video:
"Brexit is not what the average UK person thinks it is - it has nothing to do with what Nigel Farage says it is or what Theresa May says, or what the media says for that matter. Its has nothing to do with borders, fisheries, or any other reason being spread in referendum.
Brexit has come about for one specific reason, and they all know it - big money and secrecy. Farage, being from the City of London, was the perfect man to front this campaign and was carefully selected by his corporate sponsors to achieve this goal.
'European Union financial transaction tax'. This is what Brexit is all about! Farage, May, the media - they are all lying to you!
Whether people understand this or not is irrelevant - the City of London is a hub for financial secrecy of its banks and its offshore secret tax havens, that's why they have their own police force. Everyone knows that the City of London has always come under scrutiny for allegations of money laundering of drug money, mafia money, and tax evasion/avoidance and corruption money from many leaders of many countries via several of its offshore financial houses like the islands of Jersey & Guernsey.
What the EUFTT would have done is allow the EU to independently scrutinise all of the allegations and have full power to enforce proceedings against the UK government and the City's financial firms and banks together with its offshore dealings, and to bring taxes on all financial transactions - it would have effectively brought all of this alleged corruption and crime under independent scrutiny away from the City's own police force and lawyers.
This is what it's all about. Farage has been visiting the island of Jersey several times over the past few years to assist his City of London sponsors.
A hard Brexit will happen …. it may take time but I can assure you that a hard Brexit will happen. Jersey has already passed legislation for the hard Brexit - it's a foregone conclusion. They have also changed their system of government over the past 5 years which has been in existence for hundreds of years. "
The above was posted before Ms May gave us the present draft plan, so it'll be interesting to see if the City worker's prediction comes about.
-
So the electorate voted leave, that decision has been made, another referendum maybe to decide how we leave, I can see that argument working.
Another referendum with remain as an option would be a betrayal by the establishment and mean years more division and uncertainty.
Yes the electorate voted to leave two years ago. Since that time, the electorate has changed and we know a lot more about what Leave will entail. If you are in favor of democracy, you would be in favor of the third referendum including a “status quo” option i.e. remain in the EU.
And, no, another referendum would not be a betrayal. There is good reason to believe that the electorate has changed its mind having found out that the leaders of Brexit had no idea what they really wanted. Nor would it result in uncertainty. If we have another referendum and we choose to stay in, we will be there for at least a generation until all the politicians have forgotten what a fucking stupid idea Brexit was.
-
There is good reason to believe that the electorate has changed its mind...
Nobody even has to change their mind for the Brexit majority to disappear: In January 2019 Britain will officially switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country, and this is how we know (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html).
-
Nobody even has to change their mind for the Brexit majority to disappear: In January 2019 Britain will officially switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country, and this is how we know (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html).
That's right - it doesn't need a single people to change their mind for the majority in favour of leave to have vanished by next year, and certainly by the end of the withdrawal agreement period. All it needs is the inevitable - that some young people have their 18th birthday and some old people die.
That's one of the reasons why the original result was so problematic - it had an inbuilt demographic shift which would narrow and ultimately erase the winning majority. That the period of time this would happen was short enough that you couldn't be sure that a majority still existed, even without anyone changing their minds, before the result was actually implemented is deeply problematic from a democratic perspective. There is of course an easy way out - put the final deal and the other options to a vote of the people - we'd then be sure that there is a democratic mandate for what is enacted.
-
No they will be different arguments - ones based on the reality of an achievable brexit not a hypothetical fantasy brexit.
How on earth can it undermine democracy to ask the people to vote - in the words of J K Rowling (paraphrased) - who do you think will be voting - the chinese people!?!
It will be seen as 'give peoples vote version 1, get wrong answer, give peoples vote version 2'. Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.
There will be outrage if there is another vote, it will be total carnage, the country will be more divided and that division will get worse regardless of who wins.
Now is the time to compromise, Norway doesn't please everyone but at least it is a compromise.
I've no idea whether there would be a majority for it - probably not as it doesn't allow end of freedom of movement which many, certainly on the tory benches, think is key. It is easy to think that some hypothetical other option (Canada+++, Norway+-+) will be super popular, but that is largely because they are untested. However Norway (with or without a +, whatever that means) isn't an option so it is an irrelevance.
No it is an option, Kinnock junior, Ken Clarke, have advocated for it, these are quite centre normal politicians. It has been offered by EU, all members of EFTA seem keen for it to happen.
Where we are now we have to decide between deliverable options and there are only 3, remain, May's deal or no deal. That's what's on the table and as it would appear that parliament cannot decide then the people should. In fact this decision (a real one, unlike 2016) is of such significance for decades that even were parliament to have a clear view the final decision on those three options should be for the people in a referendum.
You would put no deal on a ballot paper? Wow.
-
Yes the electorate voted to leave two years ago. Since that time, the electorate has changed and we know a lot more about what Leave will entail. If you are in favor of democracy, you would be in favor of the third referendum including a “status quo” option i.e. remain in the EU.
And, no, another referendum would not be a betrayal. There is good reason to believe that the electorate has changed its mind having found out that the leaders of Brexit had no idea what they really wanted. Nor would it result in uncertainty. If we have another referendum and we choose to stay in, we will be there for at least a generation until all the politicians have forgotten what a fucking stupid idea Brexit was.
I think you are confusing opinion poll and referendum.
It will be seen as a betrayal by many.
-
I think you are confusing opinion poll and referendum.
It will be seen as a betrayal by many.
Only the gullible twits who listened to the siren voices saying how much better off the UK would be by leaving the EU, when it appears we would be much worse off. :o
-
Only the gullible twits who listened to the siren voices saying how much better off the UK would be by leaving the EU, when it appears we would be much worse off. :o
So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?
Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.
-
So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?
Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.
You mean like this
'Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.'
-
So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?
Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.
Not often given to quoting the Bible but let he (or she) who is without sin etc.
-
It will be seen as 'give peoples vote version 1, get wrong answer, give peoples vote version 2'. Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.[/quote]How is it not democratic to give the people of the UK the final say in the most important decision facing the UK, frankly in my lifetime - certainly in my voting lifetime. The notion that it isn't democratic to have a democratic vote is as wide of the mark (albeit in the opposite direction)as the old East Germany describing itself as the DDR (the second D being democratic) when it wasn't a democracy.
There will be outrage if there is another vote, it will be total carnage, the country will be more divided and that division will get worse regardless of who wins.
There will be outrage just as much if the government forces through an option without clarity that it has a direct mandate for that choice, particularly as parliament is hopelessly split.
You would put no deal on a ballot paper? Wow.
If I am talking a non partial view, on fairness, then yes I would - no deal is the last thing I want, but it is a deliverable option and some people do want it. If I was being partial then sure I wouldn't want it on the ballot paper, but that isn't what I said when first suggesting it previously. If you believe in democracy then you have to accept that voters need to have the option to vote for something that you might, yourself, not want.
I think if others took a step back from their partisan view (I mean you Jakswan) they too would recognise that the only appropriate and democratic way out of this mess is a vote of the UK electorate on the final deal, with the other 2 deliverable options also on the ballot paper.
-
You mean like this
'Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.'
It is a description of a person holding extreme view of Brexit, it is not flattering I'll grant you.
Whilst I accept my views on this site are something of a minority, to put it mildly, I do think I offer posts that are more substantive than that of 'this lot are twits'.
-
It is a description of a person holding extreme view of Brexit, it is not flattering I'll grant you.
Whilst I accept my views on this site are something of a minority, to put it mildly, I do think I offer posts that are more substantive than that of 'this lot are twits'.
No, it's an insult, and you are being hypocritical.
-
It is a description of a person holding extreme view of Brexit, it is not flattering I'll grant you.
So 48% or thereabouts hold extreme views, eh?
You seem to be indulging in the very same behaviour that you accuse LR of being guilty of.
-
How is it not democratic to give the people of the UK the final say in the most important decision facing the UK, frankly in my lifetime - certainly in my voting lifetime. The notion that it isn't democratic to have a democratic vote is as wide of the mark (albeit in the opposite direction)as the old East Germany describing itself as the DDR (the second D being democratic) when it wasn't a democracy.
I've explained this, there will be a view that Parliament gave the people a referendum and when it got the answer they didn't want, waited and asked the same question again. Which makes a farce of the whole thing.
There will be outrage just as much if the government forces through an option without clarity that it has a direct mandate for that choice, particularly as parliament is hopelessly split.
Parliament has the mandate since they were all elected with both major parties being for Brexit.
If I am talking a non partial view, on fairness, then yes I would - no deal is the last thing I want, but it is a deliverable option and some people do want it. If I was being partial then sure I wouldn't want it on the ballot paper, but that isn't what I said when first suggesting it previously. If you believe in democracy then you have to accept that voters need to have the option to vote for something that you might, yourself, not want.
So with outrage in the country with great swathes of people angered by the establishment, you want that button to be presented.
I think if others took a step back from their partisan view (I mean you Jakswan) they too would recognise that the only appropriate and democratic way out of this mess is a vote of the UK electorate on the final deal, with the other 2 deliverable options also on the ballot paper.
I have always thought Norway was the best option, I now think it is the only option. Another vote would be a disaster. We are in this position because of the rise of UKIP lets remember that, they are not the extreme right but clearly have some highly unsavoury members in their number.
I'm liberal right of centre politically another vote with remain winning will bring UKIP or something worse back into UK politics.
So we would have the hard left in control of the left and the centre-right being crowded out by the hard right.
The centre need to win and the only way to do that is by being pragmatic and compromising having accepted the result of 2016 referendum.
-
I've explained this, there will be a view that Parliament gave the people a referendum and when it got the answer they didn't want, waited and asked the same question again. Which makes a farce of the whole thing.
How on earth could it be construed as asking the same question again. It demonstrably wouldn't be as there would be 3 options to choose from.
-
So the majority of those that voted were gullible twits, is this going to be good tactic to change peoples minds do you think?
Toxic name calling replaces political debate sad state of affairs.
I think the posts of NS and TV sum up your comments well.
-
No, it's an insult, and you are being hypocritical.
It has a descriptive element to it that is also insulting.
-
So 48% or thereabouts hold extreme views, eh?
You seem to be indulging in the very same behaviour that you accuse LR of being guilty of.
No.
Here are some of the views on Brexit, first and last are the extremes.
No Deal Brexit - Some Other Deal - May's Deal - Norway Deal - Referendum & No Brexit.
Not everyone who voted remain is campaigning for another referendum.
Having extreme views isn't insulting I have extreme views on many issues, I'm extremely liberal when it comes to drugs and extremely authoritarian when it comes to animal cruelty punishments.
-
It has a descriptive element to it that is also insulting.
As does 'gullible twits'. If you don't want name calling, then don't name call.
-
No.
Here are some of the views on Brexit, first and last are the extremes.
No Deal Brexit - Some Other Deal - May's Deal - Norway Deal - Referendum & No Brexit.
Not everyone who voted remain is campaigning for another referendum.
Having extreme views isn't insulting I have extreme views on many issues, I'm extremely liberal when it comes to drugs and extremely authoritarian when it comes to animal cruelty punishments.
Well I'm not campaigning for another referendum but I still think we should remain. Am I a full on remainiac or only a semi-remainiac?
Just trying to understand your hierarchy of insults.
-
Here are some of the views on Brexit, first and last are the extremes.
No Deal Brexit - Some Other Deal - May's Deal - Norway Deal - Referendum & No Brexit.
How on earth is no brexit an extreme view - 48% of people held that view in 2016 (and perhaps more do now). And that was when they were very clear what remain meant, and it means exactly the same now.
No deal is an extreme view, that pretty well no-one was suggesting as an option in 2016.
But the point is that we cannot simply consider the UK's position as if we sit in perfect isolation. Any deal cannot be determined unilaterally, it requires agreement of both the UK and the EU - so of your 5 positions (the referendum isn't an outcome, but a mechanism) there are only 3 on the table - no deal, May's deal (agreed by the EU), and remain. No other options exist. And if we are to learn anything from 2016 it is that we should only be considering real and deliverable options, not fantasy cake and eat it, hypothetical options that aren't on the table and aren't deliverable.
-
As does 'gullible twits'. If you don't want name calling, then don't name call.
What political position does gullible twits describe.
-
Well I'm not campaigning for another referendum but I still think we should remain. Am I a full on remainiac or only a semi-remainiac?
Just trying to understand your hierarchy of insults.
I'll be sure to deploy the correct description of your position when I better understand it. You might find the description insulting.
So you want to remain but are not campaigning for remain?
-
What political position does gullible twits describe.
You said 'remainiacs' had a 'descriptive element' to it. I replied that 'gullible twits' did as well. Why are you asking a different question?
-
What political position does gullible twits describe.
Those who wish to pull up the drawbridge leave the EU and have tiny little Britain standing all alone. :o
-
Well I'm not campaigning for another referendum but I still think we should remain. Am I a full on remainiac or only a semi-remainiac?
Just trying to understand your hierarchy of insults.
You're a remoderate. I'm a remainiac, and proud of it.
-
The limpet-like reliance of some on the 2016 result seems flawed to me, since even if the reasons for calling it (Tory party factionalism) are ignored it seems reasonable to conclude that since those supporting 'Leave' back then had no information of what would be entailed then 'Leave' was at best an uninformed opinion in the absence of relevant information - that there is now enough flesh on the bones that may cause some to change their minds is a factor that cannot be ignored. Most of us I'm sure have decided 'x' in principle in our personal lives but have then found reasons to change our mind when more information became available: 'I'd love to buy that Jag, and can afford the purchase price, but on looking at other aspects it would cost me too much to insure and run it'.
The current Brexit is, for me, toxic, and another referendum could be even more toxic even if it is reasonable to ask the electorate what they now think in light of the information currently available to them. So, it would be better in my view to just abandon the current process (if the Article 50 ECJ advice is confirmed) and approach it again, if there is still any appetite for it that is, via a GE campaign that addresses in the various manifestos what is now known about the practicalities of exiting the EU.
-
Most of us I'm sure have decided 'x' in principle in our personal lives but have then found reasons to change our mind when more information became available: 'I'd love to buy that Jag, and can afford the purchase price, but on looking at other aspects it would cost me too much to insure and run it'.
Indeed the notion that you cannot change your mind is bonkers - more so when the original 2016 referendum was based on such limited information about what an actual brexit deal would be like.
Here is an interesting (and sobering for brexiteers) link - check out the graph - yougov have been asking exactly the same question over the period since the referendum, namely:
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was rich or wrong to vote to leave the EU'
Just look at the trend - back in 2016 the poll results closely reflect the referendum, with a small majority for 'right' - since then a steady shift (accelerating recently) toward people thinking it was 'wrong'.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/05/latest-yougov-tracker-finds-the-brexit-wrong-lead-over-right-in-double-figures-at-record-level/
-
The three options on the second referendum should be
No Brexit
The Deal
Economic disaster
Assuming by 'economic disaster' you mean leave without a deal.
That makes two options for leave voters and one for remain. There probably ought to be only one leave option, as two options would split the Brexit voters and thus give remainers an advantage.
-
Assuming by 'economic disaster' you mean leave without a deal.
That makes two options for leave voters and one for remain. There probably ought to be only one leave option, as two options would split the Brexit voters and thus give remainers an advantage.
You'd need to use an AV type approach - or have a primary question (e.g/ do you support the deal - yes/no), followed by a secondary question (which of course only becomes relevant if the answer to the first question is one way, in this case 'no') which would be - if the deal if rejected would you wish to leave with no deal or remain.
-
You said 'remainiacs' had a 'descriptive element' to it. I replied that 'gullible twits' did as well. Why are you asking a different question?
Politically descriptive, i have no issue with insults in political debate. I have issue when there are only insults.
-
How on earth could it be construed as asking the same question again. It demonstrably wouldn't be as there would be 3 options to choose from.
That the establishment conspired to block and to stop Brexit, no amount of spin is going to change the view by many that this is a stitch up.
-
That the establishment conspired to block and to stop Brexit, no amount of spin is going to change the view by many that this is a stitch up.
What, by giving the people the choice to make the final decision - how is that conspiring to block!?!
If parliament stopped brexit without a referendum, you'd have a point but if brexit didn't happen down to the will of the people expressed via a referendum, how on earth could that be construed as the 'establishment blocking it'.
-
Politically descriptive, i have no issue with insults in political debate. I have issue when there are only insults.
Surely all insults are just 'toxic name calling'?
-
The limpet-like reliance of some on the 2016 result seems flawed to me, since even if the reasons for calling it (Tory party factionalism)
Labour & Tories supported calling it, even the LibDems as I recall.
For the 100th time all political parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.
So, it would be better in my view to just abandon the current process (if the Article 50 ECJ advice is confirmed) and approach it again,
Accept you are stating your view but I can't recall any MP holding this position.
-
Indeed the notion that you cannot change your mind is bonkers -
Whom has that notion?
-
Whom has that notion?
Anyone who simply refuses to countenance a referendum on the final deal because 'we made the decision in 2016'
-
Anyone who simply refuses to countenance a referendum on the final deal because 'we made the decision in 2016'
Not me then great.
Travelling today but I hear Jezza with the Govt on the ropes over Brexit, having just lost three votes yesterday didn't go for May's Brexit in PMQs.
What a boy!
-
Not me then great.
Travelling today but I hear Jezza with the Govt on the ropes over Brexit, having just lost three votes yesterday didn't go for May's Brexit in PMQs.
What a boy!
I can see the tactic there. If he goes on Brexit it gets subsumed into the ongoing debates, and raising issues like Universal Credit shows that he's doing the day job.
-
Not me then great.
So on what basis do you object to a referendum on the final deal then.
-
So on what basis do you object to a referendum on the final deal then.
I've told you.
-
I've told you.
Sorry, missed that. Can you tell me again please.
-
What, by giving the people the choice to make the final decision - how is that conspiring to block!?!
If parliament stopped brexit without a referendum, you'd have a point but if brexit didn't happen down to the will of the people expressed via a referendum, how on earth could that be construed as the 'establishment blocking it'.
The referendum wasn't legally binding. Since it interferes with the GFA, and few voters knew that before voting, there is good reason for them to have a consultatary second vote or just bin Brexit.
-
Labour & Tories supported calling it, even the LibDems as I recall.
For the 100th time all political parties were concerned with the rise of UKIP.
Not all: I don't think the SNP were over-worried about UKIP.
Accept you are stating your view but I can't recall any MP holding this position.
Perhaps, as the rancour escalates, drawing a line under the current process might become more attractive, and in no way does abandoning this incarnation of Brexit prevent it being resurrected during the next GE campaign.
-
I've told you.
Another referendum will be divise and see the rise of the far right.
-
Another referendum will be divise
And of course the current situation is full of harmony isn't it. Frankly any approach from here on in will be divisive and hated by significant parts of the population. I think a referendum to agree the final decision - effectively getting the people to have the final say on what they started in 2016 is likely to be the least divisive approach.
and see the rise of the far right.
Regardless of the result?
-
And of course the current situation is full of harmony isn't it. Frankly any approach from here on in will be divisive and hated by significant parts of the population. I think a referendum to agree the final decision - effectively getting the people to have the final say on what they started in 2016 is likely to be the least divisive approach.
If we leave on May's deal the division is over? If we leave on Norway division is over?
I get some of the extremes will still campaign for rejoin EU - leave EU\EFTA but for almost everyone it will be settled issue for a generation.
Regardless of the result?
No see above.
[/quote]
-
Another referendum will be divise and see the rise of the far right.
This is already happening. It’s too late.
-
If we leave on May's deal the division is over?
Rubbish - May's deal is, of itself, hugely divisive (literally so at it could create a dividing line between GB and NI) - but May's deal isn't actually a final deal, merely a staging post. If we leave with May's withdrawal arrangement we we just be starting years of negotiation (which will be hugely divisive) on the permanent arrangement.
Don't forget that May's deal isn't the permanent one - it is merely supposed to take us until end 2020. That can be extended, but merely suggesting its extension will be massively divisive.
Whatever route we take will be hugely divisive - the way to reduce that divisiveness (not eradicate it) is to ensure that the final decision is taken by the people.
-
Not all: I don't think the SNP were over-worried about UKIP.
Most UK wide parties then.
Perhaps, as the rancour escalates, drawing a line under the current process might become more attractive, and in no way does abandoning this incarnation of Brexit prevent it being resurrected during the next GE campaign.
It's 0.01% probable. :)
If the LibDems won a majority in the House of Commons maybe.
-
This is already happening. It’s too late.
Where? UKIP are an irrelevance.
-
I've been thinking about how divisive various possible outcomes would be (they all would), and I think the magnitude would be a combination of the level of 'betrayal' and the level of 'impact'.
Betrayal being that the outcome is not what people voted for. Impact being the effect on people's lives and the length of the continuation of uncertainty.
So lets look at possible outcomes without a second referendum.
Remain - massively high on 'betrayal', but low on 'impact' - life would return to a level of normality immediately and would continue in that vein.
No deal - high on 'betrayal' - both remainers and many leave voters would rightly feel betrayed that this was never a suggested outcome in 2016. Impact - massively high, all bets are off on the immediate and medium/long term impact of crashing out in March without a deal - the shock would be felt for years, perhaps decades. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.
May's deal - medium on 'betrayal' - many brexit voters feel passionately that it isn't really brexit and that 'it wasn't what we voted for'. Impact high - continued uncertainty as the real issues are kicked down the road for after the withdrawal agreement ends. Would result in brief respite as we transition into withdrawal agreement, but then the same arguments over Norway vs WTO vs cake and eat it, vs backstop etc start all over again. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.
-
I've been thinking about how divisive various possible outcomes would be (they all would), and I think the magnitude would be a combination of the level of 'betrayal' and the level of 'impact'.
Betrayal being that the outcome is not what people voted for. Impact being the effect on people's lives and the length of the continuation of uncertainty.
So lets look at possible outcomes without a second referendum.
Remain - massively high on 'betrayal', but low on 'impact' - life would return to a level of normality immediately and would continue in that vein.
No deal - high on 'betrayal' - both remainers and many leave voters would rightly feel betrayed that this was never a suggested outcome in 2016. Impact - massively high, all bets are off on the immediate and medium/long term impact of crashing out in March without a deal - the shock would be felt for years, perhaps decades. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.
May's deal - medium on 'betrayal' - many brexit voters feel passionately that it isn't really brexit and that 'it wasn't what we voted for'. Impact high - continued uncertainty as the real issues are kicked down the road for after the withdrawal agreement ends. Would result in brief respite as we transition into withdrawal agreement, but then the same arguments over Norway vs WTO vs cake and eat it, vs backstop etc start all over again. Potential existential threat to UK with risk of both NI and Scotland leaving.
Those are not the only options.
May's deal getting voted down will result in another scramble for Norway\something else and I've just listened to Barry Gardiner say they will not go for another referendum at that time but instead go back to the EU.
Scotland or NI leaving isn't a threat, Scotland's electorate thinks its more left than rUK so they have valid case to leave rUK.
NI needs a border poll and that isn't likely anytime soon, but if they wanted to leave the principle of self determination is fine.
Just imagine if Scotland voted yes in their independence referendum but their Parliament went back to the people because they couldn't get a good deal from rUK, there would be uproar.
There is always division perhaps that is the wrong word, disenfranchised better, a effecting large section of the population, the hard right returns.....
-
Those are not the only options.
Yes they are.
Perhaps in your hypothetical world there could be a new deal with the EU (we are not in a position to guarantee that as it would require ratification by the EU) - but frankly all that would do is tweak up/down the 'betrayal' element traded off against a balancing effect on 'impact' - so a softer deal might increase betrayal but reduce impact, while a harder one could do the reverse.
But no new deal will actually address the point that this will drag on for years, as all we are talking about here is the transitional deal, not the final one which has still to be negotiated.
-
Yes they are.
Perhaps in your hypothetical world there could be a new deal with the EU (we are not in a position to guarantee that as it would require ratification by the EU) - but frankly all that would do is tweak up/down the 'betrayal' element traded off against a balancing effect on 'impact' - so a softer deal might increase betrayal but reduce impact, while a harder one could do the reverse.
But no new deal will actually address the point that this will drag on for years, as all we are talking about here is the transitional deal, not the final one which has still to be negotiated.
Given we don't know the final deal surely another vote is just as invalid as the last one?
-
Yes they are.
Perhaps in your hypothetical world there could be a new deal with the EU
Since many members of Parliament are planning on going back to the EU for a revised\new deal it not hypothetical. The Labour party's policy is to go back to the EU.
But no new deal will actually address the point that this will drag on for years, as all we are talking about here is the transitional deal, not the final one which has still to be negotiated.
Having a huge amount of the electorate disenfranchised and seeing the rise of the hard right is too big a risk to take.
EFTA need not take long, well established and its look like EFTA countries would be welcoming.
-
So you want to remain but are not campaigning for remain?
I said I didn't want another referendum.
You really should read what's written before you make yourself look silly.
-
Having a huge amount of the electorate disenfranchised and seeing the rise of the hard right is too big a risk to take.
What 'hard right' do you mean?
-
It will be seen as 'give peoples vote version 1, get wrong answer, give peoples vote version 2'. Come off it it has nothing to do with democracy, its been the only gig in town by remainiacs since they lost the last one.
Actually, it’s vote versions 2 and 3 respectively. Version 1 happened in 1975 and Remain won then. It’s funny how Brexiteers arguing another referendum would be a mockery of democracy seem to forget that the 2016 referendum was already another referendum.
There will be outrage if there is another vote, it will be total carnage, the country will be more divided and that division will get worse regardless of who wins.
Only if the Brexiteers don’t have the good grace to recognize they are no longer in the majority. If Brexit wins again, I think most Remainers would say “it’s a fair cop”.
Now is the time to compromise, Norway doesn't please everyone but at least it is a compromise.
Norway is the best option except staying in. It has a flaw though: it means we are still bound to EU rules but without any say in how they are made. Even a Brexiteers should prefer full membership to that, so why not stay in?
-
I think you are confusing opinion poll and referendum.
No I am not. Opinion polls tell us that the result of a third referendum would probably be different to the second referendum.
It will be seen as a betrayal by many.
But it looks like this “many” is no longer a majority.
-
I think best option would be to rescind Article 50 (assuming the ECJ confirm this option) and pull the plug on the current mess, since looking at the reports of the debate in Westminster today on the BBC website (and it is still going on) it seems self-evident that there is no political consensus as regards either May's deal or what the best alternative is.
Then if any party wants to return to Brexit they can do so at the next GE as part of their manifesto, though I doubt that if this Brexit implodes any politician with at least one functioning synapse would seriously want to repeat the experience. Then maybe Brexit can return to its rightful role: the preoccupation of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party.
-
I think best option would be to rescind Article 50 (assuming the ECJ confirm this option) and pull the plug on the current mess, since looking at the reports of the debate in Westminster today on the BBC website (and it is still going on) it seems self-evident that there is no political consensus as regards either May's deal or what the best alternative is.
Then if any party wants to return to Brexit they can do so at the next GE as part of their manifesto, though I doubt that if this Brexit implodes any politician with at least one functioning synapse would seriously want to repeat the experience. Then maybe Brexit can return to its rightful role: the preoccupation of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party.
I’m beginning to wonder if that hasn’t always been May’s game plan.
Nobody can possibly look at the last couple of years and think things have been going well, whether Brexiteers or not. We never had a game plan of what to do following Brexit and it annoys me that the Remain campaign failed to make this clear before the last referendum.
-
Nobody can possibly look at the last couple of years and think things have been going well, whether Brexiteers or not. We never had a game plan of what to do following Brexit and it annoys me that the Remain campaign failed to make this clear before the last referendum.
I dont think that would have made a greta deal of difference given how dazzled people were by the squillions of quids for the NHS. I think a better bet would have been to have explained the benefits that make our voices run smoother - fresh produce in the shops, medicines, integrated health care - and some of the other benefits like the EU being the reason our government bothered to clean up our beaches, or how the EU give money to regenerate our deprived areas. And security of course.
-
I said I didn't want another referendum.
You really should read what's written before you make yourself look silly.
Right so you are not an extremist as I defined it because I defined the two extremes in terms of Brexit as:-
Leave with No Deal
Stay by means of Referendum
Sigh, silly sausage. :)
-
What 'hard right' do you mean?
Hard right, racists, here is a quote by the BBC on the German AFD.
"Alexander Gauland has talked of fighting an "invasion of foreigners" and their campaign openly focused on Islam and migration. AfD sees Islam as alien to German society."
These people are sitting with 94 seats in the German Parliament!
UKIP only ever got one and Carswell is not hard right.
-
Actually, it’s vote versions 2 and 3 respectively. Version 1 happened in 1975 and Remain won then. It’s funny how Brexiteers arguing another referendum would be a mockery of democracy seem to forget that the 2016 referendum was already another referendum.
Its not that it is a mockery of democracy, I'm actually quite calm on another vote per se. It is what would follow.
Only if the Brexiteers don’t have the good grace to recognize they are no longer in the majority. If Brexit wins again, I think most Remainers would say “it’s a fair cop”.
Yes I would say 'it's a fair cop' I can't speak for anyone but myself and suspect a lot of voters will feel it was a stitch up.
Norway is the best option except staying in. It has a flaw though: it means we are still bound to EU rules but without any say in how they are made. Even a Brexiteers should prefer full membership to that, so why not stay in?
End to political union, no 1 reason for voting leave for me.
-
No I am not. Opinion polls tell us that the result of a third referendum would probably be different to the second referendum.
Do they, you sure about that, wrong in 2015, 2016, 2017 of the top of my head.
But it looks like this “many” is no longer a majority.
So what, if many start to vote for the far right, that is a price worth paying is it?
For a democracy to survive it has to be about compromise and to have a healthy majority they have to feel its fair.
Currently, the two extremes don't want to compromise and their failure to do so is dangerous.
-
I’m beginning to wonder if that hasn’t always been May’s game plan.
There is more chance of Corbyn joining UKIP than May revoking article 50. :)
Nobody can possibly look at the last couple of years and think things have been going well, whether Brexiteers or not. We never had a game plan of what to do following Brexit and it annoys me that the Remain campaign failed to make this clear before the last referendum.
It was a negative campaign, fairness to Alex Salmond I seem recall he did warn Cameron not to fight a negative campaign.
-
So what, if many start to vote for the far right, that is a price worth paying is it?
You are saying something quite disparaging about leave voters. Or maybe perceptive. Not sure which.
-
Time to call out hard brexitters like Stewart Lee has called them out.
How are we to look upon people that are calling for disruption of essential supplies?
-
Southern brexitters will fight to the last northern brexitters job for their Bwexit.
-
EFTA need not take long,
EFTA isn't on the table and cannot be on the table as a withdrawal agreement, as the withdrawal agree is with the EU, about leaving the EU. We could apply to join EFTA on 30th March (the process would take time and no guarantee they'd agree) but we'd still need a withdrawal agreement with the EU. Some aspects of that withdrawal agreement, e.g. the backstop, might not be consistent with being a member of EFTA.
Also joining EFTA would rank very high on the 'betrayal' scale - both with brexiteers many of whom would consider that this wasn't what they voted for, but also remainers, many of whom would (quite rightly) conclude that were this outcome to have been clear in 2016 then remain would have won.
well established and its look like EFTA countries would be welcoming.
Not convinced on that - Britain joining would completely unbalance EFTA - currently it involves four small countries that gain from being members, but with none large enough to dominate. Were the UK to join it would be four size the size of the other countries combined, so would be massively dominating. Not sure they'd want that at all.
-
I have just listened to Theresa May being interviewed by John Humphries on the Today programme.
What I heard was an unhappy woman who knows that she has been forced into a corner from which she cannot escape but who refuses to accept any responsibility for her own actions. She can see only one way out from her situation and refuses to accept that there may be alternatives. She sounded rather desperate.
-
HH,
Yes, but where did she go wrong do you think?
-
You are saying something quite disparaging about leave voters. Or maybe perceptive. Not sure which.
I'm saying something quite disparaging about people.
I could be wrong but I get the impression that you sit on your left leaning high horse with an air of moral superiority and sneer at those evil tories, ignorant it seems that you are but one vote. If all the other votes start going into another dangerous direction its nothing to do with you right?
-
EFTA isn't on the table and cannot be on the table as a withdrawal agreement, as the withdrawal agree is with the EU, about leaving the EU. We could apply to join EFTA on 30th March (the process would take time and no guarantee they'd agree) but we'd still need a withdrawal agreement with the EU. Some aspects of that withdrawal agreement, e.g. the backstop, might not be consistent with being a member of EFTA.
Yes it should be in the political statement.
Also joining EFTA would rank very high on the 'betrayal' scale - both with brexiteers many of whom would consider that this wasn't what they voted for, but also remainers, many of whom would (quite rightly) conclude that were this outcome to have been clear in 2016 then remain would have won.
Or it could address the fact that we have to reach a compromise.
Not convinced on that - Britain joining would completely unbalance EFTA - currently it involves four small countries that gain from being members, but with none large enough to dominate. Were the UK to join it would be four size the size of the other countries combined, so would be massively dominating. Not sure they'd want that at all.
Suggest to listen to what they say, Sky have gone to Iceland and Norway and found senior politicians being very warm to the idea.
-
Suggest to listen to what they say, Sky have gone to Iceland and Norway and found senior politicians being very warm to the idea.
And Switzerland? Don't forget that the Swiss tend to put matters like this to a referendum - so whether or not we'd be allowed to join EFTA would be down to the Swiss people. Just imagine how that would go down with the 'take back control' brexit mob.
-
Yes it should be in the political statement.
The political statement is an aspirational statement about our relationship with the EU - EFTA members aren't in the EU and therefore would be totally inappropriate for the UK and EU to agree a statement relating to countries that are neither the UK or the EU.
-
Recently discovered that the UK was one of the founder-members of EFTA. We automatically left when we joined the EEC (as it was then), since apparently membership of both organisations is impossible. Other members have since also joined the EEC/EU, and left EFTA at the same time, so it's shrunk.
-
Recently discovered that the UK was one of the founder-members of EFTA. We automatically left when we joined the EEC (as it was then), since apparently membership of both organisations is impossible. Other members have since also joined the EEC/EU, and left EFTA at the same time, so it's shrunk.
That's right and I am not convinced that the current 4 members would be happy for the UK to join, indeed it seems only Iceland it positive. Certainly I think that the EFTA 4 would only consider UK membership if they were convinced it was effectively permanent and not some kind of stop gap to an alternative arrangement - the norway first, then canada notion.
Good article here
http://www.ejinsight.com/20180411-can-britain-rejoin-efta-after-brexit/
-
That's right and I am not convinced that the current 4 members would be happy for the UK to join, indeed it seems only Iceland it positive. Certainly I think that the EFTA 4 would only consider UK membership if they were convinced it was effectively permanent and not some kind of stop gap to an alternative arrangement - the norway first, then canada notion.
Good article here
http://www.ejinsight.com/20180411-can-britain-rejoin-efta-after-brexit/
Assuming that they do support UK membership and the government decide on that path, shouldn't we have a referendum on whether we join it before doing so?
Or, for that matter, on any other arrangement we set up that affects UK sovereignty, eg. on free movement or dispute resolution?
-
Recently discovered that the UK was one of the founder-members of EFTA. We automatically left when we joined the EEC (as it was then), since apparently membership of both organisations is impossible. Other members have since also joined the EEC/EU, and left EFTA at the same time, so it's shrunk.
The only reason that I remembered we were once members, is I had the stamps issued, see link
http://www.collectgbstamps.co.uk/explore/years/?year=1967
-
The political statement is an aspirational statement about our relationship with the EU - EFTA members aren't in the EU and therefore would be totally inappropriate for the UK and EU to agree a statement relating to countries that are neither the UK or the EU.
So May's deal really is the only deal we could join EFTA post leaving. :)
-
So May's deal really is the only deal we could join EFTA post leaving. :)
Not exactly sure what you are saying here.
May's deal is the only deal on the table agreed by both the UK and the EU for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the arrangements for the immediate period post-29th March (so called transitional period) during which a final deal between the EU ad the UK is expected to be negotiated and agreed (based on the aspirational political statement).
Joining EFTA cannot be the withdrawal arrangement for obvious reasons that I have stated previously. The UK cold propose that is becomes a member of EFTA for the final arrangement, but cannot do this unilaterally - firstly (and obviously the EFTA 4 would need to agree this) but secondly the EU would need to be convinced that the arrangement satisfied the internationally legally binding agreement of the withdrawal agreement - specifically on Northern Ireland.
And of course finally EFTA membership would need to be politically acceptable to the government, parliament and in the country at large. As I've pointed out previously I'd imagine that a proposed EFTA permanent solution would rank very highest on the 'betrayal' scale - bringing together brexiteers who would feel betrayed that this was 'Brexit in name only' (requiring freedom of movement, EJC involvement, payments to the EU etc etc), plus also remainers who would feel that remain would have won the referendum, if the choice was EU membership or EU membership-lite (i.e. EFTA).
Plus I'm not convinced it would be considered politically or democratically acceptable to join EFTA without a specific referendum on membership.
So, yes EFTA membership is a possibility, but it is fraught with complexities, so it isn't a simple solution.
-
Detailed (if perhaps not entirely impartial) critique of issues with EFTA membership
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/peter-mandelson-why-a-norway-style-brexit-would-be-a-disaster-for-britain-1-5808510
-
I voted Remain.
I met a Romanian lawyer friend in the City for lunch recently - well half-Romanian, half English - who voted Leave - one of the reasons being she objected to the brain drain in Romania as a result of Romania joining the EU. She was also against Romania joining the EU because she didn't want EU money going to Romanian government officials due to the high levels of corruption in Romania that prevent the money being spent on improving infrastructure or the people who actually need it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/30/romanians-uk-tragedy-homeland-corruption-poverty
So by voting Remain I seem to be supporting short-term benefits to the British economy from cheap labour, at the cost of stripping resources from poorer economies in Europe. Cheap foreign labour also seems an easy political win for the government compared to investing in increasing home-grown productivity, assuming it is even possible to motivate enough local people to be more productive - as many don't appear to see any benefit to them by being more productive - and it may be that businesses will have to increasingly rely on AI and hope that enough profitable businesses and investors pay enough tax to sustain British infrastructure, healthcare, policing and welfare.
The current fall in the pound, which increases the price of imports, seems to have led to the Bank of England signalling its intention to raise interest rates to try to curb inflation, so cost of borrowing for consumers and home-owners will go up. However a lower pound would reduce our export prices, which could increase demand for our exports, so could be a boost for the economy eventually once we spend a few months/ years finalising new trade deals. Unless of course our wages go up, which pushes up prices.
IMO people who think that leaving the EU is worth the short-term cost to the economy should have done the hard job of becoming involved in politics and persuading other people to support their view and taken on the responsibility of being publicly held accountable for their decisions. I have no interest in letting the unaccountable many dictate what happens to the economy if they aren't going to be actually doing the work of formulating and implementing national strategies and being held accountable for increases in the cost of living, which will impact poor people much harder than richer people.
Businesses and the public sector could rely on non-EU un-skilled and skilled labour (non-EU migrant numbers have increased) if they can't recruit local people. It's also possible the government thinks they and /or businesses don't have the funds or ability to devise, implement and monitor training schemes for local people. It depends on if you subscribe to the idea that immigrant employees tend to be more resilient, resourceful and flexible because they were prepared to take the risk of moving out of their comfort zone to an alien country.
We manage our recruitment shortages by using foreign labour but they stay in their country and work on our servers in the Cloud. But I realise this is not an option where a business or the public sector needs its workforce to be physically present in this country.
-
Not exactly sure what you are saying here.
May's deal is the only deal on the table agreed by both the UK and the EU for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the arrangements for the immediate period post-29th March (so called transitional period) during which a final deal between the EU ad the UK is expected to be negotiated and agreed (based on the aspirational political statement).
Joining EFTA cannot be the withdrawal arrangement for obvious reasons that I have stated previously. The UK cold propose that is becomes a member of EFTA for the final arrangement, but cannot do this unilaterally - firstly (and obviously the EFTA 4 would need to agree this) but secondly the EU would need to be convinced that the arrangement satisfied the internationally legally binding agreement of the withdrawal agreement - specifically on Northern Ireland.
And of course finally EFTA membership would need to be politically acceptable to the government, parliament and in the country at large. As I've pointed out previously I'd imagine that a proposed EFTA permanent solution would rank very highest on the 'betrayal' scale - bringing together brexiteers who would feel betrayed that this was 'Brexit in name only' (requiring freedom of movement, EJC involvement, payments to the EU etc etc), plus also remainers who would feel that remain would have won the referendum, if the choice was EU membership or EU membership-lite (i.e. EFTA).
Plus I'm not convinced it would be considered politically or democratically acceptable to join EFTA without a specific referendum on membership.
So, yes EFTA membership is a possibility, but it is fraught with complexities, so it isn't a simple solution.
As far as I can tell this has to get through Parliament and EFTA is the only thing that can.
-
I have no interest in letting the unaccountable many dictate what happens to the economy if they aren't going to be actually doing the work of formulating and implementing national strategies and being held accountable for increases in the cost of living, which will impact poor people much harder than richer people.
The unaccountable many always indirectly dictate what happens to the economy. They elected the politicians (Labour - LibDem - Tories) that in turn gave the many the referendum.
-
As far as I can tell this has to get through Parliament and EFTA is the only thing that can.
But as I keep saying what we are discussing in parliament at the moment is a withdrawal agreement with the EU - it matters not whether 650 out of 650 MPs support ultimate EFTA membership - it is a current irrelevant to the agreement for withdrawal from the EU. Sure parliament can suggest EFTA membership in the longer term but that isn't in their whim - the decision lies with 4 completely separate countries that aren't either the UK or the other EU27.
To use an analogy - it is a bit like being in the middle of a divorce involving lawyers on both sides deciding who get the kids, the house, the cat, payment etc etc. And saying the way to solve the divorce is to marry someone else. You might do that once divorced, but that is for the future and your desire to do that butters no parsnips in terms of agreeing the divorce settlement.
-
On the withdrawal agreement itself, can anyone explain which bits Labour think need re-negotiating that couldn't be negotiated as part of the long term trade agreement?
-
But as I keep saying what we are discussing in parliament at the moment is a withdrawal agreement with the EU - it matters not whether 650 out of 650 MPs support ultimate EFTA membership - it is a current irrelevant to the agreement for withdrawal from the EU. Sure parliament can suggest EFTA membership in the longer term but that isn't in their whim - the decision lies with 4 completely separate countries that aren't either the UK or the other EU27.
If May promises to allow Parliament to dictate the terms after leaving or at least give them a veto then they could vote through May's deal, knowing that they can probably get EFTA.
-
The unaccountable many always indirectly dictate what happens to the economy. They elected the politicians (Labour - LibDem - Tories) that in turn gave the many the referendum.
I have heard a few people on LBC who voted Leave say that they are not going to bother voting in the next election if they can't get the Brexit they were promised.
I would be ok with them not voting if they can't make a choice from what's on offer or if they don't want to get involved in politics themselves to influence election manifestos so that something that they claim has widespread public support is put forward. Currently, it's hard to tell what form of Brexit, if any, has the most public support.
I'm fine with trying the experiment of leaving with May's deal or no deal as the short-term economic costs won't affect me too much - my mortgage is paid off, I have no loans, and even if food prices and cost of goods rise or there are supply shortages, I am used to budgeting and keeping my expenses low and fasting during Ramadan. Higher energy and fuel prices would be the main problem but not cripplingly so. I would be interested to see what kind of trade deals Brexiters could pull off if we left with no deal.
But I can see why May's government is taking a more cautious, less cavalier attitude to negative economic considerations, since the public aren't going to let them off with "I told you so" if there are shortages and loss in economic resources due to the logistical problems of inspections and implementing regulations.
-
I'm saying something quite disparaging about people.
I could be wrong but I get the impression that you sit on your left leaning high horse with an air of moral superiority and sneer at those evil tories, ignorant it seems that you are but one vote. If all the other votes start going into another dangerous direction its nothing to do with you right?
Yes you are wrong.
Next.
-
...
I'm fine with trying the experiment of leaving with May's deal or no deal as the short-term economic costs won't affect me too much - my mortgage is paid off, I have no loans, and even if food prices and cost of goods rise or there are supply shortages, I am used to budgeting and keeping my expenses low and fasting during Ramadan. Higher energy and fuel prices would be the main problem but not cripplingly so. I would be interested to see what kind of trade deals Brexiters could pull off if we left with no deal.
...
Oh yeah, could be a rerun of the 70's when we all had so much fun. Cosy evenings around the fire when the power was off, friendly chats around the stand pipes. Strikes, not having to work and neo-nazi gangs roaming the streets!
-
Yes you are wrong.
Next.
Doesn't sound like I'am. :)
-
Oh yeah, could be a rerun of the 70's when we all had so much fun. Cosy evenings around the fire when the power was off, friendly chats around the stand pipes. Strikes, not having to work and neo-nazi gangs roaming the streets!
The 3 day week was around the time I came to the UK, and was too young to remember the experience. But i do remember the 'Winter of Discontent'. Though the current winter seems quite warm compared to that.
Yes the short-term impact seems likely to be high - for some people more than others, especially the poorer sectors of society.
The impact on import and export of pharmaceuticals is the most worrying for me - this is a highly regulated sector and stuff can't come in or go out without adhering to an agreement about standards. If there is no deal is there a process waiting to be put into motion to replicate the current agreements that the EU has about standards and regulations - so it will be as if we haven't left? Or do we have to wait and go without medicines while those regulatory agreements are signed?
More than 80% of the UK's economic output is from services. I am wondering about the proposed terms of trade agreements that Brexiteers hope to negotiate and secure for the service sectors in order for them to continue operating if we exit without a deal. What, if any, changes do the Brexiteers want to see to existing agreements, and why do they think other countries or the EU will agree to them?
Some of the Brexiteers say it is still better to accept WTO rules but I have not seen the detail on what the non-tariff barriers such as regulations and standards will look like in the event of no deal. How long will agreements on this take to negotiate and what happens until they are negotiated? If tariffs and quotas means our economic output drops and cost of imports rises not sure the public will be sanguine about it. No doubt some will be looking for a sector of society to blame for the negative impact and not sure they will ever get the trade deal they want in the future either, so will they keep looking for someone to blame or will they be pragmatic and make the best of the situation?
-
Doesn't sound like I'am. :)
Have it your own way. You clearly have mind reading abilities the rest of us lack. I wouldn't call you a fantasist or a liar, but it doesn't sound like I'm wrong.
;D
-
Do they, you sure about that, wrong in 2015, 2016, 2017 of the top of my head.
The last few polls have shown Remain with a clear majority that exceeds the error bars of most of them.
Also, you should read the article PD posted about how the numbers are inevitably going towards Remain.
So what, if many start to vote for the far right, that is a price worth paying is it?
How would you vote for the Far Right in a referendum on Brexit?
For a democracy to survive it has to be about compromise and to have a healthy majority they have to feel its fair.
Currently, the two extremes don't want to compromise and their failure to do so is dangerous.
The problem is that the compromise position i.e. Norway is a deal that nobody really likes. It basically leaves USA in the EU but with no say on how the rules are made.
-
The last few polls have shown Remain with a clear majority that exceeds the error bars of most of them.
Really?
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-2018/
Also, you should read the article PD posted about how the numbers are inevitably going towards Remain.
Which one?
How would you vote for the Far Right in a referendum on Brexit?
They would not be on the ballot paper.
The problem is that the compromise position i.e. Norway is a deal that nobody really likes. It basically leaves USA in the EU but with no say on how the rules are made.
Assume you mean us, we would be out of EU and in EFTA, end of political union. A compromise is what is needed now.
-
Oh yeah, could be a rerun of the 70's when we all had so much fun. Cosy evenings around the fire when the power was off, friendly chats around the stand pipes. Strikes, not having to work and neo-nazi gangs roaming the streets!
Little do with EU, rest assured Corbyn will bring those times back.
-
Assume you mean us, we would be out of EU and in EFTA, end of political union. A compromise is what is needed now.
The hard line brexiteers are in no mood to compromise and they would undoubtedly consider EFTA membership not to be brexit.
And EFTA membership fails on just about all of the 'red lines' of both the current UK government and the EU, e.g.:
Frictionless border in Ireland - fail
End freedom of movement - fail
End jurisdiction of EJC - fail
No payments to EU - fail
It is also no implementable by the negotiating parties, i.e. the UK and EU27, so effectively cannot be part of the withdrawal agreement
Now don't get me wrong, as a remainer, of all the brexit scenarios around EFTA is probably the best as it is closest to what we currently have (although of course being a member of the EU is better). However I'm not naive enough to think that EFTA is some magic bullet politically - it isn't.
You are actually beginning to sound as if you have a guilty conscience - realising that that you made an awful mistake voting leave and trying to salve your guilt by proposing EFTA as a kind of back door way to remain rather than perhaps admitting that you made the wrong choice in 2016. Why on earth would you prefer EFTA membership to EU membership?
-
The hard line brexiteers are in no mood to compromise and they would undoubtedly consider EFTA membership not to be brexit.
So we shouldn't compromise because some won't compromise?
And EFTA membership fails on just about all of the 'red lines' of both the current UK government and the EU, e.g.:
Frictionless border in Ireland - fail backstop added
End freedom of movement - fail does freedom of movement of workers
End jurisdiction of EJC - fail only applies to goods
No payments to EU - fail much less
It is also no implementable by the negotiating parties, i.e. the UK and EU27, so effectively cannot be part of the withdrawal agreement
Agreed but possible post Brexit.
Now don't get me wrong, as a remainer, of all the brexit scenarios around EFTA is probably the best as it is closest to what we currently have (although of course being a member of the EU is better). However I'm not naive enough to think that EFTA is some magic bullet politically - it isn't.
Never claimed a magic bullet claimed it was the only thing that could get through parliament. Take three people, centre ground leaver, remainer and hard line Brexiteer and instruct them to come up with consensus, the only way forward is EFTA.
You are actually beginning to sound as if you have a guilty conscience - realising that that you made an awful mistake voting leave and trying to salve your guilt by proposing EFTA as a kind of back door way to remain rather than perhaps admitting that you made the wrong choice in 2016. Why on earth would you prefer EFTA membership to EU membership?
Check back I think you will find I have always favoured EFTA the biggest issue I have with EU is political union.
-
Frictionless border in Ireland - fail backstop added
In other words also adding customs union (e.g. as we have now single market and customs union)
End freedom of movement - fail does freedom of movement of workers
Nope - actually EFTA/Nowray model is more relaxed still on freedom of movement as Schengen is also required.
End jurisdiction of EJC - fail only applies to goods
Nope - we would be in EEA and therefore signed up to single market which applies to goods and services.
No payments to EU - fail much less
How much will depend on level of access, but not zero.
Point being that the Norway/EFTA/EEA model fails many of the red lines of the UK and EU (I'm not saying I agree with those red lines merely reflecting their existence in reality). Norway/EFTA/EEA+customs union gets over the NI issue but moves even further from the UK's red lines.
Interesting segment on this on Today/radio 4 just now. Beyond confirming the points I've made above the contributors raised a further point. The EU is comfortable with small/tiny countries in EFTA/EEA, precisely because they are small and have no meaningful destabilising effect on the core EU - there is no guarantee that the EU would agree to the UK being in that situation, and that is in addition to the fact that the EFTA4 might not agree and it seems that 3 of the 4 countries are lukewarm at best.
-
Interesting segment on this on Today/radio 4 just now. Beyond confirming the points I've made above the contributors raised a further point. The EU is comfortable with small/tiny countries in EFTA/EEA, precisely because they are small and have no meaningful destabilising effect on the core EU - there is no guarantee that the EU would agree to the UK being in that situation, and that is in addition to the fact that the EFTA4 might not agree and it seems that 3 of the 4 countries are lukewarm at best.
As I understand it EU effectively offered UK Norway or Canada.
I wouldn't go in too hard on EFTA because that is your preferred option.
Lets you and me come to a consensus with the help of a hypothetical hard line Brexiteer, let's call him Larry.
Another referendum - loses 2 votes to 1
No Deal - loses 2 to 1
EFTA - Larry still wants leave accepts this isn't the Brexit he wanted but at least it's leaving so might vote for it, I vote for it.
By the way I think another referendum is more damaging than no deal, besides the way EU countries are going we could see the hard right running France and Germany soon, so unless you support EFTA that is what is coming.
Post EFTA we move on, you and Larry have had to make compromises I get what I want.
-
As I understand it EU effectively offered UK Norway or Canada.
Where on earth do you get that from. The EU have offered the current deal - it is what they have signed up to and ratified.
Lets you and me come to a consensus with the help of a hypothetical hard line Brexiteer, let's call him Larry.
Another referendum - loses 2 votes to 1
No Deal - loses 2 to 1
EFTA - Larry still wants leave accepts this isn't the Brexit he wanted but at least it's leaving so might vote for it, I vote for it.
Not sure I understand your argument, but there are plenty of hard line brexiteers for whom EFTA/Norway is the worst of all possible outcomes - in their minds it isn't really leaving the EU but also means we have no say in the rules that still apply to us.
By the way I think another referendum is more damaging than no deal, besides the way EU countries are going we could see the hard right running France and Germany soon, so unless you support EFTA that is what is coming.
Hypothetical non-sense - we've had scaremongering that the hard right will take over France (LePen), Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc etc for years - it never happens. And even if it were to happen in some future period, a referendum would need to be held in the next 6 months or so (if after 29th March we'd need a limited extension to article 50, which the EU would be happy to give on the basis of allowing a referendum to take place). The referendum would need to include deliverable and/or agreed options - so at maximum May's deal, no deal, remain. Whichever way the public votes the option is deliverable - we sign the May deal, we revoke article 50 or we do neither of the above and leave without a deal.
The EU can no more tweak the deal they have ratified than we can.
Post EFTA we move on, you and Larry have had to make compromises I get what I want.
And when will that be, pray tell. We cannot even apply to EFTA until we have left, and therefore we have to have a transitional agreement. Remember all we are discussing in parliament is the transitional (withdrawal agreement) - if this is ratified we will be onto discussion on the final landing point - the permanent arrangement. There is not a cat in hell's change that Farage, JRM, Boris etc etc are simply going to say, 'sure EFTA, fine with me' - we will start the whole debate once again on the final deal, and sorting that out will take years - I'd say perhaps 4 years with a decent following wind (Canada took 7 years).
The sad truth is that if we leave we will not be able to move on from the endless debate about final situation until probably 2024 at the earliest.
And I don't mean the notion that whatever is decided there will be a very substantial minority who hate it.
-
By the way I think another referendum is more damaging than no deal, besides the way EU countries are going we could see the hard right running France and Germany soon, so unless you support EFTA that is what is coming.
If the argument is that the will of the people should be taken into consideration, another referendum is inevitable. I don't understand the argument that the will of the people at a particular point in time is the only feedback that should be taken into consideration. The majority decision or "will of the people" presumably can change if new information becomes available that wasn't available when they voted previously. Presumably Brexit or Remain aren't dogmatic beliefs regardless of new information.
I can understand the argument that some Brexit supporters (especially those with a big wallet) have a bigger appetite for risk than other Brexit supporters or Remain supporters - so in a potential economic conflict situation such as leaving with no deal, some Brexit supporters will calculate that the EU as well as the UK will be economically damaged and that it is worth taking the risk that the EU may eventually be inclined to negotiate different terms once they have felt the economic impact of trade disruption.
I am not sure if those Brexit supporters who say they don't care about post-Brexit (deal or no deal) economic hardship and deprivation see the issue as one of national pride and resilience against deprivation in the face of the enemy circa. 1939. They presumably see the EU as failing to deliver enough of what is of value to them, whereby it makes it worth the price of membership. But a lot of the issues they blame on the EU are actually failures of the UK government to invest in infrastructure or the result of administrative incompetence, especially when it comes to border controls.
-
Where on earth do you get that from. The EU have offered the current deal - it is what they have signed up to and ratified.
In initial negotiations it was either Canada or Norway, Norway was taken off the table because of May's red lines.
Tusk said:-
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"
https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141238
Not sure I understand your argument, but there are plenty of hard line brexiteers for whom EFTA/Norway is the worst of all possible outcomes - in their minds it isn't really leaving the EU but also means we have no say in the rules that still apply to us.
They do not have a veto on where end up, it is impossible to come out of this situation with everyone happy. Both extremes Hard Brexiteers and Remainiacs have to compromise.
You don't seem to even want to contemplate compromise.
Hypothetical non-sense - we've had scaremongering that the hard right will take over France (LePen), Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc etc for years - it never happens.
Did you forget to mention Hungary and Poland, or Italy where the far right are in a coalition and have a Deputy Prime Minister?
https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-and-poland-say-no-to-lgbtiq/
France is in flames, Merkel is in trouble, Italy on the brink of recession.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44168602
And even if it were to happen in some future period, a referendum would need to be held in the next 6 months or so (if after 29th March we'd need a limited extension to article 50, which the EU would be happy to give on the basis of allowing a referendum to take place). The referendum would need to include deliverable and/or agreed options - so at maximum May's deal, no deal, remain. Whichever way the public votes the option is deliverable - we sign the May deal, we revoke article 50 or we do neither of the above and leave without a deal.
So lets gets this straight you now want the options on the Losers Vote (Peoples Vote my arse), to be:-
1. Remain
2. No Deal
3. May's Deal
Simple the question should be EXACTLY the same as last one but with options in the event of No result, Norway or Canada / EFTA - Free Trade.
So we are voting on the transition deal? Why would we do that, surely the most democratic way would be to vote on the direction of travel, e.g. Norway or Canada. May's deal doesn't rule out either as I understand it. Not that I think another referendum is the way to go.
The EU can no more tweak the deal they have ratified than we can.
The deal isn't ratified.
And when will that be, pray tell. We cannot even apply to EFTA until we have left, and therefore we have to have a transitional agreement. Remember all we are discussing in parliament is the transitional (withdrawal agreement) - if this is ratified we will be onto discussion on the final landing point - the permanent arrangement. There is not a cat in hell's change that Farage, JRM, Boris etc etc are simply going to say, 'sure EFTA, fine with me' - we will start the whole debate once again on the final deal, and sorting that out will take years - I'd say perhaps 4 years with a decent following wind (Canada took 7 years).
Yes take May's deal then go for Norway, there will be debates over that, the majority in Parliament will dictate which direction we go in.
The biggest stumbling block on a trade deal is alignment, we are currently 100% aligned. Norway with a backstop can be done in no time at all if all parties agreed.
The sad truth is that if we leave we will not be able to move on from the endless debate about final situation until probably 2024 at the earliest.
And I don't mean the notion that whatever is decided there will be a very substantial minority who hate it.
I think you will find once we leave, Norway will become the majority view in Parliament and the country.
Imagine we have left, this debate runs to 100+ pages and I would guess biggest contributors have been us two.
We leave in March 2019, our debate is over since we both agree that next we should go for Norway.
-
Really?
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-2018/
Yes
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/05/latest-yougov-tracker-finds-the-brexit-wrong-lead-over-right-in-double-figures-at-record-level/
Which one?
It's quite a few pages back now, but yougov analysed the breakdown of people who have likely died since the vote and people who have come of age i.e. reached their 18th birthday and how they would likely vote. Even if nobody changed their minds, by January of next year, the figures of the referendum will be reversed.
They would not be on the ballot paper.
Huh?
You were the one claiming people would be voting far right. I want to know how they would vote far right given that a far right option would not be on any ballot paper for the referendum. I'm not sure what a far right option is anyway.
A compromise is what is needed now.
A sane option is what we need now, one that doesn't damage our economy or destroy our relationships with the other EU nations and gives us some influence over the direction Europe moves in the future. The only option that firs those criteria is Remain.
-
So we shouldn't compromise because some won't compromise?
You can't compromise if some won't compromise. That's the definition of "won't compromise". In my opinion, the hardline Brexiteers should have been told to shove it up their arses a while ago. Unfortunately, that would cause the collapse of May's government, so she won't do it.
-
The deal isn't ratified.
It has been by the EU - they did so on the 25th Nov.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46334649
-
Yes
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/05/latest-yougov-tracker-finds-the-brexit-wrong-lead-over-right-in-double-figures-at-record-level/
BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45520517
at the end
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/600A/production/_103468542_want_to_leave_2-nc.png
You were the one claiming people would be voting far right. I want to know how they would vote far right given that a far right option would not be on any ballot paper for the referendum. I'm not sure what a far right option is anyway.
It would the rise of the far right, clearly I need to explain what this means. A large part of the electorate will feel betrayed as a result of another vote if won by remain, when the electorate becomes disenfranchised and angry the political extremes thrive, it needn't be extreme right it could be the extreme left, although we have a touch of that now.
A sane option is what we need now, one that doesn't damage our economy or destroy our relationships with the other EU nations and gives us some influence over the direction Europe moves in the future. The only option that firs those criteria is Remain.
Norway then, as it does all those things and added bonus doesn't destroy our democracy.
-
In initial negotiations it was either Canada or Norway, Norway was taken off the table because of May's red lines.
Tusk said:-
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"
https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141238
No it wasn't - Tusk's comment was merely making it clear that the UK couldn't cherry pick (as your link makes very clear) - the negotiations were never Norway vs Canada, and could never be as the specific circumstances of the UK means that neither option would work - most notably due to NI.
-
It has been by the EU - they did so on the 25th Nov.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46334649
That is not ratification.
https://www.ft.com/content/64e7f218-4ad4-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b
Quote:-
EU ratification
Before any Brexit deal can take effect, it must also be approved by the European Parliament in a plenary vote. Any legally questionable elements of the withdrawal treaty could also be referred to the ECJ by MEPs.
-
No it wasn't - Tusk's comment was merely making it clear that the UK couldn't cherry pick (as your link makes very clear) - the negotiations were never Norway vs Canada, and could never be as the specific circumstances of the UK means that neither option would work - most notably due to NI.
Tusk said:-
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"
You can infer that this would follow:-
"The EU can grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Norway"
-
BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45520517
at the end
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/600A/production/_103468542_want_to_leave_2-nc.png
But that's from Sept - and even so the red line (remain) has been consistently above the blue line (leave) since mid 2017. IN the earlier period immediately post referendum leave generally led - given that the original result was a nearly 4% majority in favour of leave that represents a shift in opinion.
So good to know that the 'evidence' you provide in favour of your view actually confirms my and Jeremy's point about a shift in opinion toward remain.
-
BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45520517
at the end
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/600A/production/_103468542_want_to_leave_2-nc.png
You should have checked the date on that article.
It would the rise of the far right, clearly I need to explain what this means.
The far right has already risen.
A large part of the electorate will feel betrayed as a result of another vote if won by remain,
A large part of the electorate feels betrayed now. It's just a part of the electorate that you disagree with.
when the electorate becomes disenfranchised and angry the political extremes thrive
How could having a vote actually disenfranchise the electorate.
Norway then, as it does all those things and added bonus doesn't destroy our democracy.
Norway betrays many (most?) Brexiteers who want to restrict movement of workers or want to stop EU influence over our laws and it betrays the Remainers because we want influence over EU laws.
-
Tusk said:-
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"
You can infer that this would follow:-
"The EU can grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Norway"
Phenomenal quote mining - the rest of the statement was Tusk describing May's approach as 'pick and mix'. His point was about cherry picking, not that the negotiations were about Norway vs Canada. They never were, nor even could be.
-
How crass and idiotic can you get?
Well, I suppose being a Tory qualifies, but threatening a nation which suffered the heart aching trauma of the potato famine is nothing short of criminal insanity.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/britain-should-use-threat-of-food-shortages-against-ireland-says-leading-brexiteer-1.800238?fbclid=IwAR3e2gyI33gZwpc0wSO2BVMsFKnpKbulCmNFgDctYzT_srQky60vCyHEc10
-
Mind-boggling.
-
threatening a nation which suffered the heart aching trauma of the potato famine
Which, if you read the article, you'll find she didn't do.
What she did do was read a report that says Ireland would suffer food shortages in the event of a UK No Deal and say we should use that fact as leverage to get a deal with the EU.
-
Norway betrays many (most?) Brexiteers who want to restrict movement of workers or want to stop EU influence over our laws and it betrays the Remainers because we want influence over EU laws.
Indeed - Norway is in Schengen (as are all EFTA members) - Norway/EFTA would involve loosening migration control rather than tightening it. Do you really think that would be acceptable to most brexiteers.
-
To even suggest linking food shortage to Ireland, which took decades to recover from the virtual genocide of the food famine - yes, genocisde, which Westminster aided by doing nothing to alleviate, will simply inflame the latant anger in many hearts, both north and south of the border. Ithis was idiocy.
-
You should have checked the date on that article.
Sept 18.
Your original point:-
The last few polls have shown Remain with a clear majority that exceeds the error bars of most of them.
The far right has already risen.
Don't talk utter nonsense, Germany has just under 100 far right MP's we have none.
A large part of the electorate feels betrayed now. It's just a part of the electorate that you disagree with.
Really how does it feel betrayed?
How could having a vote actually disenfranchise the electorate.
I've explained this so many times, you can disagree if you like but your are either not reading what I've written or being obtuse.
Norway betrays many (most?) Brexiteers who want to restrict movement of workers or want to stop EU influence over our laws and it betrays the Remainers because we want influence over EU laws.
It doesn't betray Remainers, YOU LOST!
Daniel Hannan I seem to recall favouring Norway, it seems to carry favour with both centre-right and centre-left.
-
Indeed - Norway is in Schengen (as are all EFTA members) - Norway/EFTA would involve loosening migration control rather than tightening it. Do you really think that would be acceptable to most brexiteers.
In EFTA Freedom of movement of Labour is allowed, the right to citizenship is not.
-
https://www.iaindale.com/articles/the-perils-of-a-second-referendum
Well said Iain Dale!
-
In EFTA Freedom of movement of Labour is allowed, the right to citizenship is not.
The right of citizenship isn't allowed under EU law either - a Polish person cannot simply claim UK citizenship just because they are a citizen of another EU country.
-
In EFTA Freedom of movement of Labour is allowed, the right to citizenship is not.
This is Norway/EFTA in terms of freedom of movement:
http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons/persons
http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons
Effectively identical to being in the EU and more relaxed than the UK as Norway and all other EFTA countries are in Schengen.
-
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpoliticalbetting.vanillacommunity.com%2Fdiscussion%2F7076%2Fpoliticalbetting-com-blog-archive-eu-and-whose-army
Hmm - Norway really want the UK to join EFTA - not.
-
To even suggest linking food shortage to Ireland, which took decades to recover from the virtual genocide of the food famine - yes, genocisde, which Westminster aided by doing nothing to alleviate, will simply inflame the latant anger in many hearts, both north and south of the border. Ithis was idiocy.
Who did the linking? It wasn't Priti Patel. She said that the fact that an EU member state would suffer food shortages in the event of a No Deal Brexit should be used as leverage on the EU. She did not link it to the Potato Famine nor did she suggest the UK would deliberately starve Ireland.
-
It doesn't betray Remainers, YOU LOST!
Regardless of who won the referendum the government needs to act in the interest of all the people in the UK, (the 60million), not just the 52% (of those that voted), which represents just 29% of the population of the UK.
-
Sept 18.
So three months old compared to my link which was only two days old.
Don't talk utter nonsense, Germany has just under 100 far right MP's we have none.
Don't we? Are you sure about that?
Really how does it feel betrayed?
We feel betrayed because Brexiteers are removing our EU citizen rights without our consent, because Brexit has caused and will continue to cause enormous damage, because we thought we lived in a cosmopolitan welcoming society and it has been revealed to be insular and nasty.
I've explained this so many times, you can disagree if you like but your are either not reading what I've written or being obtuse.
You are advocating that having another vote is disenfranchising. The word means "not being allowed to have a vote". You should be able to see why I am having some trouble with your argument.
It doesn't betray Remainers, YOU LOST!
So you are, at least, agreeing it betrays most Brexiteers.
-
It doesn't betray Remainers, YOU LOST!
Do you really think that leave would have won had it been clear that the 'landing point' would be EFTA - not a hope.
-
Phenomenal quote mining - the rest of the statement was Tusk describing May's approach as 'pick and mix'. His point was about cherry picking, not that the negotiations were about Norway vs Canada. They never were, nor even could be.
First of all that is demonstrably not quote mining.
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
I quoted Tusk in context and inferred another meaning making very clear that is what I was doing.
You think that deduction is faulty is all very well but making me out to be dishonest doesn't show you in a good light.
I have heard countless politicians say the EU's opening position was 'Norway type deal or Canada type deal'.
No quote you have offered refutes.
https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/uk-eu-deal-not-combination-norway-canada-trade-deal/
EU chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, warned that Britain’s future relationship with the EU will not “combine the benefits of the Norway model (which has full access to the EU single market but accepts free movement of people) with the weak constraints of the Canada model.”
What both quotes I have provided state is that you can't have Norway type deal with a bit of Canada, pick and mix. They were not saying you can't have Norway.
-
Regardless of who won the referendum the government needs to act in the interest of all the people in the UK, (the 60million), not just the 52% (of those that voted), which represents just 29% of the population of the UK.
Yes and preserving democracy is of very big interest to all of the people. Norway means a few hard line Brexiteers might be miffed, hard right doesn't emerge, economy ticks along, end to policial union.
-
First of all that is demonstrably not quote mining.
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
I quoted Tusk in context and inferred another meaning making very clear that is what I was doing.
Nope it is out of context - the context was that the UK cannot cherry pick 'pick and mix' in Tusk's words, using Norway and Canada as exemplars. The context was not (as you implied) that the UK and EU starting point negotiations where Canada or Norway. They weren't.
I have heard countless politicians say the EU's opening position was 'Norway type deal or Canada type deal'.
Show me evidence from the EU that their starting point was Norway or Canada.
The reality was that the starting point wasn't anything like that. The starting point was to address 3 key issues:
1. The position of EU citizens in the Uk and vice versa.
2. The 'divorce bill'
3. The position of the border in Ireland, in relation to GF agreement.
No quote you have offered refutes.
https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/uk-eu-deal-not-combination-norway-canada-trade-deal/
EU chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, warned that Britain’s future relationship with the EU will not “combine the benefits of the Norway model (which has full access to the EU single market but accepts free movement of people) with the weak constraints of the Canada model.”
What both quotes I have provided state is that you can't have Norway type deal with a bit of Canada, pick and mix. They were not saying you can't have Norway.
I'm not arguing that to be the case - but you placed the quote in the context of starting point, not of cherry picking. What Tusk was saying was that you cannot cherry pick, not that Norway or Canada were starting points - they weren't.
-
So three months old compared to my link which was only two days old.
Your link was not how would people vote on Brexit now but in retrospect do you think it was the right thing.
Don't we? Are you sure about that?
Yes, name one we will compare their worst quotes to Germanys AFD. Don't cry wolf, they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening.
We feel betrayed because Brexiteers are removing our EU citizen rights without our consent, because Brexit has caused and will continue to cause enormous damage, because we thought we lived in a cosmopolitan welcoming society and it has been revealed to be insular and nasty.
So you are not a democrat then? I was in the EU as a result of previous generation making me a EU citizen, that was fine it was democratic. Norway won't damage UK.
How is it insular and nasty?
You are advocating that having another vote is disenfranchising. The word means "not being allowed to have a vote". You should be able to see why I am having some trouble with your argument.
Oh come off it, the Losers Vote crowd is filled with remainers, it is their only chance of remain winning. They haven't stopped whining since 2016.
Have another vote, EFTA or Free Trade, not Brexit that vote was won by leave and the government sent every citizen a document promising to deliver the result
So you are, at least, agreeing it betrays most Brexiteers.
No I'm a Brexiteer.
-
Do you really think that leave would have won had it been clear that the 'landing point' would be EFTA - not a hope.
Yes, imagine the remain campaign less the armageddon, they would have said ....nothing.
-
Nope it is out of context -
At no point did I quote Tusk out of context, very sad you have to stoop so low.
the context was that the UK cannot cherry pick 'pick and mix' in Tusk's words, using Norway and Canada as exemplars. The context was not (as you implied) that the UK and EU starting point negotiations where Canada or Norway. They weren't.
Tusk said and I'm quoting in context.
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"
So you can't take parts of Norway and parts of Canada.
It is fair to infer and I'm NOT claiming to quote Tusk because that would be quote mining.
The EU can grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Norway
Its fine for you to challenge my inference, it is unacceptable to accuse me of quote mining.
Show me evidence from the EU that their starting point was Norway or Canada.
Washington Post do for you?
With 14 months to go before the U.K. leaves the bloc and trade talks starting only now, the EU has laid out a binary choice for the U.K.: Be like Norway or Canada.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-faces-a-choice-on-brexit-norway-or-canada-1516281144
I'm not arguing that to be the case - but you placed the quote in the context of starting point, not of cherry picking. What Tusk was saying was that you cannot cherry pick, not that Norway or Canada were starting points - they weren't.
As you will see above they were.
Not only do you lose the point but make yourself look a prat whilst doing so.
-
Washington Post do for you?
With 14 months to go before the U.K. leaves the bloc and trade talks starting only now, the EU has laid out a binary choice for the U.K.: Be like Norway or Canada.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-k-faces-a-choice-on-brexit-norway-or-canada-1516281144
Nope - not interested in journalistic interpretations - noting too that this is from Jan 18, way after the negotiations started.
If you want to know the EU's stating position then got to the official EU documents (they are all publicly available). The link is the starting point document on EU position, snappily titled 'Directives for the negotiation of an agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union':
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21766/directives-for-the-negotiation-xt21016-ad01re02en17.pdf
Dated May 2017.
Mentions of Norway - zero, zilch, zip
Mentions of Canada - zero, zilch, zip
This sets out the 'so called' first phase of negotiations (yup remember them) where sufficient progress needed to be made before moving on to the second phase (which might include trading arrangements). It focusses on ... guess what:
1. The position of EU citizens in the Uk and vice versa.
2. The 'divorce bill'
3. The position of the border in Ireland, in relation to GF agreement.
That's the starting point - nothing to do with Canada or Norway
-
Norwegian politicians reject UK's Norway-plus Brexit plan (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan)
...
Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK...
-
Nope - not interested in journalistic interpretations - noting too that this is from Jan 18, way after the negotiations started.
If you want to know the EU's stating position then got to the official EU documents (they are all publicly available). The link is the starting point document on EU position, snappily titled 'Directives for the negotiation of an agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union':
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21766/directives-for-the-negotiation-xt21016-ad01re02en17.pdf
Dated May 2017.
Mentions of Norway - zero, zilch, zip
Mentions of Canada - zero, zilch, zip
This sets out the 'so called' first phase of negotiations (yup remember them) where sufficient progress needed to be made before moving on to the second phase (which might include trading arrangements). It focusses on ... guess what:
1. The position of EU citizens in the Uk and vice versa.
2. The 'divorce bill'
3. The position of the border in Ireland, in relation to GF agreement.
That's the starting point - nothing to do with Canada or Norway
The timetable for discussions were set by the EU, no trade talks at that time.
Ok let us clarify what we are debating, this is how I think things happened. Not claiming this as fact it is my interpretation...
The EU, with regards to future relationship at some point offered the UK a deal like Norway or Canada and because of May's red lines made it quite clear that those red lines took Norway off the table. That is around the time that Tusk said what he said.
That is why many politicians want that to be the future relationship, because its been offered
You seem to saying its not possible for that to be the future relationship?
My point is that Norway is the least damaging option and the likely outcome.
This isn't a view that is outlandish its the views of many politicians and commentators.
Simon Jenkins good journalist centre left - All Roads lead to Norway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/mps-brexit-norway
Independant piece against Norway but
"My soundings suggest that, at this stage, Norway is inching ahead. It might be too much for May to swallow as it would not end free movement, and so might have to be implemented by a new prime minister."
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-deal-vote-norwayplus-final-say-peoples-vote-referendum-dodging-question-a8668096.html
Telling no apology over false accusation of quote mining either. :(
-
Norwegian politicians reject UK's Norway-plus Brexit plan (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan)
One politician, also in that article:-
'She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Norway would examine a UK application.'
The 'Canada will be a disaster and Norway is not possible' schtick not going to fly.
-
Your link was not how would people vote on Brexit now but in retrospect do you think it was the right thing.
Yes, name one we will compare their worst quotes to Germanys AFD. Don't cry wolf, they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening.
So you are not a democrat then? I was in the EU as a result of previous generation making me a EU citizen, that was fine it was democratic. Norway won't damage UK.
How is it insular and nasty?
Oh come off it, the Losers Vote crowd is filled with remainers, it is their only chance of remain winning. They haven't stopped whining since 2016.
Have another vote, EFTA or Free Trade, not Brexit that vote was won by leave and the government sent every citizen a document promising to deliver the result
No I'm a Brexiteer.
I wrote a long point by point reply to this but it got clobbered by the captive portal of the wi-fi of the hotel I’m in. I can’t be bothered to do it twice, so here’s a précis of what I said.
My link was to a survey that asked if people think Brexit was a mistake. How do you think somebody would vote today if they think Brexit was a mistake?
Apart from that, you made a couple of fallacious arguments, for example, accusing me I of not being a democrat just because I do not like the result of the second referendum. There was also the laughable suggestion that having a vote is the same as disenfranchisement in spite of them being basically the opposite.
Also the current US president is not far right, or if he is, I can name a number of Torres and DUP MPs as being far right people in Parliament.
Finally, the fact that you are a Brexiteer does not refute the claim that most (I.e. not all of them) Brexiteers would regard Norway as a betrayal.
-
My link was to a survey that asked if people think Brexit was a mistake. How do you think somebody would vote today if they think Brexit was a mistake?
This is your argument, i.e. we should have another vote because the will of the people has changed. Not sure I'm convinced by the argument anyway, I think to convince me it would have needed to have changed a lot, it would have to be consistent 60%+ for a few monthes.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-referendum-how-right-or-wrong-were-the-polls/
According to that link in May 2016 it had remain on as high as 55% a month later remain lost, nothing has changed.
Apart from that, you made a couple of fallacious arguments, for example, accusing me I of not being a democrat just because I do not like the result of the second referendum.
No, first, I did not accuse you of anything I asked you if you were not a democrat, second, not because you didn't like the result because you felt betrayed.
There was also the laughable suggestion that having a vote is the same as disenfranchisement in spite of them being basically the opposite.
Laugh if you like but it is the reason that many MPs will not go for another referendum, so if you don't win this argument then it ain't happening mate, laughing won't help. :)
Here is Len McCluskey:-
The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, has privately told Labour MPs the party should have severe reservations about backing a fresh Brexit referendum, saying voters could see it as a betrayal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/05/unite-leader-warns-labour-against-backing-second-eu-referendum
Also the current US president is not far right, or if he is, I can name a number of Torres and DUP MPs as being far right people in Parliament.
Never said he was far right, Bill Maher admitted this, he laid into Republicans for years, he knows they (liberals) cried wolf.
Don't take it from me here he is:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul2OuvPOQE
Trump is fascist in waiting.
No UK MP is far right, name one, then we will have a look at their quotes, I'll get quotes from MP's across Europe, we'll see how far right they are.
Finally, the fact that you are a Brexiteer does not refute the claim that most (I.e. not all of them) Brexiteers would regard Norway as a betrayal.
The betrayal on the leave side, is that the Government solemnly promised it was once in a generation, if the establishment conspires to have another vote then a huge amount of the UK will see it as a betrayal.
-
Brexit could mean anything from Norway to pretty well complete isolationism. Surely our sovereign and democratically elected parliament must play a major role in determining which flavour of Brexit we get. And remember parliament is meant to represent all the people, not just the 52% (or much less of the total electorate or population) who voted leave. May seems only to be interested in pandering to a narrow faction of the leave voters (hence one of her own MPs - a Brexiter - resigning yesterday) - that is not right, she must develop a plan for Brexit in the best interests of the whole population.
Norway it is then! :)
-
The timetable for discussions were set by the EU, no trade talks at that time.
Ok let us clarify what we are debating, this is how I think things happened. Not claiming this as fact it is my interpretation...
The EU, with regards to future relationship at some point offered the UK a deal like Norway or Canada and because of May's red lines made it quite clear that those red lines took Norway off the table. That is around the time that Tusk said what he said.
Sorry Jakswan you are talking rubbish - you are inventing timelines that never existed.
You claimed 'EU's opening position was 'Norway type deal or Canada type deal' - that is simply untrue.
The timeline is as follows:
March 2017 - UK triggers article 50 and EU starts formal negotiations
April 2017 - EU leaders hold summit to agree negotiating strategy
May 2017 - EU publishes the strategy (which I've linked to) - agreement is to focus on 3 key issue (citizens; finance; NI) - only once sufficient progress is made can discussions about trade arrangements start
No offer of Norway type deal or Canada type deal was made, nor would it have been appropriate as the discussions were only about citizens; finance; NI. Neither Norway or Canada could have been contemplated in this context as both clearly fail the NI test.
These stage 1 discussions continue until Dec 2017 when there is agreement that sufficient progress has been made to move onto phase 2, to develop the transitional agreement - at this stage neither Norway or Canada are options (as they don't pass the NI test) and the negotiations lead to the deal agreed by the EU and currently being debated in parliament.
At no point did the EU ever offer Norway or Canada - and certainly these were never the starting point as you claim.
-
This is your argument
No it was a fact. The survey is a fact also, even though there is a margin of error.
i.e. we should have another vote because the will of the people has changed. Not sure I'm convinced by the argument anyway,
What? You are not convinced that a decision decided by the "will of the people" should be changed if the "will of the people" changes?
I think to convince me it would have needed to have changed a lot, it would have to be consistent 60%+ for a few monthes.
We had a referendum in 1975. We managed to have the second referendum without a consistent 60%+ in favour of leaving.
According to that link in May 2016 it had remain on as high as 55% a month later remain lost, nothing has changed.
Everything has changed. We now know that the Leavers had no clue what to do if they won. We have a much better idea of what a post Brexit Britain would look like, and it isn't pretty.
No, first, I did not accuse you of anything I asked you if you were not a democrat,
Yes but it was one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. The implication was that I either had to suck it up or admit I'm not in favour of democracy. It was a clear accusation.
Laugh if you like but it is the reason that many MPs will not go for another referendum, so if you don't win this argument then it ain't happening mate, laughing won't help. :)
How many is many. And it doesn't matter how many MPS believe having a vote is disenfranchisement, it's the opposite of disenfranchisement. And if you bring up famous people to support your point, it's merely argument from authority. They would be as wrong as you are.
Here is Len McCluskey:-
The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, has privately told Labour MPs the party should have severe reservations about backing a fresh Brexit referendum, saying voters could see it as a betrayal.
Ah, so not disenfranchisement, but a betrayal. However, those voters that feel betrayed would be a minority and getting a smaller one with each passing day.
Never said he was far right,
You wrote "they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening"
That to me says you think Trump is Far Right.
Trump is fascist in waiting.
Oh, you did it again.
No British MP is a fascist, I'll give you that, but policies like curtailing all immigration, dismantling the welfare state and the NHS, reducing workers' rights are generally pretty well out to the right hand end of the spectrum.
The betrayal on the leave side, is that the Government solemnly promised it was once in a generation, if the establishment conspires to have another vote then a huge amount of the UK will see it as a betrayal.
When did the government solemnly promise it was once in a generation?
-
Norway it is then! :)
Unfortunately, no, at least not while May's government is in power. The Prime Minister cannot accept a Norway deal without the party self destructing, any more than she can stop Brexit altogether. So far she has always chosen to put party before country. The only chance of Norway is if Corbyn gets into power.
-
At no point did the EU ever offer Norway or Canada - and certainly these were never the starting point as you claim.
https://www.cer.eu/insights/canada-norway-or-something-between
Michel Barnier, the European Commission’s chief negotiator, says that Britain must choose between ‘Canada’ (something like the EU-Canada free trade agreement, which provides for free trade in goods but covers only a few services), or ‘Norway’ (in the single market – but accepting EU rules, European Court of Justice jurisprudence, free movement and payments to the EU).
Which is why Tusk said "The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada", and it is fair to infer 'The EU can grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Norway'.
With regards to our future relationship everyone frames the debate in terms of 'Norway or Canada' including yourself, mainly because it has been framed that way by the EU.
You even said when pressed you would favour Norway type deal yet now seem to be denying it is even possible.
When I look at the House of Commons not only is Norway type deal possible, I think it is the only possible outcome.
You might disagree which is fine, but claiming its rubbish and throwing silly accusations around just makes you look silly.
-
No it was a fact. The survey is a fact also, even though there is a margin of error.
What? You are not convinced that a decision decided by the "will of the people" should be changed if the "will of the people" changes?
We had a referendum in 1975. We managed to have the second referendum without a consistent 60%+ in favour of leaving.
Everything has changed.
What is your argument?
The will of the people has changed therefore we must have another vote.
Everything has changed so we must have another vote.
I don't agree with either argument, we will have to agree to disagree.
We now know that the Leavers had no clue what to do if they won. We have a much better idea of what a post Brexit Britain would look like, and it isn't pretty.
It would not be up to leavers to decide what to do if they won. The Government said if you vote leave we will leave and Parliament will have to decide what the final arrangement is.
Did you think you were electing someone in the referendum?
Yes but it was one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" type questions. The implication was that I either had to suck it up or admit I'm not in favour of democracy. It was a clear accusation.
Well yes, when we have an election and someone gets in that you don't like, if you then feel betrayed then you can't be in favour of democracy can you? It's the democratic system that 'betrayed' you.
How many is many. And it doesn't matter how many MPS believe having a vote is disenfranchisement,
Oh but it does, it matters the most, the only way you get another referendum is if you can get enough MPs to support it.
it's the opposite of disenfranchisement. And if you bring up famous people to support your point, it's merely argument from authority. They would be as wrong as you are. Ah, so not disenfranchisement, but a betrayal. However, those voters that feel betrayed would be a minority and getting a smaller one with each passing day.
Bringing up MPs not famous people is relevant to the chances of their being a Losers Vote.
You wrote "they have done that in the US, now the wolf is in power and no one is listening"
That to me says you think Trump is Far Right.
I clarified that for you.
No British MP is a fascist, I'll give you that, but policies like curtailing all immigration, dismantling the welfare state and the NHS, reducing workers' rights are generally pretty well out to the right hand end of the spectrum.
Did I claim we did not have a right wing government? There is vast difference between far right and normal right-wing politics, which is what I'm warning you against, painting legitimate respectable right-wing positions as far-right means you are crying wolf.
When the wolf actually comes you might find that people ignore your cries.
When did the government solemnly promise it was once in a generation?
In the document they sent to every household.
"A once in a generation decision"
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
-
What is your argument?
The will of the people has changed therefore we must have another vote.
Everything has changed so we must have another vote.
I don't agree with either argument, we will have to agree to disagree.
It would not be up to leavers to decide what to do if they won. The Government said if you vote leave we will leave and Parliament will have to decide what the final arrangement is.
Did you think you were electing someone in the referendum?
Well yes, when we have an election and someone gets in that you don't like, if you then feel betrayed then you can't be in favour of democracy can you? It's the democratic system that 'betrayed' you.
Oh but it does, it matters the most, the only way you get another referendum is if you can get enough MPs to support it.
Bringing up MPs not famous people is relevant to the chances of their being a Losers Vote.
I clarified that for you.
Did I claim we did not have a right wing government? There is vast difference between far right and normal right-wing politics, which is what I'm warning you against, painting legitimate respectable right-wing positions as far-right means you are crying wolf.
When the wolf actually comes you might find that people ignore your cries.
In the document they sent to every household.
"A once in a generation decision"
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf
I wonder if you had voted remain, if you would be against another referendum?
-
I wonder if you had voted remain, if you would be against another referendum?
All remainers do not support another vote.
-
How many referendums would you have before you can be really sure what the people want? Best of three's perhaps... or five?! ::)
When more than half have voted one way....if it is reversed....don't you think there will be significant civil unrest and riots?!
-
I wonder if you had voted remain, if you would be against another referendum?
How on earth would jakswan know what he would do if he wasn't jakswan?
-
Saw this elsewhere. With what's happened on Brexit, I feel more sympathetic to Salisbury.
"Whatever happens will be for the worse, & therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible" - Lord Salisbury
-
Were it suggested and demonstrated that we would be better off Brexitting and remain had won then I would be all for another referendum.
In fact Johnson suggested two referenda and Farridge suggested a second referendum in the event of Brexit losing.
However very shortly after the referendum Bwexiteers stated that we would not be any worse of and there own prognosis is now that any suffering is worth the price of freedom from a scenario of some fantasy occupation stewed in the minds of gammon who after a lifetime of welfare and easy money have realised their lives are vacuous after all and want to alleviate that with some grand act of supposed patriotic futility.
-
Presumably the UK's citizens would be able to live and work in the EU if it was a member of EFTA?
-
How many referendums would you have before you can be really sure what the people want? Best of three's perhaps... or five?! ::)
When more than half have voted one way....if it is reversed....don't you think there will be significant civil unrest and riots?!
But Sriram, this referendum was - legally - only advisory, not binding. In addition, its purpose was to manage the parliamentary Conservative Party.
The United Kingdom has practically no experience of referenda - they are very rare but along comes David Cameron and suddenly we have three of them - one to consider our voting system, another to consider Scottish independence and a third to shut the paleolithic wing of the Tory Party up ... oops ... to determine continued membership of the EU.
Countries which do use referenda for political determination usually insist on supermajorities to determine future action, that is at least half of the entire electorate being required to change constitutional situations. In the Brexit referendum only 37% of the electorate supported a huge constitutional change. Therefore nearly two thirds of the electorate did not support the change.
It is clear that the electorate was poorly prepared for the vote. There was little reliable information available - the most influential information was an inaccurate slogan painted on the side of a bus. Measured information prepared by the Remain camp was dismissed as "Project Fear" - without any consideration or discussion by leave. A number of people appear to have been swayed by the decision of a certain politician to support leave because he judged it useful in his desire to become Prime Minister. The fact that he subsequently displayed himself to be of questionable competence during his relatively brief reign as Foreign Secretary may not have been noticed by his fans.
I doubt that there will be any rioting or disturbance in the event of a "Remain" result in any future poll.
-
Presumably the UK's citizens would be able to live and work in the EU if it was a member of EFTA?
And EU (and other EFTA state) citizens will be able to live and work in the UK, exactly as they do now. In other words no change to freedom of movement. How do you think that is going to go down with the majority of brexiteers.
-
How many referendums would you have before you can be really sure what the people want? Best of three's perhaps... or five?! ::)
When more than half have voted one way....if it is reversed....don't you think there will be significant civil unrest and riots?!
But if this happens after a referendum, by definition more than half of voters would have voted to remain - and in a more recent vote.
Frankly I'm struggling to see how there is any way forward that wont risk significant unrest. The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum.
-
But Sriram, this referendum was - legally - only advisory, not binding. In addition, its purpose was to manage the parliamentary Conservative Party.
No stop the rise of UKIP since LibDems and Labour all voted for it.
I doubt that there will be any rioting or disturbance in the event of a "Remain" result in any future poll.
I hope that doesn't happen but something worse than UKIP could emerge.
-
And EU (and other EFTA state) citizens will be able to live and work in the UK, exactly as they do now. In other words no change to freedom of movement. How do you think that is going to go down with the majority of brexiteers.
Not true, freedom of movement of Labour you do not get citizenship in EFTA.
-
The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum.
Leave the EU it is then!
-
Leave the EU it is then!
How do you work that one out - we haven't had a vote on any specific brexit deal, and there are 2 on offer - May's deal and no deal.
If there is a referendum and one of those options gets a majority, then leave the EU it is then. But currently we have no idea whether there is a majority mandate in the country for either May's deal or no deal, compared to remaining in the EU.
-
Not true, freedom of movement of Labour you do not get citizenship in EFTA.
Nor do you in the EU - stop talking non-sense.
-
How do you work that one out - we haven't had a vote on any specific brexit deal, and there are 2 on offer - May's deal and no deal.
May's deal is transitional, so actually to properly follow your position.
The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum, so we have May's deal for the transition then negotiate the final deal and have a referendum on that.
If there is a referendum and one of those options gets a majority, then leave the EU it is then. But currently we have no idea whether there is a majority mandate in the country for either May's deal or no deal, compared to remaining in the EU.
There is majority mandate to leave though so lets leave then we can have a vote the final deal.
-
Nor do you in the EU - stop talking non-sense.
Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union
Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was given to the citizens of member states by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the European Community was gaining its own legal identity.
-
Sigh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union
Citizenship of the European Union (EU) is afforded to qualifying citizens of European Union member states. It was given to the citizens of member states by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the European Community was gaining its own legal identity.
'Historically, the main benefit of being a citizen of an EU country has been that of free movement. The free movement also applies to the citizens of European Economic Area countries[23] and Switzerland'
In other words the freedom to live and work is identical between all EEA member countries (i.e. both those in the EU and EFTA) - there is no difference in freedom of movement rights between Norway and the UK - except that Norway, along with all other EFTA countries, are in Schengen.
You continually imply that somehow being like Norway would allow us to restrict freedom of movement - it wouldn't, the rules would be exactly the same as those that currently apply to us as a member of the EU.
-
There is majority mandate to leave ...
Noting your inappropriate use of the present tense.
Is there - there was two and a half years ago, but a huge amount has happened since then, not least demographic shift. How can you know there is majority mandate to leave now. You don't, but you could find out by holding a referendum at the point at which we are about to leave.
But you are being disingenuous - the nebulous notion of 'leave' is irrelevant now - we've moved way beyond that - the agenda now is the specific way we leave, the deal (or no deal) to leave. You cannot know whether any actual leave approach has a majority mandate, because no one has asked. We cannot make the most important decision in a generation, without being absolutely certain that the actual decision (in other words the mechanism of leaving) has a mandate and has a mandate at the point when it is being enacted.
Frankly you simply come across as scared of democracy - scared that if the people were allowed to make the final decision that they might not give the answer you want.
-
'Historically, the main benefit of being a citizen of an EU country has been that of free movement. The free movement also applies to the citizens of European Economic Area countries[23] and Switzerland'
In other words the freedom to live and work is identical between all EEA member countries (i.e. both those in the EU and EFTA) - there is no difference in freedom of movement rights between Norway and the UK - except that Norway, along with all other EFTA countries, are in Schengen.
You continually imply that somehow being like Norway would allow us to restrict freedom of movement - it wouldn't, the rules would be exactly the same as those that currently apply to us as a member of the EU.
Exactly the same but different. :)
-
Noting your inappropriate use of the present tense.
Is there - there was two and a half years ago, but a huge amount has happened since then, not least demographic shift. How can you know there is majority mandate to leave now. You don't, but you could find out by holding a referendum at the point at which we are about to leave.
So do we have a referendum every two years then?
But you are being disingenuous - the nebulous notion of 'leave' is irrelevant now - we've moved way beyond that - the agenda now is the specific way we leave, the deal (or no deal) to leave. You cannot know whether any actual leave approach has a majority mandate, because no one has asked. We cannot make the most important decision in a generation, without being absolutely certain that the actual decision (in other words the mechanism of leaving) has a mandate and has a mandate at the point when it is being enacted.
I agree which I why we should take May's deal, leave, then vote on two models EFTA or Free Trade.
Frankly you simply come across as scared of democracy - scared that if the people were allowed to make the final decision that they might not give the answer you want.
I've explained why I don't want to do this again, how I come across to you is irrelevant.
-
Exactly the same but different. :)
No exactly the same:
'Free movement of persons is one of the core freedoms of the European Internal Market. This area is covered by Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, Annex V on the Free Movement of Workers and Annex VIII on the Right of Establishment. Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.'
-
So do we have a referendum every two years then?
Where there are decisions that take a long time to negotiate and aren't in the gift of the government calling the referendum, then yes. There should be an initial vote to provide the government with the mandate to negotiate a position and then a second vote to ratify (or not) that position.
And I am being entirely consistent as I was arguing that the Scottish independence referendum should have been 2 stage, in exactly the same manner, way back in 2014 when brexit was merely a spark in Cameron's eye.
I agree which I why we should take May's deal, leave, then vote on two models EFTA or Free Trade.
But that provides no legitimacy to a mandate as it doesn't guarantee that the decision enacted has majority support of all the available and deliverable options. So you might end up with May's deal, or no deal, or EFTA or Free trade, but you will never know whether any would be more popular that the other available option, in other words to remain.
Whatever decision is made over the next few months we have to be sure that is commands majority support compared to the other available options, and that has to include remain.
Do you think it is democratically acceptable to leave with a free trade deal (if that is the most popular deliverable brexit option) if that is less popular at the time it is enacted than remaining. If cannot be.
-
No exactly the same:
'Free movement of persons is one of the core freedoms of the European Internal Market. This area is covered by Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, Annex V on the Free Movement of Workers and Annex VIII on the Right of Establishment. Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.'
EEA from article 28 of EEA agreement
Freedom of movement of workers, non-economic persons are allowed SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
This does not apply to EU citizens.
Not exactly the same.
-
Where there are decisions that take a long time to negotiate and aren't in the gift of the government calling the referendum, then yes. There should be an initial vote to provide the government with the mandate to negotiate a position and then a second vote to ratify (or not) that position.
And I am being entirely consistent as I was arguing that the Scottish independence referendum should have been 2 stage, in exactly the same manner, way back in 2014 when brexit was merely a spark in Cameron's eye.
I don't agree but you hold a logical position, the position is consistent with have a vote on leave - leave - have a vote on deal.
But that provides no legitimacy to a mandate as it doesn't guarantee that the decision enacted has majority support of all the available and deliverable options. So you might end up with May's deal, or no deal, or EFTA or Free trade, but you will never know whether any would be more popular that the other available option, in other words to remain.
We were all well aware that another deal would have to be done post leave.
Whatever decision is made over the next few months we have to be sure that is commands majority support compared to the other available options, and that has to include remain.
Nope, leave option had in it priced in that the deal was unknown.
Do you think it is democratically acceptable to leave with a free trade deal (if that is the most popular deliverable brexit option) if that is less popular at the time it is enacted than remaining. If cannot be.
Yes the democratically elected Parliament gave us the referendum, promised to enact the result and then an election with two biggest parties with leave in their manifesto.
-
EEA from article 28 of EEA agreement
Freedom of movement of workers, non-economic persons are allowed SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
This does not apply to EU citizens.
Yes it does - the rules are set out by the EEA and apply to all EEA member states identically regardless of whether they are EFAT members or EU members.
The certain conditions are largely:
1. Restrictions that member states can choose to apply to citizen of states that have recently joined the EEA (either via EU or EFTA) - for example as many EU countries used when Poland and other eastern european countries joined.
2. That after 3 months if a person isn't working or have sufficient independent means to support themselves and their families that they can be removed. Many countries apply this yet the UK has chosen not to.
3. Special emergency provisions
But these apply identically to EU and Efta countries
-
What is your argument?
The will of the people has changed therefore we must have another vote.
Everything has changed so we must have another vote.
I don't agree with either argument, we will have to agree to disagree.
So you are not a democrat.
It would not be up to leavers to decide what to do if they won.
It should have been. We should have locked the Leave leaders in a room and made them tell us what version of Brexit would be used. The whole chaos that pertains now is directly related to the fact that all of the leading Leavers abdicated their responsibility and allowed a lukewarm Remainer to take charge.
"A once in a generation decision"
That wasn’t this government. We’ve had a general election since then. This government is under no obligation to keep the promises of previous ones, unless they have legal force.
-
All remainers do not support another vote.
All leavers do not support not having another vote.
-
Not true, freedom of movement of Labour you do not get citizenship in EFTA.
You don’t get citizenship under EU rules. You don’t need citizenship because you have the right to live and work in any EU country. The same would be true under EFTA rules.
-
But if this happens after a referendum, by definition more than half of voters would have voted to remain - and in a more recent vote.
Frankly I'm struggling to see how there is any way forward that wont risk significant unrest. The best way to avoid this is to ensure that whatever course of action is agreed is specifically supported by a majority in a referendum.
What I find interesting is that, when the second referendum was won, there was no civil unrest except possibly some racist attacks by remaindersleavers taking things too far. This was in spite of the fact that many Remainers were extremely angry about what happened. However, now that the possibility of another referendum is there, a major argument against it is that, if Brexit loses, some of them will riot. What does that say about the mentality of these people? Perhaps we should disenfranchise* them because they do not respect the rule of law, or democracy as practised in the UK.
*I use the word “disenfranchise” in the sense of not letting them vote, not in the sense of having a vote they might lose, which seems to be the modern meaning.
-
There is majority mandate to leave though so lets leave then we can have a vote the final deal.
You mean there was one in June 2016. Nobody knows what the majority mandate would be now, although, as discussed above, it seems to be in favor of remain, and is likely to get more Remain over time as on average, Leavers are leaving the voting population and Remainers are joining it.
-
What I find interesting is that, when the second referendum was won, there was no civil unrest except possibly some racist attacks by remainders taking things to far. This was in spite of the fact that many Remainers were extremely angry about what happened. However, now that the possibility of another referendum is there, a major argument against it is that, if Brexit loses, some of them will riot. What does that say about the mentality of these people? Perhaps we should disenfranchise* them because they do not respect the rule of law, or democracy as practised in the UK.
*I use the word “disenfranchise” in the sense of not letting them vote, not in the sense of having a vote they might lose, which seems to be the modern meaning.
There is, as you make clear, something a bit odd with someone arguing for democracy and then saying one of the issues might be some undefined random violence. The decision on what you chose, i.e. Vote on must be about what you think is best, and if you think that others would be excessively violent then you say blackmail is fine, and democracy is pointless.
-
The vote to stay or leave has taken place and in this the people voted, and the result was to leave. The current government stood on a manifesto that stated they would leave both the single market and customs union. If there is another vote it can only be on the terms of leaving, as in deal or no deal.
Reneging, call it "more democracy" or whatever you wish, will cause untold damage lasting longer than any economic hit. I voted remain but I believe a vote is a vote. It is what I grew up with and it has always been most votes take it. If there is "more democracy" I would most definately vote leave.
-
The vote to stay or leave has taken place and in this the people voted, and the result was to leave. The current government stood on a manifesto that stated they would leave both the single market and customs union. If there is another vote it can only be on the terms of leaving, as in deal or no deal.
Reneging, call it "more democracy" or whatever you wish, will cause untold damage lasting longer than any economic hit. I voted remain but I believe a vote is a vote. It is what I grew up with and it has always been most votes take it. If there is "more democracy" I would most definately vote leave.
So I presume you believe that once we've had a general election, or local election, that we should never have another one - because a 'vote is a vote'.
The whole point about democracy is that it is a process and we have the opportunity to change our minds. And actually having a referendum on the deal wouldn't be about changing our minds, because the electorate have never been asked whether they do or not not support the deal on offer.
-
The vote to stay or leave has taken place and in this the people voted, and the result was to leave. The current government stood on a manifesto that stated they would leave both the single market and customs union. If there is another vote it can only be on the terms of leaving, as in deal or no deal.
Reneging, call it "more democracy" or whatever you wish, will cause untold damage lasting longer than any economic hit. I voted remain but I believe a vote is a vote. It is what I grew up with and it has always been most votes take it. If there is "more democracy" I would most definately vote leave.
So do you think that if a majority preferred to stay in the EU than supported any of the brexit options on offer that we should be forced down a path not supported by the public on the basis on a vote 2 and a half years ago on a nominal brexit rather than an actual one.
It is going to take years, if not decades, to heal the rifts and resentments caused by the 2016 vote. The only way to damp down that resentment is to ensure that what is finally enacted (deal, no deal or remain) is clearly supported by a majority of the electorate. Any other will simply further fuel resentment.
-
When there is a general election the party that wins the vote forms the next government, that is the result if that vote is respected and under normal circumstances there will not be another for the next five years.
Not even near a comparison.
Stay in the EU should not be on any future ballot paper.
-
Stay in the EU should not be on any future ballot paper.
So even if now a majority wanted to stay we should be forced to leave against the current will of the people - what a bizarre notion of democracy.
-
So even if now a majority wanted to stay we should be forced to leave against the current will of the people - what a bizarre notion of democracy.
So in a general election do you think we should not let the vote winner take power for a year or two as in this time there may not be a majority for them to do so?
-
Yes it does - the rules are set out by the EEA and apply to all EEA member states identically regardless of whether they are EFAT members or EU members.
The certain conditions are largely:
1. Restrictions that member states can choose to apply to citizen of states that have recently joined the EEA (either via EU or EFTA) - for example as many EU countries used when Poland and other eastern european countries joined.
2. That after 3 months if a person isn't working or have sufficient independent means to support themselves and their families that they can be removed. Many countries apply this yet the UK has chosen not to.
3. Special emergency provisions
But these apply identically to EU and Efta countries
I don't see how they can be exactly the same as treaties are different, I'll concede the point, I've little issue with immigration.
-
So you are not a democrat.
I've never felt betrayed because of a democratic result.
It should have been. We should have locked the Leave leaders in a room and made them tell us what version of Brexit would be used. The whole chaos that pertains now is directly related to the fact that all of the leading Leavers abdicated their responsibility and allowed a lukewarm Remainer to take charge.
Nope it was always clear that was not going to happen.
That wasn’t this government. We’ve had a general election since then. This government is under no obligation to keep the promises of previous ones, unless they have legal force.
That might wash I doubt it.
-
I don't see how they can be exactly the same as treaties are different, I'll concede the point, I've little issue with immigration.
They are exactly the same, because the overarching issue is the single market which is 'owned' not by the EU or EFTA, but by the EEA. The rules apply in exactly the same manner to all EEA member states, regardless of whether they are EU or EFTA.
It worries me that you are so adamant that Norway/EFTA is the answer, yet you don't actually seem to understand what this means.
-
I've never felt betrayed because of a democratic result.
So you would be OK then if there is a decision to hold a referendum with remain on the ballot paper and remain wins.
-
So in a general election do you think we should not let the vote winner take power for a year or two as in this time there may not be a majority for them to do so?
General elections are time limited - so yes I wouldn't be comfortable with the notion of electing a government and not being clear when I would reverse that decision. And note that a mandate is needed to change things, not to keep them the same. So a government only retains a mandate to change things for a specific period of time. Most democracies define that period as 4/5 years. It is very unlikely we will have a final brexit position in place within 4/5 years of the June 2016 vote.
-
What I find interesting is that, when the second referendum was won, there was no civil unrest except possibly some racist attacks by remainders taking things to far. This was in spite of the fact that many Remainers were extremely angry about what happened. However, now that the possibility of another referendum is there, a major argument against it is that, if Brexit loses, some of them will riot. What does that say about the mentality of these people? Perhaps we should disenfranchise* them because they do not respect the rule of law, or democracy as practised in the UK.
*I use the word “disenfranchise” in the sense of not letting them vote, not in the sense of having a vote they might lose, which seems to be the modern meaning.
I think many rermainers do not take any responsibility for losing.I think a lot of the reasons for Brexit are that people did feel disenfranchised, when the establishment in quite a condescending way encouraged them to vote a certain many thought they would stick two fingers up. After that they told them that they didn't understand what they were voting for and were a bunch of racists, and now the establishment wants to try to justify asking again because they made the wrong decision last time.
I warn you it will be messy, it is more uncertainty and prolongs the division, lets get the question, what did you want that to be? May's deal can't be on the ballot, it's a transition only, you will have to ask the same question again.
What if you win by the same margin, well its 1-1, lets go again. What if leave win, we still don't know what the final deal will be, oh lets have another vote on that but remain has to be on the ballot.
Telling you are advocating removing peoples right to vote because you don't like them.
People voted for a variety of reason I wanted an end to political union, am I part of the 'far right' in your mind?
-
There is, as you make clear, something a bit odd with someone arguing for democracy and then saying one of the issues might be some undefined random violence. The decision on what you chose, i.e. Vote on must be about what you think is best, and if you think that others would be excessively violent then you say blackmail is fine, and democracy is pointless.
Agree with this my concern isn't over violence it is the potential for extremist political ideologies take hold. I did think UKIP were a bit toxic and the referendum was the way that the main parties got rid of them, because they are now an irrelevance, they could come back or something worse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-46424511/system-resistance-network-far-right-group-recruits-in-wales
-
What if you win by the same margin, well its 1-1, lets go again.
Actually it already is 1-1.
But the reality is that a new referendum wouldn't be a re-run of a straight remain-hypothetical leave choice. It will be entirely different, it will be a vote to determine an actual deal not a hypothetical one. So it isn't the same as the previous two remain-hypothetic leave votes.
A good analogy is the moving house one. You might make a decision that you don't like where you live and want to move. However once you've made that decision you discover that there aren't any properties on the market that are better than the one you already live in (a real choice, not a hypothetical one) at that point should you be obliged to move due to your earlier decision. Of course you shouldn't be. If when faced with real choices you decide your current house is better after all, then you should stay.
-
It is going to take years, if not decades, to heal the rifts and resentments caused by the 2016 vote. The only way to damp down that resentment is to ensure that what is finally enacted (deal, no deal or remain) is clearly supported by a majority of the electorate. Any other will simply further fuel resentment.
Say again, I'm liberal slightly right wing former LibDem member, April 1st, you want Norway, I want Norway, where is the problem?
-
Actually it already is 1-1.
No, its
1. We vote to join - we join
2. We vote to leave - erm lets have another go.
But the reality is that a new referendum wouldn't be a re-run of a straight remain-hypothetical leave choice. It will be entirely different, it will be a vote to determine an actual deal not a hypothetical one. So it isn't the same as the previous two remain-hypothetic leave votes.
Again, a logical position,but what follows is that we should leave then vote not on the transitional arrangement but on the final deal.
A good analogy is the moving house one. You might make a decision that you don't like where you live and want to move. However once you've made that decision you discover that there aren't any properties on the market that are better than the one you already live in (a real choice, not a hypothetical one) at that point should you be obliged to move due to your earlier decision. Of course you shouldn't be. If when faced with real choices you decide your current house is better after all, then you should stay.
That is not a good analogy, it was made clear at the time, from the Government leaflet:-
Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market.
But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that
-
Say again, I'm liberal slightly right wing former LibDem member, April 1st, you want Norway, I want Norway, where is the problem?
The 1975 vote (which was pretty well a landslide) lead to simmering resentment over decades, largely because 'what we voted for changed' - yes it did, but it was a very gently transition over years and year. The change from what was promised in 2016 has happened over months - remember all those promises from the vote Leave side.
Sure Common market of 1975 changed over the 41 years to 2016, but the promised brexit has changed just as much in far less than 41 months - we have gone from the world of milk and honey, to a damage limitation where we should be happy if there are medicines available.
And no I don't want Norway.
-
No, its
1. We vote to join - we join
2. We vote to leave - erm lets have another go.
FFS Jakswan - I think you need to get up to speed on the facts.
First you admit you have no idea of what Norway/EFTA actually means despite espousing it.
Secondly you claim that:
1. We vote to join - we join
We never voted to join. Heath took us into the common market in 1973 - there was no referendum. The referendum of 1975 was whether to remain in the common market - effectively identical to the 2016 referendum. the exact wording of the two referendums:
1975:
Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
2016
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
-
So you would be OK then if there is a decision to hold a referendum with remain on the ballot paper and remain wins.
Me? Yes of course, I wanted an end to political union, I never felt Tusk etc is properly held to account. The Uk isn't perfect but our media do hold politicians to account, so its not that big an issue to me. I didn't buy the completely OTT doom and gloom forecasts which essentially said we would grow slower, and EFTA means the impact would be minimal. Lets not do that debate again though.
I would be really concerned with UKIP or something worse appearing on the scene though.
-
FFS Jakswan - I think you need to get up to speed on the facts.
First you admit you have no idea of what Norway/EFTA actually means despite espousing it.
Secondly you claim that:
1. We vote to join - we join
We never voted to join. Heath took us into the common market in 1973 - there was no referendum. The referendum of 1975 was whether to remain in the common market - effectively identical to the 2016 referendum. the exact wording of the two referendums:
1975:
Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?
2016
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
FFS Davey keep your hair on, it does not materially change my point.
Vote 1 - Do you want to stay - Yes - we stayed
Vote 2 - Do you want to leave - Yes - erm lets have another go
I've admitted nothing I'm not debating an issue which I don't really care that much about so I conceded the point, I know you like to score points, I'm not doing this to score points.
-
I would be really concerned with UKIP or something worse appearing on the scene though.
The best way to achieve that is to deliver either a super-soft brexit (which they wouldn't consider brexit) without a specific democratic mandate via a referendum, or to decide to remain without a specific democratic mandate via a referendum.
A democratic mandate for whatever is enacted via a specific referendum bursts their bubble. Don't get me wrong they will still rail against, but their credibility in doing so is massively reduced.
-
I've admitted nothing I'm not debating an issue which I don't really care that much about so I conceded the point, I know you like to score points, I'm not doing this to score points.
You seem to care an awful lot about Norway/EFTA - it's largely all you've discussed recently. It isn't unreasonable to expect you to understand what that actually means, yet you don't.
-
So in a general election do you think we should not let the vote winner take power for a year or two as in this time there may not be a majority for them to do so?
In a GE you are presented with manifestos from the competing political parties, you can vote for your preference and on your expectation as regards how specific political parties would cope with events, and you will have the option to support or vote against your choice in due course depending on your updated assessment of their competence - in effect you have the chance to change your mind based on the current situation as the next GE approaches as opposed to the situation just prior to when the last GE was held.
The 2016 EU referendum was a one-issue vote, where those who voted Leave did so, presumably, on the basis that they approved of the idea of Brexit since, in the absence of a risk assessment available or policy outline, nobody in 2016 knew what Brexit would actually entail: I certainly don't recall ' NI backstop' being bandied around two and a bit years ago. So now that more is known about Brexit it would be quite reasonable to check that the electorate still wanted to proceed on the basis of the information now available as opposed to what their feeling was when there was no information available to them.
One of those speaking in Westminster during the debate the other day commented that the sell-by date for 2016 referendum was long gone given details of 'the deal': as such, there is an argument for voting again since there is now enough information available so as to permit an informed decision regarding Brexit, as opposed an the uninformed decision taken in 2016. Even now, as MPs are about to vote, what form Brexit will actually take (if it goes ahead) remains unknown - and if this doesn't worry the Brexit enthusiasts it may be that they've moved from enthusiasm to zealotry.
-
You seem to care an awful lot about Norway/EFTA - it's largely all you've discussed recently. It isn't unreasonable to expect you to understand what that actually means, yet you don't.
Non-sense.
-
In a GE you are presented with manifestos from the competing political parties, you can vote for your preference and on your expectation as regards how specific political parties would cope with events, and you will have the option to support or vote against your choice in due course depending on your updated assessment of their competence - in effect you have the chance to change your mind based on the current situation as the next GE approaches as opposed to the situation just prior to when the last GE was held.
The 2016 EU referendum was a one-issue vote, where those who voted Leave did so, presumably, on the basis that they approved of the idea of Brexit since, in the absence of a risk assessment available or policy outline, nobody in 2016 knew what Brexit would actually entail: I certainly don't recall ' NI backstop' being bandied around two and a bit years ago. So now that more is known about Brexit it would be quite reasonable to check that the electorate still wanted to proceed on the basis of the information now available as opposed to what their feeling was when there was no information available to them.
One of those speaking in Westminster during the debate the other day commented that the sell-by date for 2016 referendum was long gone given details of 'the deal': as such, there is an argument for voting again since there is now enough information available so as to permit an informed decision regarding Brexit, as opposed an the uninformed decision taken in 2016. Even now, as MPs are about to vote, what form Brexit will actually take (if it goes ahead) remains unknown - and if this doesn't worry the Brexit enthusiasts it may be that they've moved from enthusiasm to zealotry.
This will apply to any Scotland independence vote as well I presume?
Scotland votes Leave, rUk does something you don't expect, another vote will be fine?
-
I'm rather entertained by this notion that we are choosing between Norway or Canada - with each supplemented by ++++, --- etc.
This is just a media construct largely driven by the notion that Norway and Canada as countries are ones we warm to.
The reality - we aren't talking about Norway at all, but:
Norway - Schengen
Norway + customs union (needed for NI)
Norway - single market as that required freedom of movement
Norway - EFTA as that isn't in the gift of the UK or EU
So we have Norway+---, which is effectively identical to ... err ... Turkey. So why don't we call it as it is - or is it perhaps not media and public friendly enough to suggest we want Turkey!
-
Non-sense.
Which part:
That you haven't been banging on about Norway/EFTA - which I think a quick check of your recent post will prove to be the case.
Or that you don't understand Norway/EFTA - which again is demonstrably true as you clearly didn't realise that the Norway/EFTA situation on freedom of movement is identical to the EU. It matters not whether you care about migration, it demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about.
-
This will apply to any Scotland independence vote as well I presume?
Scotland votes Leave, rUk does something you don't expect, another vote will be fine?
Absolutely fine with me, as my posts from 2014 demonstrate. Actually not just fine, but essential.
Vote first to give a mandate to negotiate a leave/independence deal
Vote again to ratify this deal, with the alternative being to remain in the EU/UK
Completely consistent on my part.
-
This will apply to any Scotland independence vote as well I presume?
That depends on whether, when Indyref2 occurs, as I hope it will, that there will be sufficient information available so that the Scottish electorate can be considered to have made an informed decision at the time, as opposed to the uninformed choice made in favour of Brexit. Those campaigning for Scottish Independence in future will, I hope, have learned lessons from the Brexit experience and that where the proposal is to change the status quo the electorate need to be fully informed of the implications of the change - and yes, having seen Brexit unfold I think that Indyref2 must involve better information than was the case in 2014, where looking back issues such as currency weren't well handled.
Of course we now have new information compared to 2014 that represent a significant change in circumstances for Scotland. In 2014 we were told, and by the same Tory PM who allowed the Brexit referendum to happen, that if Scotland wanted to remain in the EU we would have to stay in the UK, and that may have encouraged some to vote to stay in the UK so as to remain in the EU, and of course in 2016 Scotland votes by a notable margin to remain in the EU - and yet it is the very party who threatened that we'd be leaving the EU if we voted for independence that allowed this referendum and is now trying to implement Brexit (though the fat lady has yet to sing).
Just as a second referendum on Brexit is justified on the basis that the 2016 result occurred in the absence of relevant information then Indyref2 would be justified on the basis that there has been a significant change in circumstances, and especially if Brexit does happen: sometimes there is a need to revisit previous decisions if things change or new information comes to light.
Scotland votes Leave, rUk does something you don't expect, another vote will be fine?
That didn't happen though: but that isn't the main point about the weakness of Brexit for me. I'd say that if an uniformed decision is taken (on just about anything) and new information becomes available before the decision is implemented and finalised that describes in more detail the consequences of the decision, then only a fool would prefer not to reconsider their earlier decision: they may come to the same view of course, but they may not.
-
Which part:
That you haven't been banging on about Norway/EFTA - which I think a quick check of your recent post will prove to be the case.
Yep agree with that all for Norway type deal.
Or that you don't understand Norway/EFTA - which again is demonstrably true as you clearly didn't realise that the Norway/EFTA situation on freedom of movement is identical to the EU. It matters not whether you care about migration, it demonstrates that you don't understand what you are talking about.
I don't agree its identical but since it is not that important at this stage don't see the point in debating it, so conceded the point. Tell yourself you won and have a big prize.
May I remind you that come April 1st 2019, and the final deal is up for grabs. Some Brexiteers will be arguing for Canada type deal, you will be arguing for Norway and when the issue of immigration comes out you will now have to admit that Norway deal in this regard is actually identical.
Anything could happen over the next few monthes, I know you going all in for another vote but may I suggest you might think ahead a little.
-
That depends on whether, when Indyref2 occurs, as I hope it will, that there will be sufficient information available so that the Scottish electorate can be considered to have made an informed decision at the time, as opposed to the uninformed choice made in favour of Brexit. Those campaigning for Scottish Independence in future will, I hope, have learned lessons from the Brexit experience and that where the proposal is to change the status quo the electorate need to be fully informed of the implications of the change - and yes, having seen Brexit unfold I think that Indyref2 must involve better information than was the case in 2014, where looking back issues such as currency weren't well handled.
The Brexit vote was not uninformed, the government's own literature said a future deal was uncertain. So let us get this straight, indyref2, you will know with certainty, what is going to happen with the currency, requires UK negotiation, EU membership requires UK and EU negotiation, the border requires UK and EU negotiation, customs union same, free trade the same and many more issues.
Of course we now have new information compared to 2014 that represent a significant change in circumstances for Scotland. In 2014 we were told, and by the same Tory PM who allowed the Brexit referendum to happen,
This is getting boring now for to trot out the same line without addressing my refutuation. Labour LibDems Tories all supported the EU referendum bill. In fairness to Cameron, his tactics were awful but you can't accuse him of not trying to win Brexit vote.
Just as a second referendum on Brexit is justified on the basis that the 2016 result occurred in the absence of relevant information then Indyref2 would be justified on the basis that there has been a significant change in circumstances, and especially if Brexit does happen: sometimes there is a need to revisit previous decisions if things change or new information comes to light.
Indyref2 is justified for all sorts of reasons not just that surely?
That didn't happen though: but that isn't the main point about the weakness of Brexit for me. I'd say that if an uniformed decision is taken (on just about anything) and new information becomes available before the decision is implemented and finalised that describes in more detail the consequences of the decision then only a fool would prefer not to reconsider their earlier decision: they may come to the same view of course, but they may not.
So indyref2 will require two votes, you can't possibly sort out all the issues before the decision, it will inevitably be uninformed to some degree.
-
The Brexit vote was not uninformed, the government's own literature said a future deal was uncertain.
Then they should have done some due diligence before going to the polls and allowing the electorate to make a choice without adequate information.
So let us get this straight, indyref2, you will know with certainty, what is going to happen with the currency, requires UK negotiation, EU membership requires UK and EU negotiation, the border requires UK and EU negotiation, customs union same, free trade the same and many more issues
I think the lesson here is that there is a need to provide the electorate with a better assessment of the potential consequences than was the case in both 2014 and 2016, where given the issues you mention that have been highlighted during Brexit it probably requires more time to prepare the case before any voting occurs. There is also the question of deciding whether the matter is best addressed through a GE campaign, and if a referendum is better suited then whether it is advisory or not, and also what level of electoral support is required in favour of changing the status quo - the 52/48 split for Brexit is hardly a ringing endorsement that the electorate are fully supportive, which is why the 'get behind the country' slogans I've heard since are laughable.
This is getting boring now for to trot out the same line without addressing my refutuation. Labour LibDems Tories all supported the EU referendum bill. In fairness to Cameron, his tactics were awful but you can't accuse him of not trying to win Brexit vote.
In better hands, bearing in mind I suspect he didn't think the electorate would vote to leave, it may be that there would be more confidence in this result being an informed choice had more competent politicians taken care to better prepare the electorate. Given the narrow margin of the result, and that much of the detail is very recent, we'll not know whether the electorate would vote differently given the information now available to them until we check. Remember too that at present neither of the two main parties in Westminster overall are the main party in a Scottish context, and that the Scottish electorate are more pro-EU than anti-EU.
Indyref2 is justified for all sorts of reasons not just that surely?
So indyref2 will require two votes, you can't possibly sort out all the issues before the decision, it will inevitably be uninformed to some degree.
Uninformed to some degree certainly, but hopefully to less of a degree that the 2014 and 2016 referenda were in that if there is an Indyref2 the major elements will have undergone enough prior assessment so that the result can be considered to be an informed decision - even if it takes longer to get to the voting stage.
-
If Brexit goes ahead, it'll be an economic disaster. If it is cancelled there will be, literally, riots in the streets. Either way, there will be bitterness and division for years to come - and all because of an utterly cynical and spectacularly irresponsible decision to hold a completely unnecessary referendum to spike the guns of UKRAP by Cameron, one of the worst Prime Ministers ever: not quite as bad as Th*tch*r, but not far off. The omnishambles since reveals May to be pretty appalling as well. If there's any justice, after the next General Election the Tories will be out of power for a generation. I'm old enough now for it to be possible that after that election, whenever it comes, I never see another Tory government in my life. It'd make me very happy if that were so.
-
In better hands, bearing in mind I suspect he didn't think the electorate would vote to leave, it may be that there would be more confidence in this result being an informed choice had more competent politicians taken care to better prepare the electorate. Given the narrow margin of the result, and that much of the detail is very recent, we'll not know whether the electorate would vote differently given the information now available to them until we check. Remember too that at present neither of the two main parties in Westminster overall are the main party in a Scottish context, and that the Scottish electorate are more pro-EU than anti-EU.
Its impossible to know what the outcome of Scotland x EU x UK deal would be until they actually did it. So you would need three referendums?
Brexit was UK wide, Scotland having voted to remain in UK.
-
If Brexit goes ahead, it'll be an economic disaster. If it is cancelled there will be, literally, riots in the streets. Either way, there will be bitterness and division for years to come - and all because of an utterly cynical and spectacularly irresponsible decision to hold a completely unnecessary referendum to spike the guns of UKRAP by Cameron, one of the worst Prime Ministers ever: not quite as bad as Th*tch*r, but not far off. The omnishambles since reveals May to be pretty appalling as well. If there's any justice, after the next General Election the Tories will be out of power for a generation. I'm old enough now for it to be possible that after that election, whenever it comes, I never see another Tory government in my life. It'd make me very happy if that were so.
Norway deal won't be economic disaster, Corbyn will.
I think Corbyn voted for the referendum so if you are going to blame politicians then ....
-
Norway deal won't be economic disaster, Corbyn will.
I think Corbyn voted for the referendum so if you are going to blame politicians then ....
Why would Corbyn be an economic disaster? It really is no good making flat statements of opinion, as I frequently tell another poster, with no supporting arguments.
-
Its impossible to know what the outcome of Scotland x EU x UK deal would be until they actually did it. So you would need three referendums?
I think either one vote, but only if there is sufficient preparatory information so that the electorate can be considered to have made an informed choice, or two: the first a yes or no to setting out the terms, followed by one to agree/disagree with the terms.
Brexit was UK wide, Scotland having voted to remain in UK.
Indeed, but under, as it turns out, the false pretence that in doing so EU membership would continue.
-
May I remind you that come April 1st 2019, and the final deal is up for grabs. Some Brexiteers will be arguing for Canada type deal, you will be arguing for Norway and when the issue of immigration comes out you will now have to admit that Norway deal in this regard is actually identical.
Bit presumptuous of you to assume that I will be arguing for Norway. I won't be - I'll be arguing to rejoin the EU.
-
Why would Corbyn be an economic disaster? It really is no good making flat statements of opinion, as I frequently tell another poster, with no supporting arguments.
You have always evaded that debate.
-
I think either one vote, but only if there is sufficient preparatory information so that the electorate can be considered to have made an informed choice, or two: the first a yes or no to setting out the terms, followed by one to agree/disagree with the terms.
So in Brexit terms we leave then vote on the type of deal, EFTA or free trade.
-
You have always evaded that debate.
And you're evading my question!
-
Bit presumptuous of you to assume that I will be arguing for Norway. I won't be - I'll be arguing to rejoin the EU.
That ship will have sailed.
-
I think either one vote, but only if there is sufficient preparatory information so that the electorate can be considered to have made an informed choice, or two: the first a yes or no to setting out the terms, followed by one to agree/disagree with the terms.
I think it is effectively impossible to have just one vote. You are theoretically correct that you could have one vote if there is 'sufficient preparatory information' - in other words an agreement between Scotland/UK, UK/EU on independence/withdrawal. But in the real world no governments are going to put in the enormous effort so agree the deal in advance of a democratic mandate. Frankly if the UK or Scotland asked for negotiations on withdrawal/independence before a referendum mandate the EU/UK would quite reasonably tell them to bog off.
So the only realistic solution to ensure that:
1. The negotiations can take place to agree a deal and
2. The people make a decision on the basis of an agreed deal
is to have 2 votes, the first to provide a mandate to negotiate an independence/withdrawal deal and a second vote, once that is agreed to accept that deal or retain the status quo (remaining in the UK/EU). If a no deal option is a plausible way to leave (I'm not convinced it is in either case) then that could plausibly be a third option.
-
That ship will have sailed.
No it wont - there will always be an option to rejoin the EU. Don't forget you are arguing for rejoining an organisation we left 45 years ago.
-
And you're evading my question!
I have been waiting for months for your reply.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15962.msg751350#msg751350
-
No it wont - there will always be an option to rejoin the EU. Don't forget you are arguing for rejoining an organisation we left 45 years ago.
Will have to see when the time comes. :)
-
Will have to see when the time comes. :)
There will be nothing to see - applying to join the EU will always be an option available to the UK. It is, of course, much more convenient not to leave in the first place by revoking article 50. But even if we have left, regardless of the situation we can apply to rejoin.
Sorry to burst your bubble if you thought that people would simply stop arguing for being in the EU the day we leave - it isn't going to happen. And the best way to super-charge that argument is to leave without a democratic mandate on the actual brexit deal we leave on.
-
There will be nothing to see - applying to join the EU will always be an option available to the UK. It is, of course, much more convenient not to leave in the first place by revoking article 50. But even if we have left, regardless of the situation we can apply to rejoin.
Sorry to burst your bubble if you thought that people would simply stop arguing for being in the EU the day we leave - it isn't going to happen. And the best way to super-charge that argument is to leave without a democratic mandate on the actual brexit deal we leave on.
I think the debate will move to what type of long term arrangement we have with the EU, if you campaign to rejoin I think that is absolutely fine. Don't you worry about any bubbles. :)
-
So in Brexit terms we leave then vote on the type of deal, EFTA or free trade.
Nope - 2016 was, at best, a vote for the idea of Brexit, since an idea was all it was in the absence of any detailed information, and now that there is this divisive deal on the table and since Article 50 has already been triggered, on the presumption no doubt that some mythical 'good deal' was a given - now we know better.
I think that the only options are either a second referendum to either accept or reject the terms of this deal or not, and if not then Brexit in the guise of this deal is cancelled: in effect, a public rejection of this deal is a rejection of the idea Brexit on the terms offered so that the status quo applies, or that Article 50 is revoked on the basis that there is a political impasse to an extent that it is unsafe to proceed given the risks of 'no deal' by default, and so the current Brexit process is ended. Whether or not Brexit is pursued again in the future is another master entirely.
I suppose the lesson from the current mess is that either there is a better preparation for single vote referendum or there is a two-stage process, where the first vote is on the principle to be negotiated, and if there is approval for that then a follow-up on accepting or rejecting details of the negotiation (possibly with a threshold to be exceeded to confirm approval). This Brexit seems so toxic now it needs to be put out of its misery: the other lesson is, of course, never trust the Tories again.
-
the other lesson is, of course, never trust the Tories again.
Don't understand.
"Again?"
-
Don't understand.
"Again?"
Indeed - I think, on reflection, 'ever' would have been a better choice than 'again'.
-
I think that the only options are either a second referendum to either accept or reject the terms of this deal or not, and if not then Brexit in the guise of this deal is cancelled: in effect, a public rejection of this deal is a rejection of the idea Brexit on the terms offered so that the status quo applies, or that Article 50 is revoked on the basis that there is a political impasse to an extent that it is unsafe to proceed given the risks of 'no deal' by default, and so the current Brexit process is ended. Whether or not Brexit is pursued again in the future is another master entirely.
There is no deal on the table, there is only a transitional arrangement. There is no way politicians are going to be able to do what you say, it has to reversed by a referendum.
So you would have to have another vote and ask exactly the same question as last time but make people aware that the options would EFTA or Free trade trade but you wouldn't know which one, but everyone was aware of that last time.
I suppose the lesson from the current mess is that either there is a better preparation for single vote referendum or there is a two-stage process, where the first vote is on the principle to be negotiated, and if there is approval for that then a follow-up on accepting or rejecting details of the negotiation (possibly with a threshold to be exceeded to confirm approval). This Brexit seems so toxic now it needs to be put out of its misery: the other lesson is, of course, never trust the Tories again.
So Scotland will have same way to go to become independent?
For about the 50th time, Lab, LibDems, Tories all voted for the referendum, oh and since you rate the indyref1 as something of a mess why ever trust the SNP again?
-
There is no deal on the table, there is only a transitional arrangement. There is no way politicians are going to be able to do what you say, it has to reversed by a referendum.
So you would have to have another vote and ask exactly the same question as last time but make people aware that the options would EFTA or Free trade trade but you wouldn't know which one, but everyone was aware of that last time.
So Scotland will have same way to go to become independent?
For about the 50th time, Lab, LibDems, Tories all voted for the referendum, oh and since you rate the indyref1 as something of a mess why ever trust the SNP again?
Then it seems the whole approach to Brexit, from the reasons for allowing the referendum (internal Tory politics) and the delivery of the unexpected result, has been a shambolic mess - and the best approach would be to draw a line under this mess and either treat is as something not deliverable or devise a different strategy (if there is any appetite left).
I think that Indyref2, if it happens, needs to learn lessons for the current Brexit debacle. Oh, and I didn't trust the Tories long before they stumbled into Brexit.
-
Then it seems the whole approach to Brexit, from the reasons for allowing the referendum (internal Tory politics) and the delivery of the unexpected result, has been a shambolic mess - and the best approach would be to draw a line under this mess and either treat is as something not deliverable or devise a different strategy (if there is any appetite left).
As I've explained to you several times this is impossible for politicians to do. As I've also explained to you several times the referendum was not due to Tory politics since three of the main parties all voted for it. If I offer a refutation on one of your positions it would be courteous if you'd acknowledge it.
I think that Indyref2, if it happens, needs to learn lessons for the current Brexit debacle.
So no indyref2 then. :)
Oh, and I didn't trust the Tories long before they stumbled into Brexit.
Yes I can guess where your prejudice comes from.
-
Yes I can guess where your prejudice comes from
Why prejudice?
the definition of which is this:
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
I can't speak for Gordon but for myself I have plenty of actual experiences where my opinion is based on fact.
As a completely arbitrary example the fact that the government allows infrastructure expenditure to be 6 times more per head of the population in the capital than in other areas. Grossly unfair, actual experience.
Another example, the Windrush generation.
These are actual reasons and experience.
So not prejudice.
-
The vote to stay or leave has taken place and in this the people voted, and the result was to leave.
No. The result of the original vote was "remain". You cannot argue that the 2016 vote is "once and for all" because it was already the second vote.
The current government stood on a manifesto that stated they would leave both the single market and customs union. If there is another vote it can only be on the terms of leaving, as in deal or no deal.
I'm not opposed to the current government resigning or being booted out because it cannot or will not deliver on its manifesto.
Reneging, call it "more democracy" or whatever you wish, will cause untold damage lasting longer than any economic hit.
That's a nice little country you have got there. Shame if it met with a little "accident".
I voted remain but I believe a vote is a vote. It is what I grew up with and it has always been most votes take it. If there is "more democracy" I would most definately vote leave.
Circumstances change. People change. Democracy is not having one vote (well two votes) and then washing your hands. Democracy is government by the people. That mean an ongoing consultation with the people to find out what they think. This is implicitly recognised in this country by the fact that we didn't have one general election and then decide that any future general elections would be a betrayal of the people and likely result in violence.
-
As I've explained to you several times this is impossible for politicians to do. As I've also explained to you several times the referendum was not due to Tory politics since three of the main parties all voted for it. If I offer a refutation on one of your positions it would be courteous if you'd acknowledge it.
Oh I think the referendum was entirely due to Tory politics, and it had been a thorn in the side of Tory politics since at least the days of John Major as PM (who referred to the likes of Cash as 'bastards').
So no indyref2 then. :)
Hopefully there will be, in due course, and with lessons learned from the current fiasco.
Yes I can guess where your prejudice comes from.
Yep - from previous and current Tory involvement in Scotland.
-
I warn you it will be messy, it is more uncertainty and prolongs the division
It's already messy.
-
No, its
1. We vote to join - we join
Nope. We joined without a referendum. The democratically elected government of the day took us in. I expect it was in their manifesto. The first referendum was a remain/leave vote.
-
Just heard on Radio 4 that the ECJ say the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50: so there is a quick way to at least stop Brexit and remove the 'no deal' risk without another referendum, and stop the current shambles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
-
Just heard on Radio 4 that the ECJ say the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50: so there is a quick way to at least stop Brexit and remove the 'no deal' risk without another referendum, and stop the current shambles.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46481643
Hopefully good sense will prevail, but I am not holding my breath.
-
On train currently but just read on Times May planning another referendum.
Remain not an option!
-
On train currently but just read on Times May planning another referendum.
Remain not an option!
Can't think how she'd get away with that, given that the ECJ say remain is an option and the recent amendment passed in Westminster does (I think) allow MPs to say what options should be considered. Can't imagine that the likes of Vince Cable won't raise the rescinding Article 50 option.
Was listening to a radio interview earlier where a commentator (not sure who) was observing that several polls now show that the public may well have changed their minds re. Brexit.
-
On train currently but just read on Times May planning another referendum.
Remain not an option!
Read the Times this morning - didn't see that.
Anyhow I though the plan was to ensure no deal wouldn't be on any ballot paper - so are we going to have a referendum with only a single choice!?!
-
Hope this works.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/09/theresa-mays-plan-b-could-see-second-referendum-does-not-include/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1544396848
-
Hope this works.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/09/theresa-mays-plan-b-could-see-second-referendum-does-not-include/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1544396848
If there was such a referendum, I'd spoil my ballot paper by witing in the option "Remain in the EU" and putting my cross against it.
-
Hope this works.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/09/theresa-mays-plan-b-could-see-second-referendum-does-not-include/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1544396848
Thanks - that's the Telegraph not the Times.
Problem with that approach is that it is likely that Benn's amendment will rule out no deal, so how could you have a referendum that doesn't include 2 out of the 3 deliverable options.
What I had heard was that there would be a 2 question referendum - the first question being leave vs remain, the second (if leave wins) deal vs no deal. However that wouldn't work if parliament has vetoed no deal.
-
Reports on the BBC that the vote tomorrow is postponed: May to make statement at 3.30.
If she says she is going back to negotiate then, presumably, her best deal that she recommended could be better! If she has any sense she'll take the Article 50 route out and let Brexit be an issue for the next GE campaign.
-
Boris as Aslan and by extension Jesus.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-compared-aslan-brazen-13708872
-
I suppose cancelling the vote helps avoid alternatives being discussed in the Commons. The smack of firm government!!
-
I suppose it is panto season. Problem is politics feels like it is always panto season and never Christmas.
-
Alright for May to ask for honesty from those who oppose her.How about some from her.....how are preparations going for a no deal Brexit, Mrs May.
-
A 52/48 result would be ok in a scenario like the General Election, where you have a divided electorate but there is the chance to change in the next election. For this current situation a much more clear majority would mean we could go ahead with whichever option won without the strife we currently have. So we should hold another referendum in the hope that there is a large majority for leave or remain.
The only thing that can unite the country is a large majority.
-
A 52/48 result would be ok in a scenario like the General Election, where you have a divided electorate but there is the chance to change in the next election. For this current situation a much more clear majority would mean we could go ahead with whichever option won without the strife we currently have. So we should hold another referendum in the hope that there is a large majority for leave or remain.
The only thing that can unite the country is a large majority.
Or Aslan
-
A 52/48 result would be ok in a scenario like the General Election, where you have a divided electorate but there is the chance to change in the next election. For this current situation a much more clear majority would mean we could go ahead with whichever option won without the strife we currently have. So we should hold another referendum in the hope that there is a large majority for leave or remain. The only thing that can unite the country is a large majority.
What 'country'? Scotland voted - by a large majority - to remain, Spud. Any other result will not unite the 'UK'
-
Hope this works.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/09/theresa-mays-plan-b-could-see-second-referendum-does-not-include/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1544396848
Assuming there is a third referendum, why are you so intent on preventing the option that a significant proportion of the electorate (possibly more than half) want being on it...
... oh wait, silly me. It's not the outcome that you personally want.
-
I suppose cancelling the vote helps avoid alternatives being discussed in the Commons. The smack of firm government!!
There's no point in having a vote which will certainly be defeated. May is doing the right thing by postponing the vote. What she does next will be interesting.
-
What 'country'?
The United Kingdom.
Scotland voted - by a large majority - to remain,
No it didn't. Regions of the UK did not vote at all. People in the UK voted individually. The votes were counted by region to make the task manageable.
Also, about 40% of the people in Scotland who voted voted Leave. So Scotland is divided, it's just the proportion that is different.
-
Or Aslan
Very good point.
-
The United Kingdom.
No it didn't. Regions of the UK did not vote at all. People in the UK voted individually. The votes were counted by region to make the task manageable.
Also, about 40% of the people in Scotland who voted voted Leave. So Scotland is divided, it's just the proportion that is different.
Do you seriously think the majority of Scots will lie down whilst a shower of Tories drags their nation out of a union for which they voted?
The Scots Parliament - not only SNP - voted last year for asecond Independence referendum. In 2014, we were promised that the nly way to remain part of the EU was to be part of the UK....and see where that got us.
Should we be forced into a no deal brexit by a government Scotland rejected, we must enact Parliament's wishes.
-
When are labour going to learn.......the Tories can fuck the country up and stay in power but if an obscure labour politician grabs the mace then that's them out of power for years....
Seriously though it's because the country likes being screwed by posh boys.
-
Assuming there is a third referendum, why are you so intent on preventing the option that a significant proportion of the electorate (possibly more than half) want being on it...
... oh wait, silly me. It's not the outcome that you personally want.
My hope this works was hoping the link would work.
May could offer a referendum on the nature of future relationship, e.g. Free Trade or EFTA.
Not sure that would be a good idea. I'm actually reaching the conclusion that Parliament isn't fit for purpose and another election with very clear manifestos on what to do on EU (no more Labour waffle), any MP that can't fully support their manifesto is not allowed to stand.
-
May could offer a referendum on the nature of future relationship, e.g. Free Trade or EFTA.
She'd never get that through Parliament - only a referendum with remain as an option could be supported in parliament. And she couldn't offer a referendum with EFTA as an option as that is demonstrably undeliverable by the government (nor in the gift of the EU). Membership of EFTA is in the gift of Norway, Iceland, Leichenstein and Switzerland.
-
Some interesting polling stuff here
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/12/what-should-happen-next-what-really-matters-and-how-bad-is-this-crisis-my-new-brexit-deal-poll/
-
Brexit- The Government has made it clear that it will happen.
This has to stand. Delaying any agreement is not helping and will not get us to out of it happening.
Seems to me that some people believe a vote can be changed but the truth is being out of the EU is better for us. Taking back control of our borders and who we can trade with,
Sometimes the people need to remember that the few does not out weigh the many when democracy is has already done it's job.
I am for brexit because I think it is best for us as a country. The EU might want to make an example and I am sure some countries only entered because we were in it.
But if we brexit then hopefully others will have the courage to do so. You see holding anyone to ransom is not good. If more countries followed we would all be better off.
British people can still travel anywhere in the world whether in or out of the union. We make up a lot of the tourist visitors in Spain and other parts of Europe. We have paid through the eyes and nose to keep other countries in during financial hardship. The EU should have prospered us, not left us fiancially securing other poorer countries.
Brexit it is the only way forward for this country. IMHO.
-
Those who support this crazy Brexit notion will be soon be complaining when all the prices go up, and the NHS has its staff even more depleted than it is now. :o
-
She'd never get that through Parliament - only a referendum with remain as an option could be supported in parliament. And she couldn't offer a referendum with EFTA as an option as that is demonstrably undeliverable by the government (nor in the gift of the EU). Membership of EFTA is in the gift of Norway, Iceland, Leichenstein and Switzerland.
Think you will find your maths are wrong.
FTA gets support from extreme Brexiteers, Norway supported by centrist leavers and remainers who now accept first referendum result.
Post 2nd referendum no one can claim to be betrayed because they have have the option to stay/leave and nature of their leaving.
Perhaps we can get Scotland to vote leave in indyref2 so we can off load them during the process. :)
-
Think you will find your maths are wrong.
FTA gets support from extreme Brexiteers, Norway supported by centrist leavers and remainers who now accept first referendum result.
Post 2nd referendum no one can claim to be betrayed because they have have the option to stay/leave and nature of their leaving.
We weren't talking about support for a particular stance, but support for a referendum with varying options. MPs may reject a referendum, but if they support one they will ensure that remain is on the ballot paper - why, because a majority of MPs support remain and all the polls suggest remain is the most popular of the 3 possibilities in a plurality vote (although might be beaten in a straight choice or AV type referendum).
According to the latest Ashcroft polling the most popular way forward is a referendum with remain vs May's deal - after that a 3-way referendum. A referendum without remain on the ballot paper didn't come in the top 3 for all voters (or for 2016 remain or leave voters).
A referendum without remain on the ballot paper pleases no-one and wont be supported by parliament.
-
We weren't talking about support for a particular stance, but support for a referendum with varying options. MPs may reject a referendum, but if they support one they will ensure that remain is on the ballot paper - why, because a majority of MPs support remain and all the polls suggest remain is the most popular of the 3 possibilities in a plurality vote (although might be beaten in a straight choice or AV type referendum).
According to the latest Ashcroft polling the most popular way forward is a referendum with remain vs May's deal - after that a 3-way referendum. A referendum without remain on the ballot paper didn't come in the top 3 for all voters (or for 2016 remain or leave voters).
A referendum without remain on the ballot paper pleases no-one and wont be supported by parliament.
Agreed. I do hope the UK gets another chance to vote on whether to remain or leave the EU, now the issues surrounding Brexit are much clearer.
-
We weren't talking about support for a particular stance, but support for a referendum with varying options. MPs may reject a referendum, but if they support one they will ensure that remain is on the ballot paper - why, because a majority of MPs support remain and all the polls suggest remain is the most popular of the 3 possibilities in a plurality vote (although might be beaten in a straight choice or AV type referendum).
I agree majority of MPs do not support a referendum with remain as an option, they most most often say they do not support it as it will potentially be seen as a betrayal of the first, at least in the interviews I've watched. I've not seen the questions posed to MP's where they have been asked about another referendum where remain is not an option.
According to the latest Ashcroft polling the most popular way forward is a referendum with remain vs May's deal - after that a 3-way referendum. A referendum without remain on the ballot paper didn't come in the top 3 for all voters (or for 2016 remain or leave voters).
May's transitional agreement? You still don't know the destination.
A referendum without remain on the ballot paper pleases no-one and wont be supported by parliament.
The opposition to Losers Vote is that which I've outlined earlier, where remain is not an option that opposition fails, what other arguement against it is there?
-
The attitude to Ireland throughout the negotiations has been ignorant in both main senses.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46528952
-
Do you seriously think the majority of Scots will lie down whilst a shower of Tories drags their nation out of a union for which they voted?
The Scots Parliament - not only SNP - voted last year for asecond Independence referendum. In 2014, we were promised that the nly way to remain part of the EU was to be part of the UK....and see where that got us.
Should we be forced into a no deal brexit by a government Scotland rejected, we must enact Parliament's wishes.
Your ire does not alter the fact that it was not Scotland that voted in the Brexit referendum but the people of the UK including those that are on Scottish electoral rolls.
Yes, you've been kicked in the teeth by Brexit, but so have we all.
-
My hope this works was hoping the link would work.
May could offer a referendum on the nature of future relationship, e.g. Free Trade or EFTA.
Or stay in the EU.
Not sure that would be a good idea. I'm actually reaching the conclusion that Parliament isn't fit for purpose and another election with very clear manifestos on what to do on EU (no more Labour waffle), any MP that can't fully support their manifesto is not allowed to stand.
Well we agree on that at least.
-
Or stay in the EU.
Well we agree on that at least.
You want an election?
Labour will likely bring you Norway type deal at best, you just as well go no deal because they would bankrupt the country.
Tories Brexit.
Libdems another vote.
-
Brexit- The Government has made it clear that it will happen.
The government is not in any position to make clear what will happen. It can’t get the deal agreed with the EU through parliament.
This has to stand.
Reality trumps ideology.
Seems to me that some people believe a vote can be changed
Because it can. Otherwise all the general elections since the first couldn’t have happened, nor could the referendum in 2016.
but the truth is being out of the EU is better for us. Taking back control of our borders and who we can trade with,
Wrong.
Sometimes the people need to remember that the few does not out weigh the many when democracy is has already done it's job.
And some polls are saying that the Brexiteers are now true few.
British people can still travel anywhere in the world whether in or out of the union. We make up a lot of the tourist visitors in Spain and other parts of Europe.
It’s not about tourism, it’s about living and working where we want.
We have paid through the eyes and nose to keep other countries in during financial hardship. The EU should have prospered us, not left us fiancially securing other poorer countries.
Britain is a rich country. It is to ours benefit to help countries that are less rich than us. Where’s your Christian charity?
Brexit it is the only way forward for this country. IMHO.
No it’s a way backwards. The only way forward is in partnership with our European allies.
-
Boris is a coming in
Loudly sing cuckoo...
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
The no confidence vote in May is being held today! WHAT A MESS. :o
-
Through the Looking Glass - Carroll
Mirror Universe - Star Trek
UK Government - Tory Party
-
Aren't you just glad that Ed Milliband didn't get into power!
-
Does it matter which particular lunatic is in charge of the asylum?
-
May a hard brexitter.
-
May a hard brexitter.
Really, Vlad?
As someone (can't remember who) said on The World at One a few minutes ago, May is now receiving the inevitable reward for sucking up to the ERG for the last couple of years - they are kicking her in the May equivalent of the nuts. Will she learn anything from this?
The consensus appears to be that she will survive this no confidence vote - though possibly not choose to remain as party leader for the next election.
-
Really, Vlad?
As someone (can't remember who) said on The World at One a few minutes ago, May is now receiving the inevitable reward for sucking up to the ERG for the last couple of years - they are kicking her in the May equivalent of the nuts. Will she learn anything from this?
The consensus appears to be that she will survive this no confidence vote - though possibly not choose to remain as party leader for the next election.
I do have admiration for her ability to stick at it, what really has done her in was that election. I think she planned to be able to have a huge majority so she could have gone for a fairly soft Brexit, but the result she got meant the DUP and ERG have too much weight.
Has to be said that a centrist in charge of Labour would have won that election by a mile and Mandelson is right:-
“The only people that the Tory party and the Government don’t fear is the opposition front bench, because they are not laying a glove on them.”
-
Really, Vlad?
As someone (can't remember who) said on The World at One a few minutes ago, May is now receiving the inevitable reward for sucking up to the ERG for the last couple of years - they are kicking her in the May equivalent of the nuts. Will she learn anything from this?
The consensus appears to be that she will survive this no confidence vote - though possibly not choose to remain as party leader for the next election.
And if that happens she won't be able to face another VONC on her leadership for a year, in other words beyond the point at which brexit (or no brexit) will be settled. High stakes stuff - as if the ERG are unable to vote her out they will have lost their trump card against her approach. She can reach out across the divide as she sees fit with no chance that she can be deposed.
-
If May survives the no confidence vote, as seems likely, her detractors will be made to look really stupid for not first determining if it would go against her.
-
If May survives the no confidence vote, as seems likely, her detractors will be made to look really stupid for not first determining if it would go against her.
Though they have got her to say she won't lead the party into the next election.
-
Even if, as looks likely, she survives; it doesn't change the maths in the commons for the deal. She'll still lose that vote.
It's all a bit of a mess.
Understatement is so 2018.
-
Though they have got her to say she won't lead the party into the next election.
I suspect she will have had more than enough of it by then anyway. The stress must be awful, and not good for her health especially as she is a diabetic.
-
I suspect she will have had more than enough of it by then anyway. The stress must be awful, and not good for her health especially as she is a diabetic.
Nowhere near the stress she caused by the Windrush scandal.
-
Nowhere near the stress she caused by the Windrush scandal.
That has nothing to do with Brexit. ::)
-
That has nothing to do with Brexit. ::)
I think creating a hostile environment about immigration has a lot to do with Brexit and a lot to do with May.
-
The solution
https://scarfolk.blogspot.com/2017/07/vegetable-politicians.html?m=1
-
I think creating a hostile environment about immigration has a lot to do with Brexit and a lot to do with May.
I doubt very much that Brexit is connected to Windrush, especially as it has only very recently come to light the scandal surrounding it that bad business.
-
I doubt very much that Brexit is connected to Windrush, especially as it has only very recently come to light the scandal surrounding it that bad business.
If you play on the idea that immigration is bad to the extent May did as Home Secretary which created the Windrush scandal while she was there, then stoking xenophobia in that way contributed to Brexit.
-
Nowhere near the stress she caused by the Windrush scandal.
Or, for that matter, the families of th ose who havecommittedsuicide thanks to her goverment's inhuman policies.
-
And if that happens she won't be able to face another VONC on her leadership for a year, in other words beyond the point at which brexit (or no brexit) will be settled. High stakes stuff - as if the ERG are unable to vote her out they will have lost their trump card against her approach. She can reach out across the divide as she sees fit with no chance that she can be deposed.
It’s an interesting point. If she wins, she is unassailable by the only people who could boot her out. If she then fails to get her deal through Parliament, she can unilaterally suspend Brexit with no consequences to herself for another year. She would spin it to Parliament as “either no deal or suspend Brexit”. I think Parliament would support her.
I’m kind of wondering if she planned it this way.
-
Though they have got her to say she won't lead the party into the next election.
The Tories aren’t winning that, anyway.
-
The Tories aren’t winning that, anyway.
They might if that limp lettuce, Corbyn, is still leader of the Labour Party.
-
They might if that limp lettuce, Corbyn, is still leader of the Labour Party.
Keep taking the tabloids. ::)
-
Keep taking the tabloids. ::)
HA!HA! SHOCK, HORROR, a tabloid has never been permitted in our home.
-
Callow youth and brexit minster Stephen Barclay has admitted that Theresa May is going to run down the clock on brexit.
Someone must now call for a vote of no confidence in T May in parliament.
-
HA!HA! SHOCK, HORROR, a tabloid has never been permitted in our home.
I was aware of your claims not to read tabloids. It doesnt change the ffact that you read like a tabloid headline writer. All shock and denunciation with very little of substance.
-
Callow youth and brexit minster Stephen Barclay has admitted that Theresa May is going to run down the clock on brexit.
Someone must now call for a vote of no confidence in T May in parliament.
I think Labour are wary, as an election might be very unpopular. Then again, Corbyn is paid to oppose.
-
For Brexitters
What does out in just wanting out look like?
What does playing hard ball look like?
Aren't both estate behaviour where you get an idea, it festers and then you just lose it to get a bit of relief or gratification?
-
Lots of good stuff in this
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
-
Thanks for posting this NS. A clearly thought out and excellent exposition of the problems we face.
Particularly liked this:
If moving beyond WTO terms with major markets represents a major step FORWARD in liberalising trade, then deliberately moving back to WTO terms from an existing deep preferential agreement – which is what the Single Market is – represents a major step BACKWARD to less free trade. You really can’t have it both ways.
Well, when I say “you cannot” argue this, clearly many can and do. But it is well beyond incoherent.
-
They might if that limp lettuce, Corbyn, is still leader of the Labour Party.
The Conservative Party lost its absolute majority in spite of leading Labour in the polls before the election. Now they trail Labour by several points. And they'll be going into the next election with a new leader, possibly Jacob Rees Mogg or Boris Johnson or maybe with no leader at all. The prospects for the Tories at the next election are desperate.
-
Callow youth and brexit minster Stephen Barclay has admitted that Theresa May is going to run down the clock on brexit.
Someone must now call for a vote of no confidence in T May in parliament.
As the no confidence vote showed and also the last challenge to Corbyn showed, you'd better be sure you are going to win if you challenge the incumbents.
-
On Marr today, "A very clear answer there in a 2nd referendum Labour would advocate leaving the EU but with a Labour deal" (likely Norway model).
Looks like remainers are out of cards to play! :)
-
On Marr today, "A very clear answer there in a 2nd referendum Labour would advocate leaving the EU but with a Labour deal" (likely Norway model).
Looks like remainers are out of cards to play! :)
Even if Labour would like their form of Brexit to be an option, which would require as yet unspecified negotiations, I can't imagine they'd get away with a 2nd referendum without a 'Remain in the EU' choice - especially since the recent ECJ decision makes 'Remain' an option that doesn't require any other consultation or negotiation.
-
Even if Labour would like their form of Brexit to be an option, which would require as yet unspecified negotiations, I can't imagine they'd get away with a 2nd referendum without a 'Remain in the EU' choice - especially since the recent ECJ decision makes 'Remain' an option that doesn't require any other consultation or negotiation.
Get away with? We have voted Leave that is a settled issue. Their position will be, Canada or Norway type deal, this respects the result of the first referendum and gives people a choice on final deal.
They know this will spark a civil war in Labour party so they are not explicitly saying it, stops any uproar for now.
Marr's question:-
"A very clear answer there in a 2nd referendum Labour would advocate leaving the EU but with a Labour deal?"
The reply was not: No.
-
Get away with? We have voted Leave that is a settled issue. Their position will be, Canada or Norway type deal, this respects the result of the first referendum and gives people a choice on final deal.
They know this will spark a civil war in Labour party so they are not explicitly saying it, stops any uproar for now.
Marr's question:-
"A very clear answer there in a 2nd referendum Labour would advocate leaving the EU but with a Labour deal?"
The reply was not: No.
Time will tell: hard to see the status quo not being an option.
I see no need to respect the 2016 result given the lack of meaningful information, and the current situation highlights that this information is relevant - I don't recall discussion of a backstop back then.
Maybe we can stop this madness yet.
-
I find it very condescending when some claim people didn't know what they were voting for. The question was simple. Leave or remain. People knew exactly what they were voting for.
-
I find it very condescending when some claim people didn't know what they were voting for. The question was simple. Leave or remain. People knew exactly what they were voting for.
But some didn't. I have encountered quite a number who hadn't a clue what they were voting for.
-
But some didn't. I have encountered quite a number who hadn't a clue what they were voting for.
What, they didn't know what leave or remain means? Stone me! UK education system is fucked! English people don't understand English.
-
What, they didn't know what leave or remain means? Stone me! UK education system is fucked! English people don't understand English.
I'm not English.
-
I'm not English.
English or Scotch but speak the same language (some might argue).
-
English or Scotch but speak the same language (some might argue).
Now I wonder which Scotch Gordon is, my husband is very partial to single malts, Glenffidich in particular . ;D
-
Now I wonder which Scotch Gordon is, my husband is very partial to single malts, Glenffidich in particular . ;D
Ho ho! No offence to anyone intended. When I was a kid a person from Scotland was more often than not Scotch rather than Scottish.
-
Time will tell: hard to see the status quo not being an option.
Very easy, we have voted to leave, we leave. Next vote will be the manor of relationship going forward.
I see no need to respect the 2016 result given the lack of meaningful information, and the current situation highlights that this information is relevant - I don't recall discussion of a backstop back then.
We are discussing what is going to happen next, your views are almost entirely irrelevant, the politicians feel the need to respect the referendum, this will greatly influence what will happen next.
Maybe we can stop this madness yet.
Why is it madness? I voted leave for almost exactly the same reasons you voted for Scottish independence.
Why are in you in favour of EU?
-
Very easy, we have voted to leave, we leave. Next vote will be the manor of relationship going forward.
If there is another referendum it has to include remain - anything else would lack any kind of democratic legitimacy. Plus it would never get through Parliament.
-
If there is another referendum it has to include remain - anything else would lack any kind of democratic legitimacy. Plus it would never get through Parliament.
I agree.
-
Why are in you in favour of EU?
I'm not so much in favour of the EU as against leaving it via the current shambles, and in particular; a) as the result of a referendum that occurred for reasons mainly to do with internal Tory politics and isn't legally binding anyway, b) it was also an attempt by the Tories to 'out-UKIP' UKIP (and look where UKIP are now), c) the referendum occurred without any risk assessment of a 'leave' result (such as the NI border issue), and d) some of the issues raised by the Leave campaign were outright lies and played on the xenophobia that some parts of the UK were clearly more sensitive to than were others.
I'd have thought the current outbreak of political madness would be sufficient to convince anyone that if there was ever a good case and subsequent approach to leaving the EU - what is happening now certainly isn't it.
-
Ho ho! No offence to anyone intended. When I was a kid a person from Scotland was more often than not Scotch rather than Scottish.
'Scotch' is used as a descriptor for produce, Scotch whisky being the obvious example, but not usually for Scottish people, where 'Scots' would be the usual term: some Scots would consider being referred to as 'Scotch' as being a pejorative.
-
I find it very condescending when some claim people didn't know what they were voting for. The question was simple. Leave or remain. People knew exactly what they were voting for.
Lots of us voted with hard brexit in mind, not realizing it could break up the UK.
-
If there is another referendum it has to include remain - anything else would lack any kind of democratic legitimacy. Plus it would never get through Parliament.
Nope if you listen to Labour I think it's fair to conclude that Remain will not be an option, also applies to Tories, I seem to recall a news report of that earlier in the thread. It is democratic, we have had a vote to leave, that is in the past, now we vote on the future relationship.
It would get through Parliament if Labour Front Bench support it.
-
'Scotch' is used as a descriptor for produce, Scotch whisky being the obvious example, but not usually for Scottish people, where 'Scots' would be the usual term: some Scots would consider being referred to as 'Scotch' as being a pejorative.
Then I apologise. Sorry. I'll use Scots or Scottish from now on.
-
Then I apologise. Sorry. I'll use Scots or Scottish from now on.
Thank you.
-
I'm not so much in favour of the EU as against leaving it via the current shambles, and in particular; a) as the result of a referendum that occurred for reasons mainly to do with internal Tory politics and isn't legally binding anyway, b) it was also an attempt by the Tories to 'out-UKIP' UKIP (and look where UKIP are now), c) the referendum occurred without any risk assessment of a 'leave' result (such as the NI border issue), and d) some of the issues raised by the Leave campaign were outright lies and played on the xenophobia that some parts of the UK were clearly more sensitive to than were others.
50th time, all three UK parties supported the referendum, you can carry on lying if you like.
I'd have thought the current outbreak of political madness would be sufficient to convince anyone that if there was ever a good case and subsequent approach to leaving the EU - what is happening now certainly isn't it.
UKIP win Euro election, almost the entire political establishment support a referendum and pass it into law, they don't like the result, and the madness is the remianiacs who will not accept the result.
Isn't it madness to reinvent your own history and telling yourself that something is going to happen that doesn't look like it is.
-
50th time, all three UK parties supported the referendum, you can carry on lying if you like.
So what: the dominant party in Scotland is not one of those three, so there are other political views available.
UKIP win Euro election, almost the entire political establishment support a referendum and pass it into law, they don't like the result, and the madness is the remianiacs who will not accept the result.
Isn't it madness to reinvent your own history and telling yourself that something is going to happen that doesn't look like it is.
The current process is a clusterfuck of the first magnitude because those advancing it and supporting it still don't know, over 2 years after the vote, and a few months before a critical date, what will actually happen and whether or not the government can survive should their plans be voted down in Westminster.
Seems to me that irrespective of views for or against Brexit the current situation is a toxic and shambolic mess that should be put out of its misery while there is still time to do so.
-
50th time, all three UK parties supported the referendum, you can carry on lying if you like.
So what - the same 3 parties all supported remain in that referendum.
-
'Scotch' is used as a descriptor for produce, Scotch whisky being the obvious example, but not usually for Scottish people, where 'Scots' would be the usual term: some Scots would consider being referred to as 'Scotch' as being a pejorative.
It used to be a class difference: the upper class called anyone or thing from Scotland "Scotch", hoi polloi called them "Scottish".
-
So what: the dominant party in Scotland is not one of those three, so there are other political views available.
You said 'mainly to do with internal Tory politics' it was not, it was due to the entire political establishment being scared of the rise of UKIP, they won the 2014 EU election, they got more votes than any other party.
The current process is a clusterfuck of the first magnitude because those advancing it and supporting it still don't know, over 2 years after the vote, and a few months before a critical date, what will actually happen and whether or not the government can survive should their plans be voted down in Westminster.
Their plans are being made into a clusterfuck because Parliament is doing everything it can to not leave.
Seems to me that irrespective of views for or against Brexit the current situation is a toxic and shambolic mess that should be put out of its misery while there is still time to do so.
Made toxic but three sides, remain, leave with deal, leave with no deal, it is a three way split. If you want to end the mess tell remain to vote for May's deal, that will end the mess, they should stand down since remain lost.
-
You said 'mainly to do with internal Tory politics' it was not, it was due to the entire political establishment being scared of the rise of UKIP, they won the 2014 EU election, they got more votes than any other party.
Not in Scotland: here they came 4th, partly due to the Lib-Dems doing badly (as punishment for getting into bed with the Tories), though sadly that was enough votes for them to get them one seat thanks to the PR method used (the odious Coburn, who has since left UKIP). UKIP were more of a threat in England & Wales than they ever were here in Scotland.
Their plans are being made into a clusterfuck because Parliament is doing everything it can to not leave.
I think the whole thing has been a mess from the outset, possibly because the result was unexpected, where even 2 plus years later those advocating it are still arguing among themselves. As such, and looking at the ongoing shambles, as I see no surprise that some are looking askance at how anyone could still think Brexit was a good idea.
Made toxic but three sides, remain, leave with deal, leave with no deal, it is a three way split. If you want to end the mess tell remain to vote for May's deal, that will end the mess, they should stand down since remain lost.
May's deal looks doomed as things stand, where even sufficient numbers in her own party will vote against it so that it fails. Looking at the general chaos I'd say the best option would be to just pull the plug on this now that there is the Article 50 option. If May's deal can't get approval and parliament decide against revoking Article 50 then a 2nd referendum seems essential, and I think the options are Remain, May's Deal and No Deal - and unlike last time make the result binding on Parliament, which should help concentrate the minds of the electorate.
-
May is a hard brexitter at heart as was David Cameron both of whom designed Brexit to bring us where we are.
I don't know about breaking faith with the people......52 percent ain't the people......but I'm seriously looking at breaking faith with Jezzer who has no game it seems.
I wonder if Nicola can call a conclusion.
-
May is a hard brexitter at heart as was David Cameron both of whom designed Brexit to bring us where we are.
Oh come off it. At a stretch May is a very soft Brexiter. Cameron never was. He called the referendum for self serving motives regarding his party. It backfired spectacularly. I suspect neither of them wanted nor anticipated this absolute mess.
-
Not in Scotland: here they came 4th, partly due to the Lib-Dems doing badly (as punishment for getting into bed with the Tories), though sadly that was enough votes for them to get them one seat thanks to the PR method used (the odious Coburn, who has since left UKIP). UKIP were more of a threat in England & Wales than they ever were here in Scotland.
Since Scotland voted to remain part of UK they are affected by UK politics.
I think the whole thing has been a mess from the outset, possibly because the result was unexpected, where even 2 plus years later those advocating it are still arguing among themselves. As such, and looking at the ongoing shambles, as I see no surprise that some are looking askance at how anyone could still think Brexit was a good idea.
The mess is caused by things being blocked in Parliament, where a majority of MPs are remain.
May's deal looks doomed as things stand, where even sufficient numbers in her own party will vote against it so that it fails. Looking at the general chaos I'd say the best option would be to just pull the plug on this now that there is the Article 50 option.
Again what you regard as best option is mostly irrelevant.
If May's deal can't get approval and parliament decide against revoking Article 50 then a 2nd referendum seems essential, and I think the options are Remain, May's Deal and No Deal - and unlike last time make the result binding on Parliament, which should help concentrate the minds of the electorate.
May's deal is not a deal it is a transition, it does not preclude any options in final relationship with EU apart from no deal as far as I can tell.
The options in a referendum would have to be set by Parliament, it sounds to me like Labour front bench would support Norway or Canada type deal being the only options, I can see all Tories supporting that, since there is no betrayal narrative.
-
Does it matter which particular lunatic is in charge of the asylum?
There you have it... not the person in charge but the Country/politics an asylum????
The Country is not the problem it is the people who voted them in and allowed the changes so the poor suffered.
Why not let a lunatic run it, if already an Asylum?
Your ourlook should tell you, as should your reply you have no hope in the country or the system as it is run now.
However this is our asylum and our lunatic, unless we want to be viewed the same way, it is time for Britain to stop anything that hurts our fellow citizens.
-
May's deal is not a deal it is a transition,
True, albeit one without an enforceable end date, particularly because of the back-stop.
it does not preclude any options in final relationship with EU apart from no deal as far as I can tell.
Not true - the WA and the back-stop agreement preclude any permanent deal that results in a hard border in Ireland. Hence all the debate currently.
-
The Country is not the problem it is the people who voted them in and allowed the changes so the poor suffered.
Except the vote to leave hands the power in this country to those who are the ones who allow the poor to suffer. The EU has nothing to do with those policies. The poor suffer because of UK legislation passed by our government. And now those same people are in power. Look at the position of ReesMogg, IDS , and many others within the Tory party, they do not see it as in their best interest to alleviate the suffering of the poor. And once we leave they will have even lees restraint on their actions. As its this time of year. Turkeys. Christmas.
-
I like the jacket which the PM wore today, it suits her. Did anyone spot the bulge in the sleeve though? I think she has something in there.... I think she's planning to revoke Article 50 if her deal is voted down.
-
I like the jacket which the PM wore today, it suits her. Did anyone spot the bulge in the sleeve though? I think she has something in there.... I think she's planning to revoke Article 50 if her deal is voted down.
May is a diabetic and has a monitoring patch on her arm, apparently.
-
Corbyn is to table a vote on no confidence in the PM herself (not in the government) - which should be interesting in terms of how the 117 Tories who had no confidence in her leadership in the Tory-party only vote last week will continue to have no confidence in her again, or if they are a bunch of hypocrites.
This so much of a farce now I wouldn't be surprised if the ghost of dear old Brian Rix put in an appearance.
-
Yes, a farce combined with a collective madness, which is not amenable to reason. I suppose it has to be played out, rather like a war.
-
On the above that could be quite a clever move by Corbyn, and when he announced this it was noticeable that TM quickly got up and left the chamber.
It creates quite a problem for the Tories following their internal vote of confidence last week, since if 117 of them have no confidence in her as leader of the Tory party it would be a surprise if they then had confidence in her as leader of the country (although which is the more difficult job is, I suppose, debatable).
Must get some popcorn in tomorrow.
-
At the moment parliament reminds me of the B-side of the Cliff Richard and the Young Ones single, Living Doll. Mike says, "Look guys, are we gonna do this song or not?" and Vivian says, "yes we are. But first... Let's have a fight!" and they all say, "ah good idea"
-
I think Brexit is like war fever, probably very difficult to control it.
-
BBC reports that Corbyn's motion of no confidence in TM will be held tomorrow, and that the ERG will support her even though they had no confidence in her as their party leader last week - breathtaking hypocrisy, and no doubt this will be pointed out.
I suppose, if nothing else, it shows just how that Westminster politics is broken right now.
-
Not true - the WA and the back-stop agreement preclude any permanent deal that results in a hard border in Ireland. Hence all the debate currently.
So Norway + still a runner then? Actually, isn't Norway - Sweden a soft border?
So it could mean Canada is a runner as well?
-
At the moment parliament reminds me of the B-side of the Cliff Richard and the Young Ones single, Living Doll. Mike says, "Look guys, are we gonna do this song or not?" and Vivian says, "yes we are. But first... Let's have a fight!" and they all say, "ah good idea"
Yes the entire Parliament is split into factions.
Remain - lets say everything but remain is terrible and have another go, supported by extremist remainers
Reluctant Remainers and moderate leavers - Norway please
May's Deal - ok we got it we have to leave-ish.
No Deal - The other extremists
Labour Front Bench - Lets just not commit to anything but disagree with the Tories, and hopefully keep our backbench quiet.
Having given the vote to the electorate, the electorate said leave and now they can't act like grown-ups and reach a compromise.
I'd sack the lot of them and ban them for life for ever standing again.
-
The saga continues in Westminster: first the SNP get an emergency debate on the details of May's meetings with the EU, then the BBC report that the government won't make time for Jeremy Corbyn's no confidence motion in TM, so the other parties then add an amendment to Corbyn's motion that turns it into a no confidence in the government motion, which must be allowed.
Of course by tomorrow it could all change: what a mess.
-
So Norway + still a runner then?
Actually it would need to be Norway+---
+customs union
-EFTA
-free movement
-single market
Which effectively makes it Turkey - I wonder why no-one is 'marketing' Turkey as an option.
-
Having given the vote to the electorate, the electorate said leave and now they can't act like grown-ups and reach a compromise.
I'd sack the lot of them and ban them for life for ever standing again.
Suppose you get engaged and discover something about the fiancee that you couldn't accept... new information coming to light can mean you need to change your mind?
-
Actually it would need to be Norway+---
+customs union
-EFTA
-free movement
-single market
Which effectively makes it Turkey - I wonder why no-one is 'marketing' Turkey as an option.
Freedom of movement of workers and single market and EFTA all can be included.
-
Freedom of movement of workers and single market and EFTA all can be included.
Freedom of movement theoretically can be agreed by the government and the EU, but is against one of the Government's red lines.
EFTA membership cannot be agreed by the government and the EU as membership is in the gift of four countries who aren't a current EU member state.
Your notion that the government can unilaterally decide to be a member of EFTA is both naive and arrogant.
-
We have voted Leave that is a settled issue.
Honestly? Does it look like a settled issue to you?
Somewhere around half of the electorate think Brexit is a terrible mistake. That is not the definition of "settled".
-
I find it very condescending when some claim people didn't know what they were voting for. The question was simple. Leave or remain. People knew exactly what they were voting for.
Nobody on the Leave side knew what they were voting for in the sense of what deal, because the Leave campaign didn't tell them. Quite a lot of them also didn't know what they were voting against, because they had been lied to for years by the media and the Remain campaign failed to correct the lies.
-
You said 'mainly to do with internal Tory politics' it was not, it was due to the entire political establishment being scared of the rise of UKIP, they won the 2014 EU election, they got more votes than any other party.
The Tory Party has been on a knife edge internally since the late 80's with respect to the EU. Arguably the split brought down John Major's government in 1997. UKIP just added more stress to the division.
Their plans are being made into a clusterfuck because Parliament is doing everything it can to not leave.
No, the plans are a clusterfuck because the leaders of the Leave campaign had no common view on how to proceed after winning, so much so that they let a Remainer take charge of the government. And they also had totally unrealistic expectations of what they could get out of the EU.
Do not put this mess on the Remainers - we have a simple solution to the problem. It's all on your boys.
-
Which effectively makes it Turkey - I wonder why no-one is 'marketing' Turkey as an option.
Especially at this time of year!
-
Apparently May is announcing a ramping up of preparations for no deal. These should have been completed by now and complete.
-
Apparently May is announcing a ramping up of preparations for no deal. These should have been completed by now and complete.
If completed, they would probably be complete, certainly. ::)
-
She is also delaying the vote on her deal for a month, no doubt hoping to increase pressure on MPs to support her deal. This is called democracy, by the way.
-
Seen a number of people who thought that No Deal meant that we didn't leave.
-
Seen a number of people who thought that No Deal meant that we didn't leave.
It's just getting worse and worse. Do we need any more evidence of a failing BBC or are a huge number of British people inveterately so fucking thick?
-
It's just getting worse and worse. Do we need any more evidence of a failing BBC or are a huge number of British people inveterately so fucking thick?
What have the BBC done to annoy you so, Vlad?
-
It's just getting worse and worse. Do we need any more evidence of a failing BBC or are a huge number of British people inveterately so fucking thick?
What on earth has that got to do with the BBC, I think their reports are very clear?
-
William announces 3500 troops to assist in no deal Brexit.
What good is that?
-
Freedom of movement theoretically can be agreed by the government and the EU, but is against one of the Government's red lines.
So it could be Norway + then.
EFTA membership cannot be agreed by the government and the EU as membership is in the gift of four countries who aren't a current EU member state.
Never claimed that i twas anything, just that it is possible.
Your notion that the government can unilaterally decide to be a member of EFTA is both naive and arrogant.
Never claimed that they could, sheesh bit naive and arrogant of you there. :)
-
So it could be Norway + then.
How could it be - especially without the WA?
Never claimed that i twas anything, just that it is possible.
Never claimed that they could, sheesh bit naive and arrogant of you there. :)
What exactly are you claiming then? Which outcome do you want?
-
So it could be Norway + then.
No because Norway+ (i.e. plus customs union) breeches the following red lines (assuming you are thinking permanent arrangement:
1. Would involve Single Market/EEA membership which would require adherence to all 4 freedoms exactly as we have now, no exactly the same freedom of movement.
2. Would involve Schengen (as Norway is in Schengen)
3. Would not allow UK to sign trade deals due to the customs union.
4. Would involve permanent contributions to EU
5. Would involve permanent jurisdiction of ECJ over the UK
Now I'm not arguing that these red lines are sensible, but those are the red lines of the government.
But in a broader sense, why on earth would anyone opt for Norway+ rather than retaining EU membership, which would effectively have exactly the same benefits and obligations except that we'd actually have a say in deciding things as an EU member.
-
Never claimed that they could, sheesh bit naive and arrogant of you there. :)
I beg to differ - you have regularly opined that the government/parliament should opt for EFTA when EFTA membership isn't in their gift.
I could opt for House of Lords membership - but that would be a pointless thing to say, because whether or not I'm invited to join the House of Lords isn't my decision.
-
I beg to differ - you have regularly opined that the government/parliament should opt for EFTA when EFTA membership isn't in their gift.
I could opt for House of Lords membership - but that would be a pointless thing to say, because whether or not I'm invited to join the House of Lords isn't my decision.
Oh I see so we can only argue for something that the government is offering, if those are the rules....
May's deal or no deal are your only options, which one do you choose?
-
Oh I see so we can only argue for something that the government is offering, if those are the rules....
Nope we are discussing options that it is in the gift of the government to delivery as part of negotiations with the EU. The UK and the EU can want EFTA membership for the UK all they like - it matters not one jot, because that decision lies with 4 countries that are neither the UK nor members of the EU.
Once we propose undeliverable options we are smack back into the 'fantasy brexit' world of the 2016 referendum.
-
Oh I see so we can only argue for something that the government is offering, if those are the rules....
May's deal or no deal are your only options, which one do you choose?
The government isn't offering no-deal, although they could deliver it - the only thing that the government is offering is May's deal.
However there are three (and only three) options that the government can deliver - May's deal, no deal or remain, noting that a deal cannot be delivered unilaterally, it also requires agreement from the EU. No deal and remain can be unilaterally delivered by the UK government.
-
Nope we are discussing options that it is in the gift of the government to delivery as part of negotiations with the EU. The UK and the EU can want EFTA membership for the UK all they like - it matters not one jot, because that decision lies with 4 countries that are neither the UK nor members of the EU.
Once we propose undeliverable options we are smack back into the 'fantasy brexit' world of the 2016 referendum.
As I've stated Norway is deliverable, not unilaterally, and is being discussed by many MPs, Stephen Kinnock is one example. It is mentioned every day by Newsnight, Question Time, Politics Live, Sky News.
-
As I've stated Norway is deliverable, not unilaterally, and is being discussed by many MPs, Stephen Kinnock is one example. It is mentioned every day by Newsnight, Question Time, Politics Live, Sky News.
Norway isn't deliverable unilaterally, nor bilaterally with the EU.
Norway is also fundamentally unacceptable to both the UK and the EU as it cannot (without revision) deal with the Irish border issue.
But were it to be agreed, multilaterally, between the UK, EU and the four EFTA members, and amended to add the customs union and removed Schengen then why would anyone prefer it to being a full member of the EU - where we'd actually have a say in the rules, regulations and costs that would apply to us, and would have a say in trade deals that the EU might strike.
-
The government isn't offering no-deal, although they could deliver it - the only thing that the government is offering is May's deal.
However there are three (and only three) options that the government can deliver - May's deal, no deal or remain, noting that a deal cannot be delivered unilaterally, it also requires agreement from the EU. No deal and remain can be unilaterally delivered by the UK government.
The government is going to have to close off options. They might take the view that another referendum would be more damaging than no deal, Norway lacks enough support, so you might be right we will get into a position of May's deal or no deal.
Again we can game this, me you and Farage, representing the three voting blocks in HoP.
Me and Farage will veto referendum, you and me will veto no deal, Farage and you will veto Norway, you and Farage will veto May's deal.
The default no deal wins if I take the view that a referendum will be worse than no deal, which I do.
Play the game yourself, you can't win, I'll bet push comes to shove you will go for May's deal, I'm prepared to bet no deal, call my bluff if you like.
-
Unless of course someone has the good sense the rescind Article 50 and consign Brexit to the dustbin that way - but probably not since it is the sensible option, and to use a Glasgow expression our politicians are now so polarised they probably couldn't agree on the colour of shite, so a referendum might well be the last option standing, and hopefully that would see off Brexit for good. I don't buy the argument about a 2nd referendum being divisive: we're already there for crying out loud, and if Brexit goes ahead under any arrangement, or it gets canned, the divisiveness will continue no matter what.
It is hard to imagine, despite all the 'get behind the country' bollocks, a more disruptive political adventure that has fragmented rather than united and all because some people were attracted to an idea that was offered without supporting substance because it was the obsession of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party.
-
The government is going to have to close off options. They might take the view that another referendum would be more damaging than no deal, Norway lacks enough support, so you might be right we will get into a position of May's deal or no deal.
Again we can game this, me you and Farage, representing the three voting blocks in HoP.
Me and Farage will veto referendum, you and me will veto no deal, Farage and you will veto Norway, you and Farage will veto May's deal.
The default no deal wins if I take the view that a referendum will be worse than no deal, which I do.
Play the game yourself, you can't win, I'll bet push comes to shove you will go for May's deal, I'm prepared to bet no deal, call my bluff if you like.
It doesn't matter what you, Farage or I think (or 'veto') as none of us are MPs so we aren't in a position to 'veto' anything.
Problem with your argument is that there is a strong majority in parliament that opposes no deal, so were that to look to be a serious possibility parliament would take steps to prevent it.
Interesting take on parliamentary votes on various options, as being suggested currently, on Politicalbetting - goes as follows:
1. Substitute Canada+ Ayes 100 Noes 540 [NI problem]
2. Substitute Norway+ Ayes 200 Noes 440 [Not Brexit]
3. Substitute Labour plan Ayes 220 Noes 420 [Labour support only]
4. Support bill subject to referendum no Deal versus Deal Ayes 250 Noes 390 [risks no deal]
5. Support bill subject to 3 way referendum Ayes 300 Noes 340 [too complex and risky]
6. Support bill subject to referendum Deal versus Remain Ayes 321 Noes 319 [or Ayes 319 Noes 321 and her deal is passed without amendment]
4-6 may well require extension to article 50, or if that looks problematic to get all EU27 to agree, then to rescind article 50 on the basis that once the referendum is complete article 50 would be re-enacted and deal/no deal implemented soon after in the event that leave of either flavour won.
Sounds about right to me - and problem with 1-3 is that they are simply not on the table, and cannot be without the EU's agreement (or in the case of 2, with agreement from both EU and EFTA).
-
Again we can game this,
And therein lies the problem.
-
As I've stated Norway is deliverable, not unilaterally, and is being discussed by many MPs, Stephen Kinnock is one example. It is mentioned every day by Newsnight, Question Time, Politics Live, Sky News.
You do realise that Norway's net contribution to the EU per person is greater than the UK's, don't you.
-
It doesn't matter what you, Farage or I think (or 'veto') as none of us are MPs so we aren't in a position to 'veto' anything.
Problem with your argument is that there is a strong majority in parliament that opposes no deal, so were that to look to be a serious possibility parliament would take steps to prevent it.
Sensing a bit of evasion there, if the choice is no deal or Mays deal, you vote May's deal right?
I really don't understand the referendum arguement. Let's say it happens and you have leave and remain again, how on earth that gets through Parliament I have no idea.
Result remain wins let's say Remain win 52%, general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.
Only the government can bring forward anything binding that stops Brexit, only vote of no confidence stops that, that isn't going to get majority.
-
general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.
Do you honestly see UKIP as that sort of threat?
They got routed in the last local elections, and are currently a dysfunctional mess.
-
I really don't understand the referendum arguement. Let's say it happens and you have leave and remain again, how on earth that gets through Parliament I have no idea.
It wouldn't be remain vs leave, but remain vs an agreed deal - a million miles from the 2016 referendum.
Result remain wins let's say Remain win 52%, general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.
In your dreams - if that happened UKIP may well have a surge, they wouldn't come close to winning an election under the current rules. You argument is the same as thinking that in 2017 the LibDems would have hoovered up the disenfranchised remain-supporting 48%.
-
Do you honestly see UKIP as that sort of threat?
They got routed in the last local elections, and are currently a dysfunctional mess.
They won an EU election, the referendum was designed to take them out, it worked.
-
They won an EU election, the referendum was designed to take them out, it worked.
They may have had their moment in the sun, albeit not so much here, but surely that was then - given there is a bunch of fairly hawkish Tories, and since UKIP are in such a bad way, it is hard to see that there is any space for them to occupy now.
-
It wouldn't be remain vs leave, but remain vs an agreed deal - a million miles from the 2016 referendum.
50% exactly the same, in what world is that a million miles?
All hypothetical anyway it would EFTA v free trade.
In your dreams - if that happened UKIP may well have a surge, they wouldn't come close to winning an election under the current rules. You argument is the same as thinking that in 2017 the LibDems would have hoovered up the disenfranchised remain-supporting 48%.
In 2017 remain had managed to kid themselves that Jezza was going to in some way stop Brexit. Even now some think Jezza will get a mythical deal that the EU would not offer.
Besides in what way would they be disenfranchised, they lost!
-
They may have had their moment in the sun, albeit not so much here, but surely that was then - given there is a bunch of fairly hawkish Tories, and since UKIP are in such a bad way, it is hard to see that there is any space for them to occupy now.
Gordon if Parliament cannot reach a compromise on this and have to go back to the electorate, then I will take the view that they all need to be sacked and banned from ever standing again.
I'll consider a vote for any party that threatens the establishment, I'm not that extreme, like it or not there are some much nastier elements in our society.
We are playing hypotheticals, Scotland vote leave UK, Scottish parliament can't agree final deal, throws it back for another vote, Scotland votes remain.
You are seriously telling me that a significant amount of leavers in Scotland are not going to go fucking ballistic.
-
Indeed - even hypothetically, when people are heavily invested in one course, and that course is then thwarted, then it it rankles.
Looking at the reports today though, about reservists being called up and 3,500 troops being made available, about £2bn being spent on 'no deal' contingency, about shortages of medicines and supplies, about supply problems for perishables and 'just in time' deliveries about access to information and limited access to a new satellite system that the UK has contributed to and uncertainty about whether a flight from Glasgow to Paris will be possible after next March - and all this a few months away!
It maybe that a reversal of Brexit would piss-off Leavers but that would be less of an issue than all the above, which will affect everyone. Hard to see where this is going though - The Guardian website is running a story tonight that May's efforts are now being focused on finding a way to get the DUP on board so that her deal passes: we will see, but if not then surely avoiding the above complications of 'no deal' would be better than annoying Leavers.
And yes, before you ask, if we ever get to Indyref2, then the lessons of Brexit need to be learned as regards proper preparation and if we ever get there, and if Brexit goes ahead, and especially on a 'no deal' basis, then the situation then may well be very different from 2014.
-
Indeed - even hypothetically, when people are heavily invested in one course, and that course is then thwarted, then it it rankles.
Looking at the reports today though, about reservists being called up and 3,500 troops being made available, about £2bn being spent on 'no deal' contingency, about shortages of medicines and supplies, about supply problems for perishables and 'just in time' deliveries about access to information and limited access to a new satellite system that the UK has contributed to and uncertainty about whether a flight from Glasgow to Paris will be possible after next March - and all this a few months away!
It maybe that a reversal of Brexit would piss-off Leavers but that would be less of an issue than all the above, which will affect everyone.
Jeez Gordon, Brexit is not going to be reversed without a referendum, there is zero chance of that happening, I do not know any MP holding that position.
It can be reversed with a referendum, that I don't think is likely, but it is at least possible.
So you can see how with a referendum it is going to be a problem we just disagree on the extent of the problem.
Can you see the point that you might hold, rather than have a referendum, which will either not solve the issue anyway (version of leave wins) or makes UK politics toxic for years to come, you are actually better off leaving with no deal.
Hard to see where this is going though - The Guardian website is running a story tonight that May's efforts are now being focused on finding a way to get the DUP on board so that her deal passes: we will see, but if not then surely avoiding the above complications of 'no deal' would be better than annoying Leavers.
Well, as Davey said there is a majority in Parliament for one thing and that is against no deal. A thick skin, dogged ability to survive, the PM just needs to call their bluff, we will get to a point where it is May's deal or No Deal. Say what you like about May she has an amazing ability to take flack.
And yes, before you ask, if we ever get to Indyref2, then the lessons of Brexit need to be learned as regards proper preparation and if we ever get there, and if Brexit goes ahead, and especially on a 'no deal' basis, then the situation then may well be very different from 2014.
Yes hopefully sooner rather than later!
-
Well, as Davey said there is a majority in Parliament for one thing and that is against no deal.
Sophistry in phrasing in the extreme - if we are talking about majorities in parliament against something, then there are loads - most obviously there is a majority against her deal.
The issue isn't what there is a majority in parliament against, but whether there is a majority in parliament for any specific way forward. I cannot see one for any of the 3 current options (deal, no deal, remain) with the decision taken by parliament directly. I cannot see logistically how there can be for any alternative 'deal' as that can only be hypothetic, undeliverable without the EU's approval. So frankly the only thing that there may be a majority in parliament for is that the decision needs to be settled by the people in a new vote.
The complexities of the whipping arrangements make this difficult currently - it would require Labour to change their official position, which I think they will do eventually. If there were a free vote, as has been suggested, then I think a new referendum gains a majority now.
And the dynamics on Labour have shifted since a seismic poll earlier this week. Remember Labour claim their first option is a general election so YouGov asked about voting intentions in a series of scenarios. Most specifically whether Labour in a GE simply supported brexit or supported a new referendum on brexit, on the assumption that the tories would push ahead with brexit without a referendum. If they supported a referendum they were neck and neck with the tories, if they failed to support a referendum their polling plummeted by 14% and they ended up on just 22%, in third place behind the LibDems.
-
Sophistry in phrasing in the extreme - if we are talking about majorities in parliament against something, then there are loads - most obviously there is a majority against her deal.
The issue isn't what there is a majority in parliament against, but whether there is a majority in parliament for any specific way forward. I cannot see one for any of the 3 current options (deal, no deal, remain) with the decision taken by parliament directly. I cannot see logistically how there can be for any alternative 'deal' as that can only be hypothetic, undeliverable without the EU's approval. So frankly the only thing that there may be a majority in parliament for is that the decision needs to be settled by the people in a new vote.
The complexities of the whipping arrangements make this difficult currently - it would require Labour to change their official position, which I think they will do eventually. If there were a free vote, as has been suggested, then I think a new referendum gains a majority now.
And the dynamics on Labour have shifted since a seismic poll earlier this week. Remember Labour claim their first option is a general election so YouGov asked about voting intentions in a series of scenarios. Most specifically whether Labour in a GE simply supported brexit or supported a new referendum on brexit, on the assumption that the tories would push ahead with brexit without a referendum. If they supported a referendum they were neck and neck with the tories, if they failed to support a referendum their polling plummeted by 14% and they ended up on just 22%, in third place behind the LibDems.
Only a government can propose legislation, the default no deal or May's deal those are the only options.
-
Only a government can propose legislation, the default no deal or May's deal those are the only options.
If that is your view then deal is the only option as it is the only approach the government is proposing currently.
However both no deal and remain (with or without referendum) are also deliverable options by the government and parliament (remember they have to approve to). And don't forget that there is already legislation on the table (linked to may's deal) - parliament may not be able to propose legislation, but they can amend it. So it is within parliament's control to amend the current legislation to caveat approval - either by ruling out no deal (for example a trigger to revoke article 50, or a request to extend) or to amend such that approval of the deal can only happen with public support in a referendum.
-
If that is your view then deal is the only option as it is the only approach the government is proposing currently.
However both no deal and remain (with or without referendum) are also deliverable options by the government and parliament (remember they have to approve to). And don't forget that there is already legislation on the table (linked to may's deal) - parliament may not be able to propose legislation, but they can amend it. So it is within parliament's control to amend the current legislation to caveat approval - either by ruling out no deal (for example a trigger to revoke article 50, or a request to extend) or to amend such that approval of the deal can only happen with public support in a referendum.
Given the choice between no deal or May's deal, what do go for?
You can refuse to answer but if you do I'm going to assume its May's deal and I would call your bluff.
-
Given the choice between no deal or May's deal, what do go for?
You can refuse to answer but if you do I'm going to assume its May's deal and I would call your bluff.
In a hypothetical forced choice between just 2 of the 3 deliverable outcomes from where we are currently then I'd prefer May's deal by a considerable margin. But it is a forced choice between bad and downright appalling.
-
Given the choice between no deal or May's deal, what do go for?
You can refuse to answer but if you do I'm going to assume its May's deal and I would call your bluff.
Given the choice between remain and no deal, what do you go for?
-
Sensing a bit of evasion there, if the choice is no deal or Mays deal, you vote May's deal right?
I really don't understand the referendum arguement. Let's say it happens and you have leave and remain again, how on earth that gets through Parliament I have no idea.
You wouldn't just have leave/remain on the referendum. Last time we did that it ended up in two and a half years of protracted squabbling. I would favour a two part question. The first question would be "should we accept the May deal?" The second question should be "if the answer to the first question is no, "should we stay or should we go?" Or you could do a three way STV between the available options.
Result remain wins let's say Remain win 52%, general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.
You think if Remain wins another referendum, UKIP are going to get anywhere in the general election afterwards? Do you think the Leavers are mostly going to vote UKIP? They are not. In the last election, the Lib Dems stood for an end to Brexit. Did they even get close to 48%?
Only the government can bring forward anything binding that stops Brexit, only vote of no confidence stops that, that isn't going to get majority.
There are quite a lot of Tory MPs who are against Brexit or at least a "no deal" Brexit. There enough to topple the government, at least.
-
Jeez Gordon, Brexit is not going to be reversed without a referendum,
I disagree. Brexit can be reversed if Theresa May says so. Whether it happens or not depends on whether May is prepared to sacrifice her political career to save the UK. Admittedly, the odds look slim.
I do not know any MP holding that position.
Do you know any MPs?
It can be reversed with a referendum, that I don't think is likely, but it is at least possible.
I think a referendum is a very plausible option at the moment. In fact it's the only way to let Parliament out of the current three way deadlock - well, excepting a general election.
or makes UK politics toxic for years to come
That ship has already sailed.
-
Only a government can propose legislation,
Not true.
-
Given the choice between remain and no deal, what do you go for?
No deal.
-
In a hypothetical forced choice between just 2 of the 3 deliverable outcomes from where we are currently then I'd prefer May's deal by a considerable margin. But it is a forced choice between bad and downright appalling.
As will all remainiacs, so May just as well run down the clock since they will have to vote it through in the end.
-
That ship has already sailed.
Most of of your points have been raised by others and I've responded.
This is UK politics being toxic now, once again the AFD in Germany have 70 odd MPs, we have zero, stop crying wolf you will come to regret it.
-
As will all remainiacs, so May just as well run down the clock since they will have to vote it through in the end.
But it isn't in her power as eventually she will have to bring the issue to parliament in a meaningful vote, which will allow parliament to take control. Don't forget that parliament has already amended the bill to mean that parliament decides what happens next if her deal is voted down. Parliament recognises that calling for an extension, revocation of article 50 (permanently or temporarily while other issues are sorted) and/or a referendum on the final deal or voting to prevent no deal are all options and once May's deal is voted down it is for parliament to choose the way forward. That's why May is delaying as she know that once her deal is defeated the power transfers from her and the government to parliament.
Do you really think that if May's deal is voted down on the 14th Jan and parliament will allow the clock to run down to a no deal. No a chance.
-
No deal.
The UK would be in dire straits if that were to happen, by all accounts! ::)
-
The UK would be in dire straits if that were to happen, by all accounts! ::)
No, not by ALL accounts.
-
No, not by ALL accounts.
Have you quite "finnish...ed?
-
No, not by ALL accounts.
Business people seem to think it a very big mistake.
-
Have you quite "finnish...ed?
;D
-
Business people seem to think it a very big mistake.
Again, not all of them. Messrs Martin and Dyson don't think so, and neither does Digby Jones of the CBI. I disagree with them, and think any kind of Brexit will be bad, but let's not exaggerate.
-
No deal.
Yet you claim to prefer Norway+/EFTA, which is much, much closer to remain than it is to no deal. Why on earth would you prefer something far, far away from your preferred option than something very close to it?
-
stop crying wolf you will come to regret it.
Oooh....scaryjak.
File under project fear.
-
Have you quite "finnish...ed?
Ho ho ho!
-
But it isn't in her power as eventually she will have to bring the issue to parliament in a meaningful vote, which will allow parliament to take control.
Does she, if she doesn't think she can win the vote, why bring it before Parliament.
Don't forget that parliament has already amended the bill to mean that parliament decides what happens next if her deal is voted down. Parliament recognises that calling for an extension, revocation of article 50 (permanently or temporarily while other issues are sorted) and/or a referendum on the final deal or voting to prevent no deal are all options and once May's deal is voted down it is for parliament to choose the way forward. That's why May is delaying as she know that once her deal is defeated the power transfers from her and the government to parliament.
If it gets voted down, if she doesn't present it then no deal.
Do you really think that if May's deal is voted down on the 14th Jan and parliament will allow the clock to run down to a no deal. No a chance.
The only way to stop that happening is vote of no confidence, could happen but again 'no chance' is over stating it, your track record on predicting things isn't great.
-
Yet you claim to prefer Norway+/EFTA, which is much, much closer to remain than it is to no deal. Why on earth would you prefer something far, far away from your preferred option than something very close to it?
The three options in order of preference.
1. May's deal - with Norway type deal as long term arrangement
2. No Deal - not ideal but much better than
3. Referendum - we would end at best in the same place we are now and at worst with the hard right on the march. With the hard left already in control of the Labour party we will likely end up with a bunch of ideologues in charge of country.
-
Oooh....scaryjak.
File under project fear.
Did you not watch the video of Bill Maher?
File under Project Reality.
-
Does she, if she doesn't think she can win the vote, why bring it before Parliament.
Because she has to.
If it gets voted down, if she doesn't present it then no deal.
Nope - Grieve's amendment means that parliament rather than the government drives what happens next.
The only way to stop that happening is vote of no confidence, could happen but again 'no chance' is over stating it, your track record on predicting things isn't great.
No it isn't - there are all sorts of other options once parliament is in the driving seat. For example parliament could chose to revoke article 50.
-
The three options in order of preference.
1. May's deal - with Norway type deal as long term arrangement
2. No Deal - not ideal but much better than
3. Referendum - we would end at best in the same place we are now and at worst with the hard right on the march. With the hard left already in control of the Labour party we will likely end up with a bunch of ideologues in charge of country.
Those are not options of equivalence - a referendum is a mechanism of choosing an outcome option, not an outcome option in itself.
Currently there are 3 outcome options available that are deliverable by the UK government/parliament
1. Remain
2. May's deal
3. No deal
The decision may be taken by parliament (not the government) or parliament could decide to refer the decision to the people in a referendum. In the case of a referendum parliament may chose to narrow the choice to less than three options, and the electoral commission may also take a view if it felt that one option on the ballot paper was insufficiently defined.
There is a further aspect - which is that parliament could extend/delay the process either through request to the EU27 (not in the gift of the UK) or via revocation of article 50 (in parliament's gift) to permit an attempt at renegotiation and/or to hold a referendum.
-
It doesn't seem likely that parliament would settle on remain without going back to the people with either an election or referendum for ratification.
-
Interesting that a referendum is being openly discussed by cabinet members now - more interesting still that it is Amber Rudd who has raised it yesterday given that she is seen as one of the closest allies of the PM. May of course has denied it, but there is little doubt that Rudd's comments yesterday would have been agreed in advance at the very highest level.
Bit by bit the tone is changing - the direction of travel is in one direction only.
-
Because she has to.
Why?
-
Interesting that a referendum is being openly discussed by cabinet members now - more interesting still that it is Amber Rudd who has raised it yesterday given that she is seen as one of the closest allies of the PM. May of course has denied it, but there is little doubt that Rudd's comments yesterday would have been agreed in advance at the very highest level.
Bit by bit the tone is changing - the direction of travel is in one direction only.
I'd be happy with a referendum with two options:-
May's Deal
No Deal
I can see that getting through Parliament, I can't see a referendum with remain option getting through Parliament. Suspect Labour front bench will vote with the Tories & DUP, to block remain being an option, they will only admit that if they have to.
Once that becomes clear to remainiacs they will vote through May's deal.
-
Why?
Because she is required under law to provide a meaningful vote on the brexit deal under Section 13 of the United Kingdom's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is a requirement that the government of the United Kingdom bring forward an amendable parliamentary motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations between the government and the European Union.
Not been following things very closely have you Jakswan.
-
I'd be happy with a referendum with two options:-
May's Deal
No Deal
I can see that getting through Parliament, I can't see a referendum with remain option getting through Parliament. Suspect Labour front bench will vote with the Tories & DUP, to block remain being an option, they will only admit that if they have to.
Once that becomes clear to remainiacs they will vote through May's deal.
A two-way referendum of remain/May's deal has a much greater likelihood of getting through parliament than one for deal/no deal.
-
Because she is required under law to provide a meaningful vote on the brexit deal under Section 13 of the United Kingdom's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is a requirement that the government of the United Kingdom bring forward an amendable parliamentary motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations between the government and the European Union.
I'll take your word for it.
Not been following things very closely have you Jakswan.
LOL, no I don't follow things that closely, amazing my track record on predicting things is so much better than you. :)
-
A two-way referendum of remain/May's deal has a much greater likelihood of getting through parliament than one for deal/no deal.
Not so sure..
Likely to vote for only Brexit option referendum
317 Tories
10 DUP
3/4 Labour backbench
Likely to vote for Remain option referendum
35 SNP
11 LibDems
150 Labour backbench
Labour leadership suspect would go Brexit only options, not certain on that.
Its going to mid-Jan now before this gets voted on, if its voted down, May has 1/2 weeks to come up with something else. So we are into Feb, tick-tock. :)
-
I'll take your word for it.
LOL, no I don't follow things that closely, amazing my track record on predicting things is so much better than you. :)
Astonishing that you pontificate on all matters brexit, yet seem ignorant on the facts of the matter with regard to the actual process.
And if you mean by 'predicting things' whether article 50 would be triggered by end March 2017, I suggest you actually check my posts. I never said it wouldn't - what I said was that were Gina Miller to win her court case, requiring parliamentary approval, then the likelihood of meeting that deadline diminished markedly. That is was triggered before the end of March has no bearing on the accuracy of my statement.
-
The Court of Session in Edinburgh confirms the ECJ ruling that Article 50 can be rescinded by the UK provided it does so using via an appropriate democratic process, such as a referendum or, presumably, a vote in Westminster. So the argument that there is only May's deal or no deal is wrong: there can be a 'remain' option that if agreed requires just a letter to the EU saying 'sorry folks, but we've changed our minds'.
That rescinding Article 50 is now a definite option, and no matter how much the Tories say they wouldn't do so, if May's deal is rejected in January then if Parliament steps in and decides the only way to break the deadlock is a referendum then 'remain' would surely appear on the ballot paper since the electorate now know for certain that 'remain' is an option that is available to them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46637382
-
Likely to vote for only Brexit option referendum
317 Tories
You really are living in your own fantasy world.
Do you really think that every tory would vote for a referendum that included no deal. There are dozens on the record saying they will do anything to avoid the possibility of a no deal brexit and have already rebelled against the government to that effect.
Just a few of those names: Boles, Soubry, Woolaston, Clark, Grieve, Morgan, Allen, Bebb, Benyon, Djanogly, Fallon, Freeman, Graham, Green, Greening, Heald, Johnson, Lee, Lefroy, Letwin, Neill, Soames, Vaizey, Sandbach, Stevenson, Thomas
-
10 DUP
You sure about that - a no deal brexit is the best way to ensure unification of Ireland. Just last week a poll reported that in the event of a no deal brexit people in NI would support unification with the republic by 55% to 42%. With May's deal, or some variant the public are equally split. Of course, remain is by far the most favoured outcome.
Perhaps you missed that poll, as you seem to be missing so much that is relevant to brexit - yet you still pontificate as if you have a clue.
-
Astonishing that you pontificate on all matters brexit, yet seem ignorant on the facts of the matter with regard to the actual process.
I speculate on outcomes, you don't think anyone should be allowed an opinion unless they know the same as you?
And if you mean by 'predicting things' whether article 50 would be triggered by end March 2017, I suggest you actually check my posts. I never said it wouldn't - what I said was that were Gina Miller to win her court case, requiring parliamentary approval, then the likelihood of meeting that deadline diminished markedly. That is was triggered before the end of March has no bearing on the accuracy of my statement.
Davey wrong on Brexit, wrong on art50 getting through Parliament, wrong on there being an early election, wrong on DUP supporting staying in single market.
.
-
You really are living in your own fantasy world.
It sad to see you reduced to ranting, come on now you can do better!
Do you really think that every tory would vote for a referendum that included no deal. There are dozens on the record saying they will do anything to avoid the possibility of a no deal brexit and have already rebelled against the government to that effect.
Just a few of those names: Boles, Soubry, Woolaston, Clark, Grieve, Morgan, Allen, Bebb, Benyon, Djanogly, Fallon, Freeman, Graham, Green, Greening, Heald, Johnson, Lee, Lefroy, Letwin, Neill, Soames, Vaizey, Sandbach, Stevenson, Thomas
By that measure I can take the votes of any Labour MP who has said that having another referendum would be damaging as voting the other way.
-
You sure about that - a no deal brexit is the best way to ensure unification of Ireland. Just last week a poll reported that in the event of a no deal brexit people in NI would support unification with the republic by 55% to 42%. With May's deal, or some variant the public are equally split. Of course, remain is by far the most favoured outcome.
Perhaps you missed that poll, as you seem to be missing so much that is relevant to brexit - yet you still pontificate as if you have a clue.
No not sure, just think its likely, a no deal means a border and makes it much harder road to a United Ireland.
-
By that measure I can take the votes of any Labour MP who has said that having another referendum would be damaging as voting the other way.
I'm not talking about 'talking about a referendum' - I'm talking about actually voting in parliament to prevent no deal - and doing so in defiance of their own party. Each one of the people I mentioned voted in favour of the Grieve amendment aimed at blocking a no deal outcome.
When (or if) a vote comes to parliament on a second referendum, we will see how those Labour MPs actually vote, but that hasn't happened yet.
-
No not sure, just think its likely, a no deal means a border and makes it much harder road to a United Ireland.
The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland." And the GFA is an international agreement covered by international law.
Therefore if a no deal brexit and the evidence of the recent polling remains - i.e. that because of that no deal brexit a majority in NI would prefer unification rather than remaining in the UK under no deal conditions then the UK government is actually obliged under international law to hold a vote on unification (this would require separate votes in NI and the republic in which both would need to vote for unification for it to be mandated). If the UK government blocked this it would be a matter for international legal decision.
Maybe you'd missed that one as well.
-
Did you not watch the video of Bill Maher?
File under Project Reality.
OIC. We are only allowed to believe dire warnings when they fit your political mindset.
-
Davey wrong on Brexit, wrong on art50 getting through Parliament, wrong on there being an early election, wrong on DUP supporting staying in single market.
.
Hold my hands up on the first one - but then virtually everyone thought that remain would win, including the leaders of the two leave campaigns. Not on the others as on art50 my argument was that the Gina Miller outcome (if she won) made it more difficult and less likely to get art50 triggered by end march not that it couldn't happen. Likewise on gen election - my point was that May couldn't just call an election (as used to happen) because of the FTPA this required parliament to agree which wasn't guaranteed. On DUP does anyone have a clue where they actually stand on the single market - just in the last few weeks they seem to be edging toward EEA membership, which would mean single market, and bed fellows of your good self.
But while we are on being spectacularly wrong in predictions, how about this on from 21st July 2016:
'We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed'
Remember that one Jakswan
-
The Good Friday Agreement states that "the Secretary of State" should call a referendum "‘if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland." And the GFA is an international agreement covered by international law.
Therefore if a no deal brexit and the evidence of the recent polling remains - i.e. that because of that no deal brexit a majority in NI would prefer unification rather than remaining in the UK under no deal conditions then the UK government is actually obliged under international law to hold a vote on unification (this would require separate votes in NI and the republic in which both would need to vote for unification for it to be mandated). If the UK government blocked this it would be a matter for international legal decision.
Maybe you'd missed that one as well.
Nope, knew about that.
-
OIC. We are only allowed to believe dire warnings when they fit your political mindset.
How do you conclude that given what I wrote?
-
Nope, knew about that.
Then how can you conclude that a no deal brexit (which shifts public opinion markedly in favour of unification as has been shown in polls) means that unification is less likely.
-
Hold my hands up on the first one - but then virtually everyone thought that remain would win, including the leaders of the two leave campaigns. Not on the others as on art50 my argument was that the Gina Miller outcome (if she won) made it more difficult and less likely to get art50 triggered by end march not that it couldn't happen. Likewise on gen election - my point was that May couldn't just call an election (as used to happen) because of the FTPA this required parliament to agree which wasn't guaranteed. On DUP does anyone have a clue where they actually stand on the single market - just in the last few weeks they seem to be edging toward EEA membership, which would mean single market, and bed fellows of your good self.
But while we are on being spectacularly wrong in predictions, how about this on from 21st July 2016:
'We might in two years be in a place where we have a free trade deals with the EU\US\Australia agreed'
Remember that one Jakswan
Oh we are doing that are we.
The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10251.msg615491#msg615491
What actually happened? Record levels of employment!
Yet you constantly sneer when we are having a discussion, its not a good look imho.
-
My guess, for what it is worth, is that there will be a referendum because:
a) May's deal will fail,
b) Parliament won't through its own inaction allow a 'no deal' exit to happen by default,
c) the DUP won't support a no confidence in the government motion, since currently they've got a kind of direct rule in NI that they wouldn't want to expose to a GE,
d) therefore a GE won't happen over Brexit,
e) there is no opportunity before March to negotiate any other form of Brexit, and the EU won't play anyway,
f) so unless Westminster approve May's deal, which is unlikely, and without a GE, then a referendum is the only alternative to 'no deal', and gives May the only hope of her deal being supported (by the electorate if not MPs).
Therefore, to break the Westminster deadlock, and given the rescind Article 50 option, a referendum involving Remain, May's Deal or No Deal.
Of course, I could be wrong.
-
I have bet against Brexit happening end March and traded out when it was odds on.
I'm now betting the other way and the odds have flipped.
Reasons already explained, I made money on Brexit, early election, Trump getting elected, art 50 being triggered.
-
Oh we are doing that are we.
The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10251.msg615491#msg615491
Nice quote - why don't you take it up with its author, George Osborne. Why no "" - the implication being that those were my words, they weren't they were his and in my original post I made that clear as you can see from the link to my post and from their to the source material.
-
Have to laugh at Andrea Leadsome as quoted on the BBC: 'To have a second referendum would unfortunately be going back to people and telling them they have got it wrong and they needed to try again'.
Listen up Andrea - the people did get it wrong, since they didn't understand what they were voting for, and now they do know some of us think they should have the opportunity to change their minds if they wish to do so: what is she frightened of?
-
Have to laugh at Andrea Leadsome as quoted on the BBC: 'To have a second referendum would unfortunately be going back to people and telling them they have got it wrong and they needed to try again'.
Listen up Andrea - the people did get it wrong, since they didn't understand what they were voting for, and now they do know some of us think they should have the opportunity to change their minds if they wish to do so: what is she frightened of?
Sorry, the people did know. The question was in plain English.
-
Sorry, the people did know. The question was in plain English.
The question may have been, but the consequences weren't since the Brexit enthusiasts didn't actually bother to explain what these might be (if we ignore the lies on the sides of buses) - and now, far too late, we do know, and that alone justifies a 2nd referendum.
-
What actually happened? Record levels of employment!
Actually the report made the following predictions over the 2 years following a brexit vote, with each compared the the trend-line forecast on the status quo, i.e. remain.
Change compared to forecast of vote to remain
GDP -3.6%
CPI inflation +2.3%
Unemployment +1.6%
Average real wages -2.8%
House prices -10%
Sterling exchange rate index -12%
In fact pretty well all have come to pass, give or take:
https://www.ft.com/content/cf51e840-7147-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/03/brexit-is-estimated-to-have-wiped-2percent-off-the-uks-gdp-even-before-the-exit-date.html
Also to note that the UK stock market has massively underperformed, we've gone from top of G7 on growth to bottom and inward investment into business has flatlined.
Interestingly the one element that seems to have bucked the trend is unemployment (hmm wonder why you picked this as your only example). But this has been perplexing economists for some while - so during the 2008/9 recession there also wasn't a rise in unemployment as would be expected - something odd is going on. What is clear is that the jobs are poorer quality with people having less earning power than they would have done.
So overwhelmingly the predictions have come true. And this is, of course, before we have even left.
-
Nice quote - why don't you take it up with its author, George Osborne. Why no "" - the implication being that those were my words, they weren't they were his and in my original post I made that clear as you can see from the link to my post and from their to the source material.
I linked to the quote, totally transparent, you quoted directly from it.
Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:
'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'
You ended with 'Lets hope you aren't one of those 500,000 who will lose their jobs in the next few years if we vote for Brexit next month. '
If you worked for me and were so wrong there would be one person losing their job. :)
-
'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'
Now I see you have included quotation marks - is this the nearest I will get to an apology for misrepresenting a quote from George Osborne as being a quote from me.
A clear statement that the quote above is not mine and perhaps an apology for implying it was will suffice.
-
Now I see you have included quotation marks - is this the nearest I will get to an apology for misrepresenting a quote from George Osborne as being a quote from me.
A clear statement that the quote above is not mine and perhaps an apology for implying it was will suffice.
Nope, no misrepresentation on my part just me showing you up to be the pretentious Davey we know so well. 😀
-
Nope, no misrepresentation on my part just me showing you up to be the pretentious Davey we know so well. 😀
Nope clear representation.
In a response to a post in which I posted a quote written by you in 2016 you retorted 'Oh we are doing that are we' followed with a quote which was in a post from me also from 2016. The clear implication being that the quote was my words.
Problem is that quote wasn't mine, but George Osborne's - something you failed to make clear in your post. Misrepresentation (actually of both me and George Osborne).
-
Jakswan might be singing from a different hymn sheet if Brexit is as damaging to the UK as many of us believe it to be.
-
Peter Kellner in the Guardian has an interesting poll. A question asking about May's deal and Remain has a 59/41% split for Remain. A question on a general election shows the Labour vote haemhorraging to 22% if they support Brexit. No doubt the govt (and Corbyn) will rubbish this, but I bet MPs will be studying it.
No link, Google "Kellner Brexit poll".
-
Nope clear representation.
Thanks.
In a response to a post in which I posted a quote written by you in 2016 you retorted 'Oh we are doing that are we' followed with a quote which was in a post from me also from 2016. The clear implication being that the quote was my words.
The implication was that you thought that voting leave would result in unemployment growing by 500,000, which did not happen and now have been proven to be wrong.
Problem is that quote wasn't mine, but George Osborne's - something you failed to make clear in your post. Misrepresentation (actually of both me and George Osborne).
So are suggesting you didn't actually think unemployment would grow by 500,000 following a vote to leave and were lying at the time?
I know its difficult for you to accept, but sometimes Davey when you predict the political future you are a little off.
Here is another little gem.
Trump ramped up the rhetoric to get elected. In office he will be much more moderate.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11518.msg646785#msg646785
Not claiming I'm perfect but I'm encouraging you to tone it down a little.
-
The implication was that you thought that voting leave would result in unemployment growing by 500,000, which did not happen and now have been proven to be wrong.
Further misrepresentation - the report was about the effect of a vote to leave baselined against what was likely to happen if we voted to remain. So you cannot say this did not happen without comparing the trendlines that have occurred over the past couple of years with what would likely have happened were we to have voted to remain - the best approach being to look at the trend in the 2 years or so up to June 2016 and to see whether there has been a marked shift in that trend linked to the leave vote.
Have you done this Jakswan?
-
How do you conclude that given what I wrote?
Well you keep telling us that the dire outcomes predicted by Remainers are "project fear" but lately your chief argument against doing democracy (i.e. a third referendum) is that the far right wing would be resurgent. That looks like project fear to me.
-
f) so unless Westminster approve May's deal, which is unlikely, and without a GE, then a referendum is the only alternative to 'no deal', and gives May the only hope of her deal being supported (by the electorate if not MPs).
Incorrect. May can unilaterally rescind Brexit "while we sort the mess out". We'll have to do something like that anyway even if we do have a referendum because we need time to organise. it.
-
Sorry, the people did know. The question was in plain English.
The answer wasn't though.
-
Thanks.
The implication was that you thought that voting leave would result in unemployment growing by 500,000, which did not happen and now have been proven to be wrong.
How can he have been? The quote says "over the next few years". Brexit hasn't even happened yet.
-
How can he have been? The quote says "over the next few years". Brexit hasn't even happened yet.
Actually it was from a report comparing the first period after the vote, rather than necessarily after brexit actually happened (there was a separate report on that).
So is unemployment 500,000 higher than one might have anticipated had we voted to remain. Well yes, there or there abouts.
So in the 9 quarters leading up to the vote unemployment fell by 711k and there is no reason to have expected any other trend had we voted to remain, so we'd have anticipated a further 711k drop in the 9 quarters since the vote. Yet unemployment has only dropped by 250k in the past 2 and a bit years. So unemployment is 461k higher than expected. Not quite 500k, but not far off.
-
Actually it was from a report comparing the first period after the vote, rather than necessarily after brexit actually happened (there was a separate report on that).
So is unemployment 500,000 higher than one might have anticipated had we voted to remain. Well yes, there or there abouts.
So in the 9 quarters leading up to the vote unemployment fell by 711k and there is no reason to have expected any other trend had we voted to remain, so we'd have anticipated a further 711k drop in the 9 quarters since the vote. Yet unemployment has only dropped by 250k in the past 2 and a bit years. So unemployment is 461k higher than expected. Not quite 500k, but not far off.
I did notice that Jakswan ignored the post with the links in that said all the predictions have more or less c one to pass.
-
I did notice that Jakswan ignored the post with the links in that said all the predictions have more or less c one to pass.
Remember that the predictions were comparison of what would happen if we voted to leave compared to what would happen if we voted to remain.
So pretty well every prediction (including the employment/unemployment one) has proved to be remarkably accurate. Some of the effects have, of course, been mitigated in part by policy changes - a good example being CPI inflation - the report predicted a peak impact on inflation of +2.3% over the two years following a vote to leave. In fact this has been +2.0%, but the Bank of England have had to raise interest rates to dampen down inflation, and that, of course has effects on other parts of the economy.
-
Further misrepresentation - the report was about the effect of a vote to leave baselined against what was likely to happen if we voted to remain. So you cannot say this did not happen without comparing the trendlines that have occurred over the past couple of years with what would likely have happened were we to have voted to remain - the best approach being to look at the trend in the 2 years or so up to June 2016 and to see whether there has been a marked shift in that trend linked to the leave vote.
Have you done this Jakswan?
You cited a report that stated that 500,000 jobs would be lost following a leave vote and quoted it explicitly. It is fair to conclude that you also thought 500,000 jobs would be lost, 500,000 jobs were not lost and you were wrong.
Lets look at what you wrote:-
Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:
'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'
So the conclusion you thought would be clear and were wrong:-
1. push our economy into a recession - wrong
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
4. average real wages would be lower - wrong
-
1. push our economy into a recession - wrong
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
4. average real wages would be lower - wrong
Incorrect on virtually all counts.
And again you are misrepresenting the situation, as you are failing to make the comparison between what would happen in the 2 years following a vote to leave compared to what would happen in the 2 years following a vote to remain.
So:
Inflation - prediction +2.3% - actual +2% (but at the expense of increased interest rates)
unemployment - prediction +500k - actual +460k
GDP - prediction -3.6% - actual -2.1% (but against stronger than expected global growth)
Exchange rate - prediction -12% - actual -12%
Average real wages - prediction -2.8% - actual -4%
Market share valuation - prediction -30% - actual -30%
So overall pretty accurate - the significant point being that in every case we are doing markedly worse than we would have had we voted to remain.
-
Incorrect on virtually all counts.
And again you are misrepresenting the situation, as you are failing to make the comparison between what would happen in the 2 years following a vote to leave compared to what would happen in the 2 years following a vote to remain.
So:
Inflation - prediction +2.3% - actual +2% (but at the expense of increased interest rates)
unemployment - prediction +500k - actual +460k
GDP - prediction -3.6% - actual -2.1% (but against stronger than expected global growth)
Exchange rate - prediction -12% - actual -12%
Average real wages - prediction -2.8% - actual -4%
Market share valuation - prediction -30% - actual -30%
So overall pretty accurate - the significant point being that in every case we are doing markedly worse than we would have had we voted to remain.
Come off it Davey. :)
What you concluded was that following a vote to leave.
1. push our economy into a recession - there has been no recession
a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
Give me two quarters with a downturn in GDP?
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
From ONS: May 2016 There were 31.70 million people in work, May 2018 There were 32.34 million people in work
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
ONS again: Q2 2016 £490,502m Q2 2018 £506,928m
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/qna#othertimeseries
4. average real wages would be lower
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/supplementaryanalysisofaverageweeklyearnings/september2018
If you the quote you thought was a clear conclusion had been something like:-
Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:
'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy result in change to our economic growth and would mean slower decrease in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller compared to if we voted remain, average real wages would be lower grow at a slower rate, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'
You could claim to have been right, but sadly for you, did not, and therefore were wrong.
-
The answer wasn't though.
The answer was too: yes or no.
-
1. push our economy into a recession - there has been no recession
a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
Give me two quarters with a downturn in GDP?
You are correct we avoided a recession. We didn't have 2 quarters of negative growth
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
From ONS: May 2016 There were 31.70 million people in work, May 2018 There were 32.34 million people in work
Compared to the situation had we voted to remain. We should have had 700k fewer unemployed from June 2016 to present. In fact we have only 250k fewer. 460k people are currently unemployed who wouldn't have been had we voted to remain.
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
ONS again: Q2 2016 £490,502m Q2 2018 £506,928m
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/qna#othertimeseries
Compared to the situation had we voted to remain. Your own data suggest growth through those 2 years has been just 3.3%. Compare that to the 2016 OBR baseline (had we not voted to leave) of about 5.4%.
4. average real wages would be lower
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/supplementaryanalysisofaverageweeklyearnings/september2018
Compared to the situation had we voted to remain. Your own link shows this clearly - just check out figs 1 and 2. In the 2 years up to June 2016 4% increase in average real wage levels. From June 2016 the graph flat lines, with the change up to June 2018 being just 0.2%.
So pretty well every prediction has come true - the only exception being that we didn't have 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth.
-
You are correct we avoided a recession. We didn't have 2 quarters of negative growth
Compared to the situation had we voted to remain. We should have had 700k fewer unemployed from June 2016 to present. In fact we have only 250k fewer. 460k people are currently unemployed who wouldn't have been had we voted to remain.
Compared to the situation had we voted to remain. Your own data suggest growth through those 2 years has been just 3.3%. Compare that to the 2016 OBR baseline (had we not voted to leave) of about 5.4%.
Compared to the situation had we voted to remain. Your own link shows this clearly - just check out figs 1 and 2. In the 2 years up to June 2016 4% increase in average real wage levels. From June 2016 the graph flat lines, with the change up to June 2018 being just 0.2%.
So pretty well every prediction has come true - the only exception being that we didn't have 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The post I quoted made no mention of compared to remain.
Demonstrably wrong and now lies to wriggle out of it, not a good look.
-
The answer was too: yes or no.
Only superficially. As has been shown by events since the vote, the answer is so complex, Parliament is in deadlock trying to figure it out.
-
The post I quoted made no mention of compared to remain.
Demonstrably wrong and now lies to wriggle out of it, not a good look.
I think this is a bit pathetic really. The fact is that there are 460,000 people out of work now who would have jobs had we voted Remain. I invite you to put yourself in the shoes of one of those 460,000 people.
-
I think this is a bit pathetic really. The fact is that there are 460,000 people out of work now who would have jobs had we voted Remain. I invite you to put yourself in the shoes of one of those 460,000 people.
I agree Davey does come across a bit pathetic sometimes, but he debates well.
I think the economy has grown slower than if we voted remain, 460,000 extra jobs not sure is accurate.
In other News JC saves the day!
Corbyn: Brexit would go ahead even if Labour won snap election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu
Without Corbyn support I can't see how Brexit can be reversed, I invite you to put yourself in the shoes of the centrist Labour MPs who despite thinking that Brexit is disaster have remained loyal so they can keep their jobs. :)
-
I agree Davey does come across a bit pathetic sometimes, but he debates well.
Whereas you seem to be using childish comebacks.
I think the economy has grown slower than if we voted remain, 460,000 extra jobs not sure is accurate.
Yes, OK, it's not exactly 460,000, but even if it were really only half that, it's still not a good thing to be passed off lightly as you are doing.
I invite you to put yourself in the shoes of the centrist Labour MPs who despite thinking that Brexit is disaster have remained loyal so they can keep their jobs. :)
You can treat unemployment as a joke if you like, I don't think it makes you look good.
-
The post I quoted made no mention of compared to remain.
Yes it did - my posts in this section - 3309, 3306, 3304, 3302, 3297 all state that the comparison is with what would happen in the event of a remain vote.
And fundamentally this whole section is linked to you quoting from George Osborn's introduction to the 2016 report on short term effects, and then focusing on what it predicted. All those predictions (as was the purpose of the report) was to compare what would happen if we voted to leave compared to what would happen if we voted to remain.
-
On the subject of George Osborne: his current view.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46655969
-
I think the economy has grown slower than if we voted remain,
Let's look at the consequences of that shall we - beyond the fact that we are all poorer than we would have been.
GDP is 2.1% lower than it would have been, so the economy would have been 2.1% larger, we would have had 2.1% more money available for public expenditure with a same % tax take per GDP.
So public expenditure is currently £812bn - so without having to alter tax rates at all had we not voted to leave we would have had ad additional £17bn to spend on public services. Throw in the £2bn expenditure on no deal brexit planning and we are at an additional £19bn available. So per week we would have had an additional £366m available to spend - lets be cautious and round that down to a round £350m a week.
So had we voted to remain we would have had an extra £350m a week to spend on ... hmm ... let's think of a priority ... maybe the NHS.
There something in the back of my mind about £350m a week and the NHS - anyone able to help me out.
-
Yes it did - my posts in this section - 3309, 3306, 3304, 3302, 3297 all state that the comparison is with what would happen in the event of a remain vote.
And fundamentally this whole section is linked to you quoting from George Osborn's introduction to the 2016 report on short term effects, and then focusing on what it predicted. All those predictions (as was the purpose of the report) was to compare what would happen if we voted to leave compared to what would happen if we voted to remain.
Again the conclusion you reached was that following a vote to leave.
1. push our economy into a recession - wrong
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
4. average real wages would be lower - wrong
You are now effectively saying
1. push our economy into a recession - concede this?
2. unemployment would fall faster if we voted to remain
3. GDP would grow slower and leave overall GDP 3.6% lower
4. Average real wages would grow faster if we voted to remain
The conclusion you came to was either wrong or your the conclusion you posted was willfully misleading.
Baffled last time remain lost because their campaign was sneering in tone, misleading and negative, now you want another vote on the same issue and look set to campaign on the same terms.
Anyway, with Corbyn coming out for leave another vote looks dead as a dodo.
-
You are now effectively saying
1. push our economy into a recession - concede this?
So far. The signs are not looking good though.
2. unemployment would fall faster if we voted to remain
There would be around 460,000 fewer people unemployed if we had voted Remain. You seem to be unwilling to confront that fact for some reason.
3. GDP would grow slower and leave overall GDP 3.6% lower
Obviously, if GDP grows more slowly the gap between what it would be and what it is rises with time. Furthermore, even 3.6% is significant in terms of government income. Q3 GDP was £500 billion approximately. 3.6% of that is £18 billion. That's probably a billion or so tax receipts not collected, just for one quarter.
4. Average real wages would grow faster if we voted to remain
Don't you want to be a bit richer?
Baffled last time remain lost because their campaign was sneering in tone, misleading and negative, now you want another vote on the same issue and look set to campaign on the same terms.
I'll accept negative, but the other stuff is false. The Leave campaigns, on the other hand, outright lied and one of them broke the law with respect to funding.
Anyway, with Corbyn coming out for leave another vote looks dead as a dodo.
Corbyn is a useless twat. If there's another vote, it will be despite him, not because of him. This has always been the case. He's a Leaver, like you.
-
So far. The signs are not looking good though.There would be around 460,000 fewer people unemployed if we had voted Remain. You seem to be unwilling to confront that fact for some reason. Obviously, if GDP grows more slowly the gap between what it would be and what it is rises with time. Furthermore, even 3.6% is significant in terms of government income. Q3 GDP was £500 billion approximately. 3.6% of that is £18 billion. That's probably a billion or so tax receipts not collected, just for one quarter.Don't you want to be a bit richer?
You seem to agree with me that Davey was wrong. As to the being richer I voted leave to end political union.
I'll accept negative, but the other stuff is false. The Leave campaigns, on the other hand, outright lied and one of them broke the law with respect to funding.
Not doing the actual debate again, you accept negative, want to run the campaign again and win this time? My tip would be not to be negative again.
Corbyn is a useless twat. If there's another vote, it will be despite him, not because of him. This has always been the case. He's a Leaver, like you.
I think there will not be another vote because of Corbyn, Corbyn is kept there by centrist MPs, they are holding onto their jobs, if you listen to them Brexit is the end of the world but if they really thought that you would think they would do anything to reverse it.
-
Fuck Brexit.
-
Fuck Brexit.
For once, Vlad, we are in agreement.
-
You seem to agree with me that Davey was wrong.
I was under the impression that I was agreeing with PD.
As to the being richer I voted leave to end political union.
We will still be in a political union, one the Scots and the Northern Irish may now seek to leave, and although I am against Scottish independence, I wouldn't blame them for telling us to fuck off.
I'm also not entirely sure what you think is wrong with political unions. The EU looks to me like a fantastic one to be in given our geographic location.
Not doing the actual debate again, you accept negative, want to run the campaign again and win this time? My tip would be not to be negative again.
There doesn't need to be another campaign. We've had Brexit rammed down our throats for two and a half years. If the country can look at the current mess and still believe Brexit is a good idea, so be it. I think I'll be doing my best to get out.
I think there will not be another vote because of Corbyn, Corbyn is kept there by centrist MPs, they are holding onto their jobs, if you listen to them Brexit is the end of the world but if they really thought that you would think they would do anything to reverse it.
Well when push comes to shove, maybe they'll have the balls to put country before their own miserable careers. Who knows? I'm sure neither of us do.
-
Corbyn has not made himself popular with Labour members who oppose Brexit, as apparently he says he will press ahead with it if he wins any imminent upcoming election, should there be one.
-
I was under the impression that I was agreeing with PD.
You are agreeing what he is claiming now, not with what he claimed.
We will still be in a political union, one the Scots and the Northern Irish may now seek to leave, and although I am against Scottish independence, I wouldn't blame them for telling us to fuck off.
They have a right to choose, I think everyone would be better of if Scotland left the Union.
I'm also not entirely sure what you think is wrong with political unions. The EU looks to me like a fantastic one to be in given our geographic location.
Not against political unions per se, I do not think the EU is properly accountable to the electorate, not saying UK is perfect but it is better.
There doesn't need to be another campaign. We've had Brexit rammed down our throats for two and a half years. If the country can look at the current mess and still believe Brexit is a good idea, so be it. I think I'll be doing my best to get out.
Fair enough.
Well when push comes to shove, maybe they'll have the balls to put country before their own miserable careers. Who knows? I'm sure neither of us do.
Maybe it is that or they just don't beleive their own spin. :)
Independant article.
The Labour leader seems determined to ignore what his members think – by which I mean he adheres unflinchingly to his principles
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-second-referendum-peoples-vote-labour-theresa-may-john-mcdonnell-a8696111.html
-
You are agreeing what he is claiming now, not with what he claimed.
And what claim would that be exactly Jakswan.
Are you continuing to misrepresent the predictions in the official government report on short term effects of a vote to leave as being from me.
There never were my claims, still aren't, but with the exception of the recession prediction, pretty well every predictions has turned out to have happened. Noting of course, that all the predictions were a comparison between what would happen if we voted to leave compared to what would happen if we voted to remain. In some cases the effects have been worse than predicted, in some others a little better (albeit still way worse than had we voted to remain). In some cases spot on.
-
And what claim would that be exactly Jakswan.
You said the conclusion was clear and therefore you concluded that following a vote to leave this would:-
1. push our economy into a recession - wrong
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
4. average real wages would be lower - wrong
Are you continuing to misrepresent the predictions in the official government report on short term effects of a vote to leave as being from me.
Nope.
There never were my claims, still aren't,
So when you said:-
Both are consistent one with another and the conclusion is clear - this a direct quote from the report published today:
'The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.'
It was fair to assume you agreed with the quote, if you did not agree with the quote why post it?
-
You said the conclusion was clear and therefore you concluded that following a vote to leave this would:-
1. push our economy into a recession - wrong
2. lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000 - wrong
3. GDP would be 3.6% smaller - wrong
4. average real wages would be lower - wrong
Remember that these are about comparisons between the situation if we voted to leave and if we voted to remain.
So having voted to leave which of these predictions were qualitatively correct:
Lead to more unemployment compared to a vote to remain - yes
Lead to lower growth and smaller GDP compared to a vote to remain - yes
Lead to increased inflation compared to a vote to remain - yes
Higher interest rates compared to a vote to remain - yes
Lower average real wages compared to a vote to remain - yes
Weaker stock market performance compared to a vote to remain - yes
Weaker house price growth compared to a vote to remain - yes
Weaker public finances compared to a vote to remain - yes
Quantitatively some were a little less bad than the central prediction, some a little worse than the central prediction - but in broad terms the predictions were all correct with the exception of a recession, which is a technical definition and a quantitative rather than qualitative prediction, as we know GDP growth has been significantly weaker than if we'd voted to remain - effectively reducing tax receipts and public finances by about £300-350m per week.
-
Remember that these are about comparisons between the situation if we voted to leave and if we voted to remain.
So having voted to leave which of these predictions were qualitatively correct:
Lead to more unemployment compared to a vote to remain - yes
Lead to lower growth and smaller GDP compared to a vote to remain - yes
Lead to increased inflation compared to a vote to remain - yes
Higher interest rates compared to a vote to remain - yes
Lower average real wages compared to a vote to remain - yes
Weaker stock market performance compared to a vote to remain - yes
Weaker house price growth compared to a vote to remain - yes
Weaker public finances compared to a vote to remain - yes
Quantitatively some were a little less bad than the central prediction, some a little worse than the central prediction - but in broad terms the predictions were all correct with the exception of a recession, which is a technical definition and a quantitative rather than qualitative prediction, as we know GDP growth has been significantly weaker than if we'd voted to remain - effectively reducing tax receipts and public finances by about £300-350m per week.
Again what you are saying now is different to what you said then.
-
Again what you are saying now is different to what you said then.
When is then and what exactly did I say then?
-
A little girl asked her father, "Daddy? Do all fairy tales begin with
'Once Upon A Time'?"
He replied, "No, there is a whole series of fairy tales that begin with
'If elected I promise'." ;D
-
Check out the link and particularly the graph.
https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economic-growth-within-g7/
Note how the UK was growing significantly above the G7 average through the 2 years prior to the vote - indeed we were the fastest growing G7 economy for much of that time.
Then suddenly mid 2016 (I wonder what happened then) a major shift as we drop significantly behind the G7 average, so become one of the the slowest growing economies and at times the slowest of the lot. (see the second graph).
-
There is no point showing graphs Prof.....or quoting experts.
The national trajectory of decades....proving that bullshit baffles brains...being the class clown at 15 and the top graduate summa cum laude in the university of life and hard knocks....(formerly Gammon Polytechnic) at 50 has inexorably brought us to this point.
-
In the spirit of Christmas, Prof and Jakswan, could you please stop this tedious process? Neither of you will convince the other.
Although my own sympathies lie with ProfessorDavey I fear that this discussion has reached the level of two entomologists arguing about the number of toenails on a millipede - where each has chosen a different species for reference. I mean no discourtesy to either of you, but the discussion seems to be going nowhere.
...
One aspect of Brexit which no-one appears to have considered is that - since the days of Thatcher - "Britain" has been up for sale. The influx of currencies from ... wherever ... appears to be paramount. Any bid from abroad for a UK owed business seems to be permissable. Apart from one or two niche manufacturers like Morgan, there is no British-owned motor vehicle manufacturer. The most overtly British brand - Jaguar Land Rover - is Indian-owned. Mini and Rolls-Royce are owned by BMW and Bentley by VAG.
Other brands are part of larger manufacturing networks. Nissan may have one of the most efficient manufacturing plants in the world, at Washington, but it is controlled by Renault. Vauxhall has moved ownership from General Motors to Peugeot.
In other industries, Cadburys is buried inside Mondelez International (the result of a restructuring of Kraft) - an American company. Mondelez also owns Terrys of York, but manufactures in Poland.
Heathrow Airport and O2 are owned by Spanish interests. The list goes on ...
All this may be fine at the moment, but ignores the fact that strategy is determined elsewhere. There can be little doubt that should Brexit become at all troublesome then overseas corporations will look after their own immediate interests and simplify their operations by removing UK operations, suppliers and supply chains from their businesses.
I suppose that one bright hope, however, is that following Brexit, the value of the pound might drop so much that manufacturing in England (Scotland will be independent by now) will become so cheap that England will become the Bangladesh of the western world. Something to look forward to ...
-
HH, I admired the start of your post and then emitted a wail of despair towards the end. Your Bangladesh of the Western world is surely just an invitation to someone to carry on arguing the toss.
A brave try, but ultimately a fail I fear. ;)
-
Okay, so how much attention have you been paying to the Brexit shit show?
Festive Brexit quiz: Is Britain now a vassal state? Test your knowledge with the Brexit quiz of the year (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/dec/24/is-britain-now-a-vassal-state-test-your-knowledge-with-the-brexit-quiz-of-the-year)
Got 10/12. :)
-
Boasting. I only managed 6/12. But then, why should I know where Amber Rudd shops?
Trent
Just for clarification - my conclusion about the future of England was based on the following:
To be a successful manufacturer, you need to be either (1) a niche operator - with an established, specialist product that satisfies the needs of a small but appreciative market, or (2) be able to capitalise on the economies of scale to produce large quantities of mid and high price consumer products for a global market or (3) have a low wage labour force able to produce large quantities of low cost consumer products.
The first type - because of its nature will always be small scale and looking over its shoulder to make sure that its product doesn't become a commodity.
The second - this is, for example, how the mass motor industry (of which we are presently a significant part) operates - but includes industries in which strategic decisions are made elsewhere based on convenience and immediate benefit to the industry. Any development which imposes barriers or extra processes will result in that industry withdrawing.
A devalued currency will bring lower wages which will mean that labour-intensive operations will become more attractive. We could become a cheap-labour economy.
-
Just for clarification - my conclusion about the future of England was based on the following:
I wasn't doubting your analysis. Just that urging posters to stop, and then pouring petrol on the fire may be a little counterproductive ;)
Have a lovely Christmas day whatever you choose to do with it.
As Frankie Boyle says elsewhere, it may be our last one with running water.
-
You may well be right - it was provocative.
Anyway, the compliments of the season to you, too.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46704522
DFDS taking back control for us.
You may want to get some lead casing for your Irony meter.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46704522
DFDS taking back control for us.
You may want to get some lead casing for your Irony meter.
Seabourne Ferry, no ferry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46714984
-
Yet again our government showing its complete mastery of nothingness.
-
Recent opinion polls would suggest that they are.
On PM on R4 last night, an MP for one of the Bristol constituencies was interviewed. He had carried out a survey of his constituents and found that they were overwhelmingly in support of Remain now (over 70%) but the interesting point is that more people (80%) were in favour of a new referendum than were in favour of Remain.
I've been watching two petitions. The Leave without a deal one is still increasing steadily at 288,000 whereas the Stop Brexit one has slowed to a trickle at 106,000.
(Correction: they are both at a trickle, the first at a slightly faster trickle)
-
Yet again our government showing its complete mastery of nothingness.
What would you expect? Mrs May's prime concern is the state of the Conservative Party not the state of the nation.
-
Seabourne Ferry, no ferry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46714984
It gets worse:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46748193
-
It gets worse:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46748193
I think the driver delivered Grayling to the cabinet by mistake instead of Frey bentos.
-
Have a couple of holidays booked in the next few months. The first one will be the last on current dates as EU citizens.
-
Let us outline the difference between Rees Mogg and Soubry
Rees Mogg proposes a scheme which involves unemployment, the paralysis of Kent, economic crash, food shortages, medical shortage, the opportunity to profit from a ruined economy.
Soubry is against this.
-
Let us outline the difference between Rees Mogg and Soubry
Rees Mogg proposes a scheme which involves unemployment, the paralysis of Kent, economic crash, food shortages, medical shortage, the opportunity to profit from a ruined economy.
Soubry is against this.
Then she is clearly a danger to the will of the people.
How dare she stand in the way of England becoming the Venezuela of Europe!
-
The editorial in The Guardian, published this evening as the government lost another Brexit-related vote, is worth a read.
Guardian editorial (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/the-guardian-view-on-brexit-the-government-has-failed-its-time-to-go-back-to-the-people)
-
Where's Jeremy?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46803112
-
Where's Jeremy?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46803112
Just seen it on telly: he was behind the lady standing on the left between the two blokes.
For some reason I keep thinking of the 'Where's Wally' picture books.
-
Doesn't this just make it easier for the govt to find excuses for failures due to lack of preparation if/when we default into a no-deal brexit?
-
Doesn't this just make it easier for the govt to find excuses for failures due to lack of preparation if/when we default into a no-deal brexit?
So their excuse for a lack of preparation is a lack of preparation? None of this stops them preparing for anything.
-
Doesn't this just make it easier for the govt to find excuses for failures due to lack of preparation if/when we default into a no-deal brexit?
I think the preparation time boat has sailed now, having been tied up in port for the last two and bit years - and recent events involving ferry companies with no ferries and a few lorries on a road rather suggest that this government probably couldn't adequately prepare for getting the weekly shopping in before the milk and bread run out.
I think the intention though was to demonstrate that there is sufficient support in Westminster to exclude a no-deal situation and of course the recent ECJ ruling that allows the UK to rescind Article 50 provides an option to prevent a no-deal Brexit: by simply stopping Brexit. However unlikely that may seems it is an option that, presumably, could be tabled and voted on if May's deal is defeated and there is no other tenable option come the end of March.
-
Some, more substantial, progress with passing of the Grieve amendment. However even despite this, TM can still pursue her strategy of trying to force her deal through on the threat of no-deal.
-
Where's Jeremy?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46803112
I've come to the conclusion that the most annoying thing about Jeremy Corbyn is that he has the same first name as me. I get irritated by questions about my political policies and then when I realise you aren't talking about me, I get ego deflation.
-
The Brexiteers have now started their own Project Fear:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169
Apparently, the Far Right will be on the rampage.
-
The Brexiteers have now started their own Project Fear:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46847169
Apparently, the Far Right will be on the rampage.
As someone elsewhere pointed out the far right is on the rise across the western world. The Brexit issue may amplify that trend, but the trend was already with us.
-
Next week should been fun: must pick up some popcorn tomorrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/12/labour-set-to-trigger-vote-to-topple-theresa-may-government
-
When listening to the news I feel I need ear protectors when the flipping word BREXIT is mentioned. At least we had a bit of a respite from it over Christmas.
I would like to rewrite history, which would not include Brexit or Trump!
-
Apparently Desmond Swayne MP had called on May to suspend parliament until April to ensure Brexit.
ETA Having heard it, it seems more of a sort of joke.
-
That we can't sort out a proxy voting system, and that pairing, an unofficial process, is in such disrepute is a joke though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46868195
-
That we can't sort out a proxy voting system, and that pairing, an unofficial process, is in such disrepute is a joke though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46868195
Completely agree. Tulip Siddiq is risking her health and that of her baby because of an antiquated system.
-
Tulip Siddiq's baby should come before a vote, I am shocked that she has put off having the caesarean. :o
-
That we can't sort out a proxy voting system, and that pairing, an unofficial process, is in such disrepute is a joke though.
... And the voting process itself is a farce - wasting 10 minutes lining up in a corridor for a head count.
-
... And the voting process itself is a farce - wasting 10 minutes lining up in a corridor for a head count.
Surely it could all be electronically in this day and age, so no one actually needs to be present in the Commons?
-
Still makes me gulp, that May is probably going to lose because of her own MPs. PA predicting a loss by 160. What then? Corbyn proposes a MONC which will fail, so no election.
-
Still makes me gulp, that May is probably going to lose because of her own MPs. PA predicting a loss by 160. What then? Corbyn proposes a MONC which will fail, so no election.
And they can't challenge May internally again officially for 11 months. That said it could see a parade of cabinet ministers turning up to tell her to go, as happened to Thatcher. Even then if not May, so what? Hold the vote again until it passes out of boredom, suspend article 50, get an extension to article 50 (which needs agreement from the EU), vote for election, vote for referendum, (and both of those are predicated on an extension), or fall out with no deal. May being in charge makes no real difference.
I think an extension of Article 50 is the most likely. It gives some hope to almost all sides apart from those who want No Deal, and I don't think that's anywhere near in numbers to succeed. In addition, I think that the EU will agree since they don't want no deal either, though I wonder if some nations might see it as an opportunity for some horse trading for them.
-
... And the voting process itself is a farce - wasting 10 minutes lining up in a corridor for a head count.
Yes, there's an over love of pointless tradition.
-
230!
-
Staggering stuff: and where do we go from here I wonder.
-
230!
She's certainly a record breaker....the only PM to have made Ramsay Macdonald respectable.
-
An extension of article 50 seems almost certain.
If there's any justice, at the next general election, the Tories will be massacred, and be out of power for a generation.
-
If there's any justice, at the next general election, the Tories will be massacred, and be out of power for a generation.
If there's any justice ... the Conservative Party will split and there will be a move to install some electoral system which is representative not just First Past the Post.
This will force smaller parties to behave collectively and co-operatively resulting in legislative decisions and executive actions which are generally beneficial not just partisan crowd pleasing.
-
Interesting quote by a remainer on LBC tonight. Parliament doesn't necessarily exist to give the people what they want, but what's best for them.
-
Interesting quote by a remainer on LBC tonight. Parliament doesn't necessarily exist to give the people what they want, but what's best for them.
Not if the government wants to get re-elected, it doesn't.
-
Interesting quote by a remainer on LBC tonight. Parliament doesn't necessarily exist to give the people what they want, but what's best for them.
And exactly what do the people want in Jan 2019 - do you know Spud? Is there majority support for May's deal by the public? Do they support No Deal? Has the demographic shift and people changing their minds mean that a majority would now prefer to remain.
There is, of course, one way we could not only find out but also make the final decision.
-
Not if the government wants to get re-elected, it doesn't.
Parliament isn't "the government". Governments are not elected, Members of Parliament are. In the UK constitutional arrangement, the executive gets its legitimacy from being the dominant party in the legislature.
According to Edmund Burke - and re-iterated over the centuries by just about every constitutional luminary since, the MP owes his or her constituents the fruits of his or her own judgement, not slavish obedience. Last night we saw something potentially remarkable: we saw individual MPs trusting their own judgement rather than slavishly obeying their party whips.
According to the French political philosopher Montesquieu, the most perfect form of government occurs when the three powers of government - the legislature, the judiciary and the executive - are each completely separated from the others. The British constitution fails this test abysmally.
-
It is a complete mess, especially now the no confidence motion is another spanner in the works, although it is unlikely May will be ousted, according to John McDonnall.
-
It is a complete mess, especially now the no confidence motion is another spanner in the works, although it is unlikely May will be ousted, according to John McDonnall.
Just to be clear, it isn't a no confidence motion in May, it's a no confidence motion in the govt. There can't be a no confidence motion in May - an internal Tory party procedure until next December because they had the attempt last year. That doesn't mean she cannot be ousted in an unofficial way. After all Thatcher was. If enough cabinet ministers were to revolt, it make her position untenable.
-
If she had a shred of honour, she'd resign without being pushed - indeed, would have done so after losing her majority in the 2017 election.
-
And exactly what do the people want in Jan 2019 - do you know Spud? Is there majority support for May's deal by the public? Do they support No Deal? Has the demographic shift and people changing their minds mean that a majority would now prefer to remain.
There is, of course, one way we could not only find out but also make the final decision.
One thing is clear, which is that Jesus is the boss. He said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. This is true for the Leave side - they are divided, half of them wanting hard brexit (Rees-Mogg, Johnson et al), the other half want soft brexit (Corbyn, Labour (I think?)). These two groups oppose each other, so I wonder if they can stand against the Remainers?
Personally I think there is someone who does need to make like a Theresa and Leave (and Maybe do a jig on the way) - I am as irritated by her as by Brown when he was in Downing Street. But I think she has worked very hard so it's understandable that she wants her deal to be ratified. But she shouldn't make it her "precious"!
Whatever "the people" want, that should be advisory only because half of us don't know our right from our left, when it comes to politics and the economy.
-
One thing is clear, which is that Jesus is the boss. He said that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. This is true for the Leave side - they are divided, half of them wanting hard brexit (Rees-Mogg, Johnson et al), the other half want soft brexit (Corbyn, Labour (I think?)). These two groups oppose each other, so I wonder if they can stand against the Remainers? Personally I think there is someone who does need to make like a Theresa and Leave (and Maybe do a jig on the way) - I am as irritated by her as by Brown when he was in Downing Street. But I think she has worked very hard so it's understandable that she wants her deal to be ratified. But she shouldn't make it her "precious"! Whatever "the people" want, that should be advisory only because half of us don't know our right from our left, when it comes to politics and the economy.
Hey! That's what I call prophesy! "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand". Yep....I love Scripture. Bye bye britain, then.... Alba gu brath!
-
If she had a shred of honour, she'd resign without being pushed - indeed, would have done so after losing her majority in the 2017 election.
Thing is, in one sense it's almost meaningless. May is not the problem here, and getting rid of her doesn't solve anything. I'm not sure that 'honour' has anything to do with it.
ETA: And there seems to me to be an argument that staying is also an honourable thing. If she resigns, it just increases the uncertainty. There's an argument, as there has been since the referendum, that this needs to be run as some sort of govt of national unity. Indeed I think Corbyn might have been better last not to go for the No Confidence vote option, especially after May said 'On you go!', but rather said that in order to get the country working he would offer to listen to all party talks with everything up for grabs.
-
If she had a shred of honour, she'd resign without being pushed - indeed, would have done so after losing her majority in the 2017 election.
But we might get Boris or Rees-Mogg as PM if she does that, which would be much worse! :o
-
But we might get Boris or Rees-Mogg as PM if she does that, which would be much worse! :o
The fact remains.
-
Thing is, in one sense it's almost meaningless. May is not the problem here, and getting rid of her doesn't solve anything. I'm not sure that 'honour' has anything to do with it.
ETA: And there seems to me to be an argument that staying is also an honourable thing. If she resigns, it just increases the uncertainty. There's an argument, as there has been since the referendum, that this needs to be run as some sort of govt of national unity. Indeed I think Corbyn might have been better last not to go for the No Confidence vote option, especially after May said 'On you go!', but rather said that in order to get the country working he would offer to listen to all party talks with everything up for grabs.
You didn't listen to Leadsom on the the Today programme this morning?
May's complete inflexibility has certainly been a major hindrance from the start. Almost no chance that any offer by Corbyn would be heard:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/16/theresa-may-fails-to-reach-out-to-jeremy-corbyn-to-strike-brexit-compromise
-
You didn't listen to Leadsom on the the Today programme this morning?
May's complete inflexibility has certainly been a major hindrance from the start. Almost no chance that any offer by Corbyn would be heard:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/16/theresa-may-fails-to-reach-out-to-jeremy-corbyn-to-strike-brexit-compromise
Yes, I agree that May has a lot of responsibility here. I just think that Corbyn's effectively fallen into a trap where it looks like he's playing at something for the party and not the country, and he's going to lose the vote of no confidence anyway.
-
Staggering stuff: and where do we go from here I wonder.
As things stand, there are currently two options:
- No Deal
- Withdraw article 50
-
As things stand, there are currently two options:
- No Deal
- Withdraw article 50
Second referendum?
-
Interesting quote by a remainer on LBC tonight. Parliament doesn't necessarily exist to give the people what they want, but what's best for them.
Yep. That's right. It's called "representative democracy".
-
If she had a shred of honour, she'd resign without being pushed - indeed, would have done so after losing her majority in the 2017 election.
If May resigned now, it would take weeks to elect her successor. We don't have weeks.
Anyway, I think deserting the sinking ship now is the dishonourable thing to do. When Cameron lost an important vote, we didn't praise his honour when he subsequently bravely turned his tail and fled.
-
Second referendum?
It can't be organised in time.
-
As things stand, there are currently two options:
- No Deal
- Withdraw article 50
I think the possibility of an extension of article 50 is still viable. It's just not fully in our control.
-
I think the possibility of an extension of article 50 is still viable. It's just not fully in our control.
That's the only reason why I excluded it. I actually think it is quite likely the EU will allow us to extend it.
-
It can't be organised in time.
It would require extension of article 50, or revocation specifically to permit referendum to take place. The former isn't in the gift of the UK Government and Parliament (but it is unlikely that the EU would object), the latter is.
-
Hey! That's what I call prophesy! "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand". Yep....I love Scripture. Bye bye britain, then.... Alba gu brath!
If you like... but then, I still haven't worked out why you wanna be in the EU but not the UK. Unless you like Unions but not Kingdoms? Or would you be cool with the UK if England had agreed to stay in the EU?
-
If you like... but then, I still haven't worked out why you wanna be in the EU but not the UK. Unless you like Unions but not Kingdoms? Or would you be cool with the UK if England had agreed to stay in the EU?
He just hates everything to do with perfidious Albion.
-
If you like... but then, I still haven't worked out why you wanna be in the EU but not the UK. Unless you like Unions but not Kingdoms? Or would you be cool with the UK if England had agreed to stay in the EU?
That's upto Rngland. Scvotland, likr Northern Ireland, vote d tyo remain. Why should we be ignored in favour of a nation which is not oyurs? As for kingdoms? I have no problem with whom we elect as ourt head of state. If Anne Mountbatten-Windsor stood for election, I'd vote for her. But I will not acknmowledge a 'kingdom' bercause some woman wears a golden hat because her mum and dad had sex in the right bed.
-
That's upto Rngland. Scvotland, likr Northern Ireland, vote d tyo remain.
Wales and England voted to Leave, though, so it was a 2 all draw.
Why should we be ignored in favour of a nation which is not oyurs? As for kingdoms? I have no problem with whom we elect as ourt head of state. If Anne Mountbatten-Windsor stood for election, I'd vote for her. But I will not acknmowledge a 'kingdom' bercause some woman wears a golden hat because her mum and dad had sex in the right bed.
Eh? Huh? K? Er... I also have a problem with the monarchy as they all seem to spend so much money on everything; but the fact that all four nations are represented in parliament seems fair, doesn't it?
-
As I have mentioned before, I stay away from most politics here - I cannot stand the way there are so many 'let's-drag-'em-all-down attitude, ditto when the subject of the monarchy comes up, however, I am dropping in to say that I am very pleased to hear that my MP voted in support of the deal and the PM and that anyone who runs down Theresa May could not fault her firm, clear, and calm attitude last night
-
Well, yes, the captain of the Titanic spoke with a firm clear voice, as he advised, abandon ship.
-
Marina Hyde's take on the debacle of last yesterday
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/westminster-apocalypse-may-tories-opportunity
-
As I have mentioned before, I stay away from most politics here - I cannot stand the way there are so many 'let's-drag-'em-all-down attitude, ditto when the subject of the monarchy comes up, however, I am dropping in to say that I am very pleased to hear that my MP voted in support of the deal and the PM and that anyone who runs down Theresa May could not fault her firm, clear, and calm attitude last night
Except it wasn't clear in that it offered cross party talks - just not with any other parties. And your idea that people who oppose her are just 'let's-drag-'em-all-down' is poisoning the well.
-
Except it wasn't clear in that it offered cross party talks - just not with any other parties. And your idea that people who oppose her are just 'let's-drag-'em-all-down' is poisoning the well.
Just to clarify! The 'drag-'em-all-downs to whom I refer are the posters here and on other forums who fail to offere a valid alternative to whatever it is they want to drag down. Ah, wel!
-
As I have mentioned before, I stay away from most politics here - I cannot stand the way there are so many 'let's-drag-'em-all-down attitude, ditto when the subject of the monarchy comes up, however, I am dropping in to say that I am very pleased to hear that my MP voted in support of the deal and the PM and that anyone who runs down Theresa May could not fault her firm, clear, and calm attitude last night
Aside from that she is incompetent, totally lacking in leadership skills, intransigent and a liar to boot.
-
Just to clarify! The 'drag-'em-all-downs to whom I refer are the posters here and on other forums who fail to offere a valid alternative to whatever it is they want to drag down. Ah, wel!
Which posters on here haven't offered an alternative to either May or monarchy when they have criticised either?
-
Which posters on here haven't offered an alternative to either May or monarchy when they have criticised either?
I do not carry a mental list, nor can I go back and find them, so I'll say no more on that.
A friend has just phoned. She watches more of world news and tells me that newspaper headlines worldwide, not just in the EU, have been expressing shock horror that the British Parliament could get into such a confused state of affairs - or whatever words they used. Apparently, it no longer seems to set a good example.
I'm to old to worry about all that and there's nothing I can do, but it most certainly does not make me happy.
-
Well, yes, the captain of the Titanic spoke with a firm clear voice, as he advised, abandon ship.
In the circumstances, that was the best advice.
-
Which posters on here haven't offered an alternative to either May or monarchy when they have criticised either?
Who would be a good alternative to Theresa May?
-
Who would be a good alternative to Theresa May?
As Prime Minister, as Leader of the Tories, as the person in the current position as both?
If you could chose the govt, and leader, would your choice be the Tories and May?
-
As Prime Minister, as Leader of the Tories, as the person in the current position as both?
If you could chose the govt, and leader, would your choice be the Tories and May?
The prime minister and the leader of the Tories are the same person and, since they defeated the no confidence motion, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future (i.e. until tomorrow at least).
-
As Prime Minister, as Leader of the Tories, as the person in the current position as both?
If you could chose the govt, and leader, would your choice be the Tories and May?
Oh, and in answer to your original question, I am a poster here who hasn’t offered an alternative to either May or the monarchy. In the latter case, because I don’t think we need one and in the former case, because I can’t think of one with a realistic chance of being PM.
-
The prime minister and the leader of the Tories are the same person and, since they defeated the no confidence motion, that will remain the case for the foreseeable future (i.e. until tomorrow at least).
Yes, I know they are but some see the alternative to May as a different govt. And in terms of practicalities, they aren't in general a restriction to what people see as an alternative. That was the point of the question.
-
Oh, and in answer to your original question, I am a poster here who hasn’t offered an alternative to either May or the monarchy. In the latter case, because I don’t think we need one and in the former case, because I can’t think of one with a realistic chance of being PM.
Not needing an alternative is an alternative choice. Realism isn't a restriction to suggesting what would be better.
E.g. Steve would suggest Corbyn as an alternative PM.
-
Not needing an alternative is an alternative choice. Realism isn't a restriction to suggesting what would be better.
E.g. Steve would suggest Corbyn as an alternative PM.
I’m not saying we don’t need an alternative PM. It’s just I don’t see one that is better than May on Brexit but also likely to get in power.
-
I’m not saying we don’t need an alternative PM. It’s just I don’t see one that is better than May on Brexit but also likely to get in power.
Again see comment about Steve's preference.
-
Not seeing that Corbyn's position at the moment is going to play well.
-
Corbyn would be even more of a disaster than May, he hasn't nailed his colours to the mast about Brexit, so we don't really know which way he would swing.
-
Not seeing that Corbyn's position at the moment is going to play well.
Yes, not understanding that either. He could go into No 10 for talks and say privately take No deal off as an option, and then work on whatever agreement can be cobbled together. Although I still don't think the essential balance of numbers applying to the situation has changed so I haven't the foggiest idea what they could come up with. But at least Corbyn wouldn't look as if he was just obstructing for the sake of it.
-
Again see comment about Steve's preference.
I thought it was fairly obvious that I do not think Corbyn is a viable alternative. Corbyn is pro-Brexit but a lot of his MPs are closet Remainers. Also, Corbyn is utterly useless.
-
Clearly there is no point in any discussions if May is going to trump any changes with a "no deal exit" card, but Corbyn has no grasp of how to win people over.
-
I now think May has three immediate options:
1. Let the No Deal happen
2. Withdraw Article 50
3. Ask the EU for an extension to Article 50.
I think it is totally unrealistic for her to carry on with the negotiated deal considering that Labour isn refusing to even talk to her unless she rules out option 1 and without Labour, she is not going to get her deal through Parliament.
Option 3 requires the cooperation of the EU. Option 2 makes it very difficult to restart negotiations in good faith later and probably ends May's career and destroys the Conservative Party. At this point, given the intransigence of various people who are unable to put the country before party politics and personal ambition, we are heading towards a No Deal Brexit.Start stockpiling people..
-
I just noticed that Sturgeon has said, May will listen, but "only if we agree with her". It would be funny, if it wasn't so ghastly. (Twitter).
Yet Hammond seems to be going round, saying that no deal will be off the table. Eh?
-
The reason she won't rule out No Deal might be that she's using it as a negotiating card?
-
Don't worry, no one's going to run out of baked beans.
-
The reason she won't rule out No Deal might be that she's using it as a negotiating card?
I was kind of hoping that her whole plan is a clever way to stop Brexit altogether i.e. get to the point where the only two options are No Deal and No Brexit and then "reluctantly" choose the latter for the sake of the country.
Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?
-
I was kind of hoping that her whole plan is a clever way to stop Brexit altogether i.e. get to the point where the only two options are No Deal and No Brexit and then "reluctantly" choose the latter for the sake of the country.
Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?
hmm... you've obviously not understood her at all. Faced with such a choice she would choose no-deal - for the sake of the Conservative party.
Latest on twitter is that those MPs who went to talk have been told that organising another referendum would take a year and no other new ideas were put forward.
JC might be infuriating but May would need to be sent back to a factory for reprogramming.
-
Or May is pulling a stunt.
-
Or May is pulling a stunt.
She is. I'm not expecting any changes from her. Mind you, so is Corbyn. I think in theory it would be possible to accept the withdrawal deal and then go on to negotiate customs union membership as part of the longer term deal.
...
Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?
AIU - she can't - it would need further legislation to be passed as the March leaving date is fixed in legislation.
-
A year to arrange a second referendum isn't what a report last year said - it said 22 weeks was needed.
-
Yes, a lot of posturing. Mind you, both May and Corbyn have a lot to fear from cooperation. The Tory right wing would have hysterics, and all Labour leaders have the words Ramsey McDonald burned on their foreheads. They need and fear each other as enemies.
-
hmm... you've obviously not understood her at all. Faced with such a choice she would choose no-deal - for the sake of the Conservative party.
How do you know it's not you that has misunderstood her?
Latest on twitter is that those MPs who went to talk have been told that organising another referendum would take a year and no other new ideas were put forward.
There's a one page document written by the government which explains why it would take so long to organise a referendum. It has to be bullshit though because they can organise a general election in a few weeks.
-
An interesting option: let England and Wales exit the EU but not us or NI.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution
-
An interesting option: let England and Wales exit the EU but not us or NI.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution
Impossible on levels of impossibility never imagined when someone imagined a life without cheese.
-
I was kind of hoping that her whole plan is a clever way to stop Brexit altogether i.e. get to the point where the only two options are No Deal and No Brexit and then "reluctantly" choose the latter for the sake of the country.
Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?
To be honest, she is at that point (No Deal or No Brexit) because the only other option was the deal parliament rejected. She says that revoking article 50 would overturn the referendum result and believes that would be wrong. So she will now only go to the No Deal option, unless Parliament can force her to revoke Article 50.
When the EU says "this is the only deal" does that mean they won't consider a Norway model this side of March 29? Looks like it. Maybe Corbyn is hoping for a postponement and renegotiation without the conservatives' red lines... but I've just read that his plan involves retaining the benefits of the single market but also ending freedom of movement. But would the EU agree to that? Labour's plan seems to be DOA too- apparently it has been rejected as 'cakeism'.
The PM replied to J Corbyn today:
"I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
So as I see it, the only way for May to "rule out No Deal" is to revoke Article 50. But Corbyn doesn't get that because he thinks we can negotiate a better deal.
-
Impossible on levels of impossibility never imagined when someone imagined a life without cheese.
I thought so too: but in these days of ifs, buts and what the fucks!
-
With May refusing to revoke 50, the only way out of no deal Brexit is a second referendum, which Dominic Grieve has tabled. Luckily
-
Funny. Those on the Remain side, as well as those on the Leave side, said this was a one off vote. Now the Remainers lost they want a new vote. Maybe they were talking bollocks.
-
Funny. Those on the Remain side, as well as those on the Leave side, said this was a one off vote. Now the Remainers lost they want a new vote. Maybe they were talking bollocks.
I don't recall anyone saying that.
-
You can find the videos on the net.
https://twitter.com/BermondseyBoy68/status/1085384292925087744?s=19
https://twitter.com/BermondseyBoy68/status/1085293090888470529?s=19
-
On the other hand, Fartage famously said before the referendum, that if the result was 52%-48%, "It would be unfinished business by a long way".
-
As has been said already, Theresa May is putting the problems of managing the Conservative Party before the needs of the nation. It could be, of course, that she is so ingrained in party politics that she perceives the two to be the same thing.
Perhaps what is really needed is for a major financial contributor to the Conservative Party to announce that it will no longer support the party.
-
As has been said already, Theresa May is putting the problems of managing the Conservative Party before the needs of the nation. It could be, of course, that she is so ingrained in party politics that she perceives the two to be the same thing.
Perhaps what is really needed is for a major financial contributor to the Conservative Party to announce that it will no longer support the party.
imo. That is possible but unlikely to help.
As the largest contributors to Con. Party funding are the wealthy hedge funds and investment bankers in the finance sector if some of those drop out because of the adverse effects of a no-deal brexit, wouldn't they just be replaced by those who gain from it? The wealthiest will always donate to try and ensure that the people in power are from their camp.
-
An interesting option: let England and Wales exit the EU but not us or NI.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution
It's based on a false premise: that nations voted in the referendum. They didn't.
-
Funny. Those on the Remain side, as well as those on the Leave side, said this was a one off vote. Now the Remainers lost they want a new vote. Maybe they were talking bollocks.
I can't speak for other Remainers, but I never said it was a one off vote. For a start, it was already the second referendum.
-
I can't speak for other Remainers, but I never said it was a one off vote. For a start, it was already the second referendum.
Nor me - and although I'm not sure I made this point in relation to the brexit referendum, on the Scottish Indyref I was clear that a a2 stage process made most sense - the first vote to agree independence in principle (or brexit by inference) and therefore to allow a negotiated settlement to be agreed by both sides. Then a ratifying vote either to agree to the negotiated settlement for independence (or brexit by inference), with the alternative being the status quo - in other words remaining in the UK (or EU by inference).
For these kinds of decision it seems the only sensible approach - firstly because you cannot know the real details at the point of the first vote. And secondly the time taken from first vote to actual enactment makes the original democratic mandate unsafe as there is too much risk of people changing their minds in the intervening period, plus the major issue for the brexit vote of demographic shift (older proportionately more brexit voters dying, younger proportionately more remain people reaching voting age).
For such a critical decision that will define the UK for decades it seems to me essential that there is a clear democratic mandate for the actual deal (not a theoretical one) at the time that it is actually enacted (not 2+ years previously).
-
Did anyone hear the interview of John Major this morning, on the Today programme?
He made some very cogent points - particularly about the 48% who voted to stay in the EU and the 63% of the electorate who did not vote for "leave".
It should be available on iPlayer (or "Sounds").
-
Did anyone hear the interview of John Major this morning, on the Today programme?
He made some very cogent points - particularly about the 48% who voted to stay in the EU and the 63% of the electorate who did not vote for "leave".
It should be available on iPlayer (or "Sounds").
I agree - he seemed eminently sensible.
However I have to take issue that having a series of free votes in parliament would resolve anything. Deciding what parliament is prepared to accept is meaningless unless that is something also acceptable and deliverable by the EU too.
So putting forward Norway++-+ or Canada--+- simply raises further false expectations, as some of these options are clearly unacceptable to the EU.
So in reality all we should be looking for parliament to do is to vote on the deliverable brexit options (they've already voted on May's deal, but not on a free vote plus no deal) plus remain and also vote on a mechanism to resolve the deadlock if (as seems likely) none of the 3 options receives a majority in parliament. That would then be to vote on a referendum and also on whether brexit needs to be delayed to allow the agreed process to work its course.
-
Major did make some sensible comments, however I don't see that there is any impossibly difficult question to resolve.
The only thing holding up a successful conclusion to this stage of brexit is the block-headedness of our MPs. A series of indicative votes may help them see things more clearly.
-
A series of indicative votes may help them see things more clearly.
Indicative votes on what?
Remember there is no value in MPs voting in favour of something in an indicative vote that the EU wont accept.
-
Did anyone hear the interview of John Major this morning, on the Today programme?
He made some very cogent points - particularly about the 48% who voted to stay in the EU and the 63% of the electorate who did not vote for "leave".
It should be available on iPlayer (or "Sounds").
Those who didn't vote are irrelevavt.
-
Indicative votes on what?
Remember there is no value in MPs voting in favour of something in an indicative vote that the EU wont accept.
As a "remainer" I'm not inclined to provide a spoiler list of options. However, once the "remain" and "no deal with the backstop" camps are discounted it is not hard to see how a deal could be agreed.
I think the withdrawal arrangements are pretty much unchangeable, with the backstop essential. However the future economic relations are very much open.
-
However, once the "remain" and "no deal with the backstop" camps are discounted it is not hard to see how a deal could be agreed.
Sorry I'm confused.
The deal has already been rejected - if (as you are suggesting) 'remain' and 'no deal' are also rejected where does this leave us. All deliverable options will have been rejected. How then would it be 'not hard to see how a deal could be agreed'.
And even if there were a majority in parliament for a deal (free unicorns for all) - that would be worth diddly squat if it isn't acceptable to the EU. And here is the problem - the only likely way to secure a majority in parliament is a cut and shut of all the 'best bits' wanted by the various factions - so we are back in 'cake and eat it' territory of fantasy brexits that are totally undeliverable as the UK isn't the only party that needs to agree.
-
Sorry I'm confused.
The deal has already been rejected - if (as you are suggesting) 'remain' and 'no deal' are also rejected where does this leave us. All deliverable options will have been rejected. How then would it be 'not hard to see how a deal could be agreed'.
...
As I suggested, the "deal" with the EU is ready and waiting for ratification, it can be put forward any number of times until accepted or times runs out and we leave without a deal or legislation is passed to cancel article 50.
For anyone that wants to leave with a deal, the deal that needs to happen is between May and Corbyn.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46959671
I see the proxy voting scheme is going to be trialled for MPs who are on maternity leave, or new parents. About time too. It was shocking that an MP had to put off having a caesarean for two days in order to take part in the no confidence vote in the Government.
-
For anyone that wants to leave with a deal, the deal that needs to happen is between May and Corbyn.
But they are on the same 'side' of the negotiation so to speak - in other words both representing the UK side. It is completely irrelevant if May and Corbyn cobble together some compromise in the modern equivalent of a smoke filled room that is able to get parliamentary support if that deal isn't acceptable to the EU.
-
But they are on the same 'side' of the negotiation so to speak - in other words both representing the UK side. It is completely irrelevant if May and Corbyn cobble together some compromise in the modern equivalent of a smoke filled room that is able to get parliamentary support if that deal isn't acceptable to the EU.
Quite likely that I have missed something - but what changes do Corbyn/Labour want to the current withdrawal agreement being proposed by May & the EU?
-
Quite likely that I have missed something - but what changes do Corbyn/Labour want to the current withdrawal agreement being proposed by May & the EU?
A permanent customs union as a start, which appears to fail one of May's red lines.
But that isn't really the point - the only compromise that May and Corbyn can come up with that is of any value is a compromise that is acceptable to the EU. Otherwise we will just have a reverse situation - a hypothetical deal agreed by the UK parliament but rejected by the EU. Back to stalemate.
And there is the fundamental problem with the kind of series of indicative votes suggested. What if the most popular option (likely to be the case) is a cut and shut 'cake and eat it' promise that simply doesn't work as far as the EU is concerned. That gets us no-where.
-
A permanent customs union as a start, which appears to fail one of May's red lines.
It may not meet one of May's criteria for brexit but there is nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement preventing negotiation of a customs union for the longer term.
But that isn't really the point - the only compromise that May and Corbyn can come up with that is of any value is a compromise that is acceptable to the EU. Otherwise we will just have a reverse situation - a hypothetical deal agreed by the UK parliament but rejected by the EU. Back to stalemate.
Of-course. But the Withdrawal Agreement is already approved by the EU and covers everything required in the event of the UK leaving the EU, no matter what the long term economic and political relationship.
And there is the fundamental problem with the kind of series of indicative votes suggested. What if the most popular option (likely to be the case) is a cut and shut 'cake and eat it' promise that simply doesn't work as far as the EU is concerned. That gets us no-where.
Yes, if the most popular option doesn't work for the EU, eg no backstop, then we are back to: leave without a deal, cancel brexit or vote again on May's deal.
-
It may not meet one of May's criteria for brexit but there is nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement preventing negotiation of a customs union for the longer term.
True - but presumably Labour would need to see guarantees that negotiation of a customs union is an aspiration by the Government - May isn't likely to concede this point as she is only planning on being in a customs union for the period of the WA and not beyond.
Of-course. But the Withdrawal Agreement is already approved by the EU and covers everything required in the event of the UK leaving the EU, no matter what the long term economic and political relationship.
Indeed - so the time for internal (i.e. UK) consensus building had long since passed - it should have happened before negotiating a deal with the EU.
Yes, if the most popular option doesn't work for the EU, eg no backstop, then we are back to: leave without a deal, cancel brexit or vote again on May's deal.
Not sure that May's deal can continually be voted on - I think there are both constitutional rules against repeatedly voting on the same proposal in parliament, but also political pressures - how many times, for example, could a PM bring forward a proposal and have it defeated before it is the PM that is the casualty.
-
Here is an idea which might solve the current problem: include a clause in the backstop which promises Northern Ireland a referendum in which they will be given the option of leaving the UK and remaining in the EU as an independent country. The alternative would have to be a hard border with the south. At the same time the rest of the UK could vote on whether we want to remain in the EU or lose Northern Ireland.
Probably a non-starter but thought I would table it..
-
Here is an idea which might solve the current problem: include a clause in the backstop which promises Northern Ireland a referendum in which they will be given the option of leaving the UK and remaining in the EU as an independent country. The alternative would have to be a hard border with the south. At the same time the rest of the UK could vote on whether we want to remain in the EU or lose Northern Ireland.
Sounds like a winner, Spud.
-
Sounds like a winner, Spud.
Actually, it's not much different to the backstop becoming permanent, I guess.
-
At the same time the rest of the UK could vote on whether we want to remain in the EU or lose Northern Ireland.
Probably a non-starter but thought I would table it..
Might as well throw Scotland in as well.
-
After the results of the voting on Tuesday evening Boris Johnson was interviewed by the BBC in the lobby area of the Commons. He said something that I didn't quite catch, did anyone see it? Something about there will have to be zero tariffs on goods between the EU and UK until a free trade deal is eventually made years down the line. He also said the UK would have to keep paying into the EU budget until that time, but that it would be a small price to pay. He looked very pleased.
-
Isn't it going well: absolutely nothing to worry about!
-
Isn't it going well: absolutely nothing to worry about!
It couldn't be better! :o :o :o :o :o :o
-
I’m resigned to No Deal now. The combined stupidity of Brexiteers and intransigence of the government has brought disaster. I’m also pretty disgusted at the cowardice of the MPs who are privately supporters of Remain but publicly support the will of a quarter of the people.
-
Then there is is irony of TM voting against her own 'deal', having changed her mind and acted accordingly, whereas the Brexit enthusiasts would prefer that the electorate isn't allowed the same privilege.
Of course Brexit is fucking wonderful, and issues such as the one noted below are all part of the wonderful plan!
Schools should be “flexible” in what dinners they serve children in England if there are food shortages because of Brexit, the government has said as it warns local authorities to step up their no-deal planning.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/31/progress-on-school-dinners-could-be-rewound-after-brexit
-
Then there is is irony of TM voting against her own 'deal', having changed her mind and acted accordingly, whereas the Brexit enthusiasts would prefer that the electorate isn't allowed the same privilege.
Of course Brexit is fucking wonderful, and issues such as the one noted below are all part of the wonderful plan!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/31/progress-on-school-dinners-could-be-rewound-after-brexit
We'll al be on salt meat and hard tack, like the soldiers in the Crimea I've just been reading about, who went down like flies with scurvy and the shits.
-
Then there is is irony of TM voting against her own 'deal', having changed her mind and acted accordingly, whereas the Brexit enthusiasts would prefer that the electorate isn't allowed the same privilege.
...
She is trying to keep the Tories together ... but the extremists are sending her on a pointless errand to waste more time ... even if an alternative backstop could be agreed, they would still kill any deal.
-
She is trying to keep the Tories together ... but the extremists are sending her on a pointless errand to waste more time ... even if an alternative backstop could be agreed, they would still kill any deal.
Indeed - which is why she needs to reach out to other parties. Or rather why she should have been reaching out to other parties months ago.
There are perhaps 30 ERG-type tory brexiteers, who frankly want no deal and will pay lip service to removing a back stop only to find it unacceptable when a vote comes. There is no point in pandering to them. There are several hundred MPs across the floor who she could (or could have been) reaching out to.
-
Chris Grayling???? Just what? How? Why?
-
Chris Grayling???? Just what? How? Why?
What has he done now?
-
The whole thing is beyond parody now: nobody who voted for the idea of Brexit voted for it being delivered like this: by a hapless PM whose 'red lines' are measures to pander to her Tory lunatic fringe and prevent the break-up of her party. Anyone remember much in the way of discussions about the NI border issue back in 2016? Me neither.
Hopefully the cards will fall so that there is a 2nd referendum, so that there is at least a chance this incarnation of Brexit can be euthanised.
-
The whole thing is beyond parody now: nobody who voted for the idea of Brexit voted for it being delivered like this: by a hapless PM whose 'red lines' are measures to pander to her Tory lunatic fringe and prevent the break-up of her party. Anyone remember much in the way of discussions about the NI border issue back in 2016? Me neither.
Hopefully the cards will fall so that there is a 2nd referendum, so that there is at least a chance this incarnation of Brexit can be euthanised.
I want them just to withdraw article 50 until the Brexiteers can decide amongst themselves what they really want and then when they have reached a consensus, we can have another referendum. But that will be long after my death.
-
Doom merchants, the lot of you. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, where is belongs, and send all the bloody decenters back to Scotland where they come from.
-
What has he done now?
I was just noting the ongoing fuck up on ferries, which he seems to be surviving, on top of all his other fuck ups as transport secretary. I have no idea what pictures or secrets he must hold over people to not be sacked given his utter utter incompetence.
-
Doom merchants, the lot of you. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, where is belongs, and send all the bloody decenters back to Scotland where they come from.
Hard not to be a doom merchant given the utter fuck-up that is Brexit. I'm fairly sure too that there are dissenters outwith Scotland, and hope that enough of them will be MPs who act to prevent 'no deal' recognising that the current government can't be trusted since their incompetence is now impossible to ignore or forgive.
If 'no deal' is prevented by legislation and the current 'deal' founders in Westminster then the impasse might well need a 2nd referendum to resolve it. That would, for me, be preferable to a GE since the result of that might not be a resolution to the Brexit stalemate unless the Tories get a working majority (and hopefully not): if not, it seems impossible to forecast a future GE should Brexit being binned in the interim, since who knows what the fall-out might be on both the Tories and Labour parties prior to the next GE. If a 2nd referendum did return a Brexit outcome then it would obviously happen, be it 'deal' or 'no deal', and I think the break-up of the UK would follow (every cloud etc).
I hope, like Jeremy, that Article 50 will eventually be rescinded - and if so we have the Scottish courts to thank for that option being available to us, since the Tory government tried and failed to stop the case proceeding.
-
Bring back Brian Rix
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47245992
-
Rumours on net of some story on Tory disunity about to break at 8pm
-
The Guardian has had some good opinion pieces on the Brexit pantomime recently: this on on events today.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/14/ask-the-eu-can-you-negotiate-with-people-who-are-certifiable
-
Rumours on net of some story on Tory disunity about to break at 8pm
Which was deeply disappointing
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/101854/excl-government-minister-tells-brexiteer-tory-mps-join
-
Anyone remember much in the way of discussions about the NI border issue back in 2016?
Well there were a couple of chaps:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-border
-
When I try and come up with a solution I always end up with the fact that the UK is Protestant and the rest of the European Union are either Catholic or Orthodox.
This is relevant because Protestants are opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox practice of iconography. They believe that this breaks the 2nd commandment.
Apart from that I can't see any sincere reason why the UK would leave the EU, with the hindsight I now have.
-
The whole thing is beyond parody now: nobody who voted for the idea of Brexit voted for it being delivered like this: by a hapless PM whose 'red lines' are measures to pander to her Tory lunatic fringe and prevent the break-up of her party. Anyone remember much in the way of discussions about the NI border issue back in 2016? Me neither.
Hopefully the cards will fall so that there is a 2nd referendum, so that there is at least a chance this incarnation of Brexit can be euthanised.
Truth is they should have had this covered before they went into the EU. Everything should return to how it was before we went into the EU.
GOVERNMENTS FAULT... :(
-
Truth is they should have had this covered before they went into the EU. Everything should return to how it was before we went into the EU.
GOVERNMENTS FAULT... :(
Good point. I could certainly do with being 46 years younger!
-
Was looking at a quotations site earlier at those attributed to H.L Mencken and came across this one, that seems relevant to those (such as our hapless PM) who still regard the 2016 referendum about an undefined notion, as opposed to a proposed plan, as being sacrosanct and an imperative;
'Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.'
-
Doom merchants, the lot of you. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, where is belongs, and send all the bloody decenters back to Scotland where they come from.
Wee point of history.
More than half the 'plantation' under James VI camefrom England.
Try to keep up, will you?
-
'Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.'
I like that. Bigly.
-
Well there were a couple of chaps:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-border
Interesting, though only 2 weeks before the referendum and too late, probably. Notice the NI Secretary said “The common travel area between the UK and Ireland has existed for nearly 100 years, since the creation of the Irish state in the 1920s. It will continue if we vote to leave." Ive heard this said recently in defence of a no-deal Brexit.
-
How do Brexitters feel now that billionaire brexitter sir Jim Radcliffe is leaving the U.K. Now Brexit has come....source The Times, and a UK airline is folding because of Brexit.
Do you feel misled, taken for a ride, took, buncoed?
-
But blue passports
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47282603
-
When I try and come up with a solution I always end up with the fact that the UK is Protestant and the rest of the European Union are either Catholic or Orthodox.
This is relevant because Protestants are opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox practice of iconography. They believe that this breaks the 2nd commandment.
Apart from that I can't see any sincere reason why the UK would leave the EU, with the hindsight I now have.
Ha ha. Most of the UK don’t give a rats arse about Christian denominations and they probably think iconography is the pretty pictures you see on an iPhone.
-
Ha ha. Most of the UK don’t give a rats arse about Christian denominations and they probably think iconography is the pretty pictures you see on an iPhone.
It's relevant to the Irish border issue though.
-
The Irish issue won't go away. Many brexiters moan about the Republic's attitude....but can we really blame Dublin, given britain's treatment of the island? It's a history thing, whether we like it or not. This is a fine article. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/02/how-britain-s-dark-history-ireland-haunts-brexit?fbclid=IwAR3izr1V5gc0ix8Av1P7sCdVGBSTN1K4UIKo-5ajZqy9OhJ1TvOxlsi-D8M
-
The Irish issue won't go away. Many brexiters moan about the Republic's attitude....but can we really blame Dublin, given britain's treatment of the island? It's a history thing, whether we like it or not. This is a fine article. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/02/how-britain-s-dark-history-ireland-haunts-brexit?fbclid=IwAR3izr1V5gc0ix8Av1P7sCdVGBSTN1K4UIKo-5ajZqy9OhJ1TvOxlsi-D8M
The answer's simple. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, just as it should be. If those funny men in bowler hats who like to go marching don't like it, fuck them off.
-
The answer's simple. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, just as it should be. If those funny men in bowler hats who like to go marching don't like it, fuck them off.
It was a huge mistake to separate the North of Ireland from the rest of the country. NI has not covered itself in glory.
-
The answer's simple. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, just as it should be. If those funny men in bowler hats who like to go marching don't like it, fuck them off.
So you suggest just ignoring any possible majority for staying in the UK, and imposing a solution?
-
The answer's simple. Give Northern Ireland to the Republic, just as it should be. If those funny men in bowler hats who like to go marching don't like it, fuck them off.
Much though I loathe the Orange order with every fibre, I recognise that there exists a substantial proportion of the province whichrecognisesitselfas 'british'....even though their idea of being 'british' isn't one most of the rest of us would recognise.
You can't ignore them- and you can't force them onto the peaceful and more progressive Republic.
-
I am absolutely disgusted with the way the IRA has behaved over the years. >:( However, the British have treated the Irish is an abominable way in days of yore, the potato famine, being one example. It is no wonder the IRA was formed, even though their behaviour has been inexcusable.
My paternal grandfather was one of the soldiers sent to Ireland in 1917 to put down the uprising. He met my Irish grandmother there and married her a year or two later. I have British/Irish citizenship.
-
Much though I loathe the Orange order with every fibre, I recognise that there exists a substantial proportion of the province whichrecognisesitselfas 'british'....even though their idea of being 'british' isn't one most of the rest of us would recognise.
You can't ignore them- and you can't force them onto the peaceful and more progressive Republic.
I think that there is though an increasing chance of a referendum in the next few years where there is a vote to join with the Republic.
-
I think that there is though an increasing chance of a referendum in the next few years where there is a vote to join with the Republic.
Yes; given the NI preference in the 2016 referendum, such a vote would be close.
My fears for the province are that if there is some sort of border - any sort - SF will not be able to stem the hotheads, and some form of 'troubles' will erupt, and, were some future referendum called, if NI voted in favour,would the Billyites accept the result....
Would the Republic even want the province - or wgat is left of it, since it already has three counties of Ulster - back?
-
I see brexitting Swindon has lost several thousand jobs.
I expect Gammons to cover these patriots who have sacrificed all for the cause in terms of their mortgages and bills.
Brexitters remind me.....what is the fund set up for brexitting heroes.
-
Honda specifically said that their decision had nothing to do with Brexit, Phyllis.
-
I never thought I'd say this, but....
I agree with John Major.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17444333.agonies-of-brexit-could-break-up-britain-says-sir-john-major/
-
I never thought I'd say this, but....
I agree with John Major.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17444333.agonies-of-brexit-could-break-up-britain-says-sir-john-major/
Wouldn't lose any sleep over that.
-
·
Fintan O'Toole
"If the British Army on the Western Front were lions led by donkeys, Brexit is those who feel they have nothing to lose led by those who will lose nothing"
-
Honda specifically said that their decision had nothing to do with Brexit, Phyllis.
Well they would say that. In fact they have the choice of building cars to sell in Europe in Japan with no tariffs or in Britain with tariffs. What would you do in their place?
-
Well they would say that.
No, that doesn't necessarily follow.
-
Well they would say that. In fact they have the choice of building cars to sell in Europe in Japan with no tariffs or in Britain with tariffs. What would you do in their place?
Yes it seems a pretty obvious business decision to move production to a country where there will be no tariffs to export to Europe.
Honda did say that if there were custom checks between Britain and Europe it would disrupt supply of parts, so Brexit has been a factor, unless a deal is struck that leaves Britain part of a Customs union with the EU.
https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/16319736.honda-fears-of-unprecedented-disruption-from-brexit/
Then there is the issue that if Britain leaves the single market, it means ensuring it has some way to check and certify that its export of goods to the EU meets EU regulations, so Britain would remain subject to EU rules and regulations in this area and would have to meet the added cost of certification.
-
No, that doesn't necessarily follow.
Yes it is ridiculously unlucky that just as we are leaving the EU so many companies are leaving the UK *. Join the dots, please.
*Borrowed from James Melville.
Also from the same source:
Sony
Dyson
Panasonic
Lloyds
Unilever
Goldman Sachs
Barclays
Airbus
Flybmi
P&O
HSBC
JP Morgan
UBS
Ford
Hitachi
Toshiba
AXA
Honda
Moneygram
Philips
European Banking Authority
European Medicines Agency
Bank of America
But apparently, it’s got nothing to do with Brexit
-
No, that doesn't necessarily follow.
Do you want to dress the rest of my post?
-
Hi Everyone.
I'm starting a petition. Can I be assured that you will all sign it?
It's to the Archbishop of Canterbury and I'm requesting that Guy Fawkes be declared a saint.
-
And Honda is a little confused (or lying):
https://tinyurl.com/hondabrexit
-
Well it's a take I suppose
https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-wont-remainers-talk-about-family/
-
Hi Everyone.
I'm starting a petition. Can I be assured that you will all sign it?
It's to the Archbishop of Canterbury and I'm requesting that Guy Fawkes be declared a saint.
I am sure he was as saintly as many who have been declared saints, like that awful woman Mother Teresa!
-
I once produced a turd that resembled Andrew Bridgen.
-
I once produced a turd that resembled Andrew Bridgen.
Vlad, the Turd Inspector!
Is that just a hobby or an obsession or an occupation of yours?.
P.s.
Was that before or after you polished it?
-
Well it's a take I suppose
https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-wont-remainers-talk-about-family/
Nice to see someone else found Giles Frazer as annoying as I did https://tinyurl.com/y6co9xzs
-
Nice to see someone else found Giles Frazer as annoying as I did https://tinyurl.com/y6co9xzs
He's a regular on 'The Moral Maze' podcast, so I've heard him often: he is indeed an arse.
-
Vlad, the Turd Inspector!
Is that just a hobby or an obsession or an occupation of yours?.
P.s.
Was that before or after you polished it?
Yes
They are making a film about it.
The Turd Man
Starring Orson Smells
And
Joseph Rotten.
-
Yes
They are making a film about it.
The Turd Man
Starring Orson Smells
And
Joseph Rotten.
Nice to note that you are managing to stay awake long enough to complete reading my posts!
-
Well it's a take I suppose
https://unherd.com/2019/02/why-wont-remainers-talk-about-family/
There's a difference though, isn't there. When you have a baby, the phase where you have to clean up their poo only lasts a couple of years and during that period, they are relatively easy to manhandle into a position so you can do the cleaning. Elderly relatives are a far different proposition to tackle for one person, particularly if, as was the case with my step grandmother, they are prone to bouts of violence as a result of their confusion. Furthermore, there is no prospect of it ending except with the death of the elderly relative or the carer.
My guess is that Giles Fraser has never been in the position of having to care for an elderly relative, or he wouldn't be such an arse about it.
-
There's a difference though, isn't there. When you have a baby, the phase where you have to clean up their poo only lasts a couple of years and during that period, they are relatively easy to manhandle into a position so you can do the cleaning. Elderly relatives are a far different proposition to tackle for one person, particularly if, as was the case with my step grandmother, they are prone to bouts of violence as a result of their confusion. Furthermore, there is no prospect of it ending except with the death of the elderly relative or the carer.
My guess is that Giles Fraser has never been in the position of having to care for an elderly relative, or he wouldn't be such an arse about it.
I would not want my children to be responsible for any personal care issues where my husband and I are concerned. When I can no longer attend to my husband's occasional needs in that area he will go into a home, as I will if the time comes when I need assistance in that regard. I would not have wanted to attend to my parents in that way, far too embarrassing.
-
I've read some wacky stuff on Brexit, but Fraser is out there in la la land. What a weird mixture of nostalgia, and semi-fascist idiocy about family.
-
So the Indies have their first achievement
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/jeremy-corbyn-has-backed-it-chances-another-referendum-are-slim
-
Meanwhile pallets...
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop&referrer=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2iEkmPdEGjABPBLAu145PPsjn9sd67zZaCM0vNt6NhHrLB6RwDx0GQHCI&r=US&IR=T
-
Classic strong and stable govt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47389860/the-home-secretary-appears-surprised-when-told-the-pm-is-not-supporting-a-brexit-amendment
-
"Theresa May has said MPs will get a vote on delaying Brexit if her deal and a no-deal outcome are both rejected" - BBC.
What will happen if the deal is rejected, then leaving without a deal is rejected, then delaying Brexit is rejected?
Cancel Brexit?
-
"Theresa May has said MPs will get a vote on delaying Brexit if her deal and a no-deal outcome are both rejected" - BBC.
What will happen if the deal is rejected, then leaving without a deal is rejected, then delaying Brexit is rejected?
Cancel Brexit?
Well we would have to vote to rescind Article 50 to cancel Brexit.
If none of the above happens we exit with no deal.
-
Well we would have to vote to rescind Article 50 to cancel Brexit.
If none of the above happens we exit with no deal.
Rescinding Article 50 would be by far the best option.
-
Can the prime minister rescind article 50 without a vote? If she can, that is now the most likely outcome in my opinion. If not, say hello to no deal.
-
Can the prime minister rescind article 50 without a vote? If she can, that is now the most likely outcome in my opinion. If not, say hello to no deal.
A prime minister might be able to, not sure, think unlikely. This one can't.
-
Can the prime minister rescind article 50 without a vote? If she can, that is now the most likely outcome in my opinion. If not, say hello to no deal.
A vote of whom? Parliament? The people in a referendum?
Legally there is no requirement for a referendum to revoke article 50 - the recent ECJ ruling is somewhat ambiguous on PM vs parliament, that is down to UK constitutional law, which is always murky - I suspect that politically the government would be well advised to get parliamentary approval for revocation, but I think legally they might not need to. The question would then arise if May revoked, the EU accepted the revocation and then there was a challenge in the UK courts what would happen were the government to lose.
-
And more of Failing Grayling - the minister kept on to make the racist lying incompetent PM look good by comparison.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47414699
-
Though a friend has come up with a better explanation
'He’s the policy version of Richard Burton in the “Medusa Touch”. May daren’t confront him. What damage he could wreak, like the unconscious Burton in his hospital bed scribbling “Windscale”."
-
Well we would have to vote to rescind Article 50 to cancel Brexit.
If none of the above happens we exit with no deal.
Theresa May said, referring to the vote on 13th March, "so the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on the 29th of March if there is explicit consent from the House for that outcome"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996
But then she says later that "the only way to take No Deal off the table would be to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do".
She doesn't say (possibly hasn't considered?) what she would do if the extension was voted down.
-
Theresa May said, referring to the vote on 13th March, "so the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on the 29th of March if there is explicit consent from the House for that outcome"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996
But then she says later that "the only way to take No Deal off the table would be to revoke Article 50, which I shall not do".
She doesn't say (possibly hasn't considered?) what she would do if the extension was voted down.
I'm sure she'd considered it but isn't going to say and probably hasn't decided.
If parliament votes against no deal, but also votes against an extension one way to square the circle is to look at the majorities in each case and also whether the votes are binding. If not binding then if there is a larger majority against no deal than against an extension then she will probably argue that preventing no deal via an extension takes precedence.
-
I'm sure she'd considered it but isn't going to say and probably hasn't decided.
If parliament votes against no deal, but also votes against an extension one way to square the circle is to look at the majorities in each case and also whether the votes are binding. If not binding then if there is a larger majority against no deal than against an extension then she will probably argue that preventing no deal via an extension takes precedence.
If she can get her deal approved during the extension, yes.
Interesting that if No Deal is rejected, parliament will have contradicted what they said by voting to trigger Article 50.
Perhaps May could be forced to step down during the extension, and her replacement could revoke it?
-
Perhaps May could be forced to step down during the extension, and her replacement could revoke it?
We can but hope, Spud.
-
I see that wank weasel Chris Grayling has còst another £33 million having to pay off eurotunnel for the extra ferry ballsup.
-
A vote of whom? Parliament? The people in a referendum?
Parliament
the recent ECJ ruling is somewhat ambiguous on PM vs parliament, that is down to UK constitutional law, which is always murky
I don't know why the ECJ would be involved, it is not the final arbiter over British constitutional law.
I suspect that politically the government would be well advised to get parliamentary approval for revocation, but I think legally they might not need to.
That is the nub of my question. If May can legally withdraw article 50 unilaterally and the only alternative is no deal, it is my opinion that she would do so, even at the cost of the downfall of the government. On the other hand, if she needs parliamentary approval to withdraw article 50, I think that might turn out to be as gridlocked as all the other votes and no deal will follow as it isa the current default.
Having said the above, if there has been a resolution that she cannot go for no deal (which I think there has, although I've really lost track of a lot of this stuff, so I might be imagining it), she could argue that there is no alternative but to withdraw article 50 and therefore she already has a parliamentary mandate.
-
I'm sure she'd considered it but isn't going to say and probably hasn't decided.
If parliament votes against no deal, but also votes against an extension one way to square the circle is to look at the majorities in each case and also whether the votes are binding. If not binding then if there is a larger majority against no deal than against an extension then she will probably argue that preventing no deal via an extension takes precedence.
I don't think parliament is the concern with respect to an extension. We can revoke article 50 unilaterally, but an extension is going to require the unanimous agreement of the other 27 EU states. I could easily see some of them saying no to that.
-
Ah, perhaps the purpose of the vote for an extension is to add weight to her request to the 27.
-
I see that wank weasel Chris Grayling has còst another £33 million having to pay off eurotunnel for the extra ferry ballsup.
Now look, I can see you are holding yourself back, tell us what you really think of Mr Grayling. ;)
-
Ah, perhaps the purpose of the vote for an extension is to add weight to her request to the 27.
What request?
-
David Brent and Alan Partridge take over the world.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/01/chris-grayling-nigel-farage-march-leave?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
What request?
The one she is going to have to make.
-
An interesting opinion piece on how a 2nd referendum might happen if May's deal gets rejected next week, mentioning that in 2016 the GFA simply wasn't recognised as being an issue at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/brexit-kyle-wilson-amendment
-
Gordon,
As I started reading that link, I fell asleep. I dreamt that you had posted a video clip of a guitar shop in Glasgow, and it was raining. Then I dreamt that I was in the sky and that Glasgow had been flooded. Hope you're ok.
-
Gordon,
As I started reading that link, I fell asleep. I dreamt that you had posted a video clip of a guitar shop in Glasgow, and it was raining. Then I dreamt that I was in the sky and that Glasgow had been flooded. Hope you're ok.
I'm fine thank you, and it was indeed pissing-down in Glasgow this morning.
No reports of any damp guitars in the local media though, and all of mine appear to be both hunky and dory.
-
Latest attempt to get a deal rejected. Looks like it’s no deal or stay in, for now, at least.
-
Can't see that this hopeless PM can survive: she'd be well advised to resign right now since I can't imagine how she could have any credible part in whatever happens next - cue Tory in-fighting, and hopefully this government falls.
If they vote against no deal tomorrow, and the EU makes an extension of Article 50 contingent on a plan, I suspect Brexit is now so toxic than getting agreement among politicians on an alternative plan would be problematic to the extent that revocation might start to look attractive to anyone who wants politicians to deal with other stuff, since the last 3 years have been largely wasted.
Hopefully we'll now start to hear less of Brexit being justified solely by the biggest argumentum ad populum of modern times.
-
We're supposed to honour and respect this farce of a pantomime parliament in Westminster? Really? To give it the term 'useless' would be a compliment fa r above its' station.
-
We're supposed to honour and respect this farce of a pantomime parliament in Westminster? Really? To give it the term 'useless' would be a compliment fa r above its' station.
Actually I think the blame lies more firmly with the government rather than parliament, who, let's face it have been provided with a fate accompli Hobson's choice at the 11th hour. What do you think rank and file MPs should have done - simply voted for the deal? It isn't their fault that May failed to negotiate a sensible deal and then delayed and delayed bringing it to parliament.
-
How realistic is it to say that there should have been three options on the ballot paper: hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain?
From the way these three options have divided the Commons, can we say this translates to the Public as well?
It's now clear that hard Brexit means that a return to a hard border with Irish Republic or a customs border down the North sea.
A soft Brexit means no independent trade deals and no seat at the table.
So I'd say, yes there really are three options, so we should either assume that Remain had the majority all along, or re-run the referendum, with the three options on the ballot paper
-
I never thought that I would ever think such as this, but how fortunate Theresa May is in having no children. There will be no descendants who have to deal with their ancestor being reviled as one of the most incompetent and damaging prime ministers in history ...
-
I never thought that I would ever think such as this, but how fortunate Theresa May is in having no children. There will be no descendants who have to deal with their ancestor being reviled as one of the most incompetent and damaging prime ministers in history ...
She is truly a Gobshite.
-
I never thought that I would ever think such as this, but how fortunate Theresa May is in having no children. There will be no descendants who have to deal with their ancestor being reviled as one of the most incompetent and damaging prime ministers in history ...
What a mean comment! >:( May is doing her best even though it is not successful. Do you think the limp lettuce Corbyn would have done any better? I doubt it.
Brexit is in a terrible mess, the best we can hope for is another referendum.
-
What a mean comment! >:( May is doing her best even though it is not successful. Do you think the limp lettuce Corbyn would have done any better? I doubt it.
Brexit is in a terrible mess, the best we can hope for is another referendum.
As I have pointed out before we will never know how Corbyn would have done. This is May's gig. She has controlled it from the start, laid down her red lines, made a pact with the devil (aka DUP), told us that legally binding changes had been made which turns out to be a lie, prevaricated, obfuscated and ignored all other view points. And yet somehow you manage to malign Corbyn (again) for something he has had little or no input on. I have to ask, you do know the difference between the terms "government" and "parliament" don't you?
-
As I have pointed out before we will never know how Corbyn would have done. This is May's gig. She has controlled it from the start, laid down her red lines, made a pact with the devil (aka DUP), told us that legally binding changes had been made which turns out to be a lie, prevaricated, obfuscated and ignored all other view points. And yet somehow you manage to malign Corbyn (again) for something he has had little or no input on. I have to ask, you do know the difference between the terms "government" and "parliament" don't you?
Corbyn's own party is maligning him too, in case you haven't noticed.
-
What a mean comment! >:( May is doing her best even though it is not successful. Do you think the limp lettuce Corbyn would have done any better?
I think you would have done better.
;D ;D ;D ;D ::) ;D
-
Corbyn's own party is maligning him too, in case you haven't noticed.
So?
As is MAy's.
-
What a mean comment! >:( May is doing her best even though it is not successful. Do you think the limp lettuce Corbyn would have done any better? I doubt it.
Brexit is in a terrible mess, the best we can hope for is another referendum.
Yes. I accept it is a comment which - ordinarily - I think I would not make.
If what is happening is "May's best" why should we have to put up with it? It is thoroughly incompetent. Don't forget, she called a general election - which she lost - and scrambled to remain in power by doing a deal with the least reliable party at Westminster. Don't forget, she was a remainer who coined the slogan "Brexit means Brexit" because she considered the possibility of 3 million or so UKIP voters becoming Tory party supporters was more important than the future of the United Kingdom.
Brexit is in a terrible mess. Who do you think is responsible for that mess? Certainly not Corbyn.
-
I keep thinking that MPs are being asked to change their mind, on May's deal, but we are not allowed to, on Brexit. Well, It's not meant to be sensible.
Incidentally, to say that May is doing her best, is a joke. She chose a hard Brexit - why is this the best?
-
Good point. I could certainly do with being 46 years younger!
Not so sure going backwards is a good thing. It can change everything including not having 46 years.. Nice thought though...
-
Yes. I accept it is a comment which - ordinarily - I think I would not make.
If what is happening is "May's best" why should we have to put up with it? It is thoroughly incompetent. Don't forget, she called a general election - which she lost - and scrambled to remain in power by doing a deal with the least reliable party at Westminster. Don't forget, she was a remainer who coined the slogan "Brexit means Brexit" because she considered the possibility of 3 million or so UKIP voters becoming Tory party supporters was more important than the future of the United Kingdom.
Brexit is in a terrible mess. Who do you think is responsible for that mess? Certainly not Corbyn.
Corbyn was all for leaving the EU, May was a remainer!
-
Was looking at a quotations site earlier at those attributed to H.L Mencken and came across this one, that seems relevant to those (such as our hapless PM) who still regard the 2016 referendum about an undefined notion, as opposed to a proposed plan, as being sacrosanct and an imperative;
'Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.'
You know better than that, Gordon. Too intelligent to go with the flow when it comes to the plans of mice and men.
The PM was given the Job when the men did not want it and the coward then PM was more interested in representing his own thoughts and plans than the Country he represented.
You reply as if you think these things are not planned. The political parties wanting their way rather than the people they represent. The future will be disastrous if they do not allow Brexit to happen for our Country. Men always need a woman to hide behind and blame when it comes to implementing their plans. They did the same with Maggie when things got uncomfortable. However Maggie managed to remain in power longer than they wanted and then they threw her under the bus, so to speak.
I personally believe that whoever was in the PM chair whether man or woman would be facing the same thing. One thing I believe is the whole thing is a put up Job to try and stop the Brexit with delaying etc. So my hope is that whatever happens Brexit comes and those who tried to delay or stop it are the ones who suffer. I hope we leave on the 29th that way the hapless wonders can then decide on how to clean their own mess up.
The best thing for this Country is to get out whilst we still can... I believe eventually our Royal Family would go and would interfere with the future.
GERMANY ... at the Helm whichever way you look at it.. No thank you. My ancestors who fought in the wars did not fight to surrender our Country to a union based on the ideas of a German or Austrian come to that. To remain in the EU is to dishonour our dead who died to keep our Country free. This unholy alliance would then, and could hold the rest of the world to ransom.
The tower of Babel is the ultimate warning of people uniting in one cause. Spells disaster for all. It is the EU showing they still control YOU and they will do what they want to hold on to
a Country like ours where we are allowed mostly all over the world whilst others are not. A royal family who keeps the channels open and a leader of a common wealth.
We would be unequally yoked and it is funny how this system could be used to bring in the reality of Revelation.
Revelation 13:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Do you not see to have that power over the world you need to have a united (union) of Countries.
-
A wee cut and paste....with the permission of the writer given freely.
UK to EU: "So, we have voted to leave"
EU to UK: "That's a shame, OK what's your proposals?"
UK to EU: "We don't have any, we are leaving."
EU to UK: "Yes, but what about the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Irish border?"
UK to EU: "Eh?"
EU to UK: "It's an international treaty you signed, remember? Look
, tell you what why doesn't NI stay in the Customs Union, job done."
UK to EU
: "NEVER! You are not splitting the UK up."
EU to UK: "OK what do you propose?"
UK to EU: "Why are you being intransigent?"
EU to UK: "What? OK look, we need to sort this and you haven't proposed anything, what about the whole of the UK staying in the Customs Union?"
UK to EU: "NEVER!
EU to UK: "FFS what then? This is your mess, tell us what you actually want."
UK to EU: "Why are you being intransigent?"
EU to UK: "Will you please just tell us what you want.
" UK to EU: "OK if you're going to be like that, we want a backstop added to the Withdrawal Agreement.
EU to UK: "Finally, yes OK, thats fine, but remember this is your idea, shall we sign the Withdrawal Agreement off? Once we have done this we cannot reopen it in the time left."
UK to EU: "Yes, sign it off."
EU to UK: "Done."
UK to EU: "Ummm we couldn't get it through parliament so we need to reopen the withdrawal agreement and change the backstop."
EU to UK: "We said we wouldn't do that, but OK we might be able to do something, we are listening, what do you want to change it to?"
UK to EU: "Alternative arrangements."
EU to UK: "What?"
UK to EU: "Alternative arrangements."
EU to UK: "What the actual fuck is that?"
UK to EU: "Don't know, just something different."
EU to UK: "Look, the backstop was your idea, we reluctantly agreed, now you don't want it anymore and instead want it changed to something that doesn't exist."
UK to EU: "Why are you being so intransigent?"
EU to UK: "It literally does not exist, what don't you understand about that?"
UK to EU: "Stop bullying us. OK, how about having a backstop that isn't a backstop?"
EU to UK: "Oh fuck the fuck off you absolute idiots!"
Theresa May to UK general public: "The EU are being intransigent. This is not our fault, its all theirs." -
-
How do Brexitters feel now that billionaire brexitter sir Jim Radcliffe is leaving the U.K. Now Brexit has come....source The Times, and a UK airline is folding because of Brexit.
Do you feel misled, taken for a ride, took, buncoed?
Phyllis,
As MacEnroe would say "You cannot be serious".
What did billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe do for any of the brexitter's? Just what benefit did they get from his money?
The truth is,if he left GB then it is because he would have left anyway with or without Brexit.
Brexit is about what the people want not what billionaires are doing.
Truth is with the money he has, he can live anywhere with or without Brexit and his company if based here can trade where they want now. Did we benefit him with his company.
A lot of companies who did not originally want Brexit are now seeing the benefit of an open market regarding trading with other Countries. A lot more Countries to trade with and a larger income which benefits all. Are you sure you were serious??
-
When I try and come up with a solution I always end up with the fact that the UK is Protestant and the rest of the European Union are either Catholic or Orthodox.
This is relevant because Protestants are opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox practice of iconography. They believe that this breaks the 2nd commandment.
Apart from that I can't see any sincere reason why the UK would leave the EU, with the hindsight I now have.
Spud,
Did you know the plan was to make the Roman Catholic Church the main religion of the EU in the future this helped get those Countries on board.
Just like Hitler the EU would stop at nothing to keep the Countries in the Union where they can control them.
We cannot become reliant on just a few Countries for our trade and living.
Read the Tower of Babel Spud. Genesis 11:1-9 and see what disaster could await with Countries of one union with one language.
English is spoken a lot as a second language. Just think about this very carefully what I am going to tell you. King James Bible
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
How would you get this to happen throughout the world?
Our lives and the things that happen are part of a bigger plant. King James Bible
And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
Isaiah 46:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Do you know why the people of earth not saved will carry on living a normal life right to the end and allowing these things? They do not believe or know the word of God and turn so they might be saved. The message of Christ is a universal message which stretches through out the world and therefore the universe for none exist outside the mind of a man to see and witness it.
Christ is the Son of God and all who believe will be saved. But believers can now see the start of the end as the world forms the alliances which will lead to the " A piece of Bread could buy a bag a of Godl" Gods people will survive as he lead them in the wilderness and provided he will provide during those times too. Be it, that he takes them out of that place or gives them their needs to survive.
God has always shown that his people survive because his provision does not rely on the worlds abundance which belongs to him.
If you take the worlds way of thinking you see they believe they earn everything they get by working hard and so deserve everything that the poor don't have.
Gods way is clear... the food and the animal chain are all provided by him the fullness of the earth is Gods. He ultimately gave it, so all mankind could survive.
The mankind today has no humility they believe they have earned everything they have. In truth what they earn is worth nothing without Gods provision of food.
Take away the abundance of fruit, vegtables and farm animals and what are you left with? Hard work, earnings and nothing to spend it on.
Hope it helps/. ><>
-
Phyllis,
As MacEnroe would say "You cannot be serious".
What did billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe do for any of the brexitter's? Just what benefit did they get from his money?
The truth is,if he left GB then it is because he would have left anyway with or without Brexit.
Brexit is about what the people want not what billionaires are doing.
Truth is with the money he has, he can live anywhere with or without Brexit and his company if based here can trade where they want now. Did we benefit him with his company.
A lot of companies who did not originally want Brexit are now seeing the benefit of an open market regarding trading with other Countries. A lot more Countries to trade with and a larger income which benefits all. Are you sure you were serious??
If it is no skin of his nose whether Brexit happens or not. Why did he support something that is and is going to impoverish others?
If you think Brexit is about you want rather than what Millionaires/Billionaires want
then your are being very foolish indeed.
-
I am absolutely disgusted with the way the IRA has behaved over the years. >:( However, the British have treated the Irish is an abominable way in days of yore, the potato famine, being one example. It is no wonder the IRA was formed, even though their behaviour has been inexcusable.
My paternal grandfather was one of the soldiers sent to Ireland in 1917 to put down the uprising. He met my Irish grandmother there and married her a year or two later. I have British/Irish citizenship.
Unless your passport show dual citizenship then you don't have dual citizenship but you do have ancestry of British and Irish.
-
I see brexitting Swindon has lost several thousand jobs.
I expect Gammons to cover these patriots who have sacrificed all for the cause in terms of their mortgages and bills.
Brexitters remind me.....what is the fund set up for brexitting heroes.
Forgive me, but Brexit will show the loyal and disloyal. No company provides work for the benefit of the worker. It is all about making money.
If companies cared about their work force they would not be any job losses. We work to live not live to work.
This was a vote for the people by the people. The rest is irrelevant because the people are not defined by their jobs when it comes to their Country.
Do we really want companies here who do not give to hoots about their work force?
The industry of this country is not who the Country is. The people of this Country are representing themselves not industry. Voted to leave so let the Government get on with getting us out.
-
Well they would say that. In fact they have the choice of building cars to sell in Europe in Japan with no tariffs or in Britain with tariffs. What would you do in their place?
BUY BRITISH....LOL.
They may save a little a on the swings but it will cost more on the roundabout. It is a lot of money to export the cars. Cutting nose off to spite face makes cars dearer too.
Seems Honda isn't thinking at all. I would not buy Honda on principle now.
-
Yes it is ridiculously unlucky that just as we are leaving the EU so many companies are leaving the UK *. Join the dots, please.
*Borrowed from James Melville.
Also from the same source:
Sony
Dyson
Panasonic
Lloyds
Unilever
Goldman Sachs
Barclays
Airbus
Flybmi
P&O
HSBC
JP Morgan
UBS
Ford
Hitachi
Toshiba
AXA
Honda
Moneygram
Philips
European Banking Authority
European Medicines Agency
Bank of America
But apparently, it’s got nothing to do with Brexit
How many of those companies are european companies?
Are the banks really going to shut down like LLoyds with our money in them?
How many of those companies are British or originated here?
Who owns them if any registered here?
You just could not see it, could you. It was about taking over our Country not support it. The Gas and electric company British Gas and Powergen/Norweb we owned. Now the companies owned by foreign countries like France and Germany charging us through the eyes and nose for our own fuel.
We pay a tv licence but pay for our tv at source through other companies.
They mounted a financial take over of our companies and assets and then proceeded to charge inflated rates for our own fuel.
If you really understood what Brexit is about, you would know it is about saving our identity and individualism as a Country to allow us to breath and live on our own without the use of a life support system switched on an run by the EU. Wake up.... Brexit is a narrow escape from worse things to come.
-
Hi Everyone.
I'm starting a petition. Can I be assured that you will all sign it?
It's to the Archbishop of Canterbury and I'm requesting that Guy Fawkes be declared a saint.
Do you believe he showed Allegiance in his actions to God and Mankind?
You are a person who believes the Ice berg should have been left in charge of the Titanic.
Jesting aside... Do you feel you accomplished anything by your remark? ;D
Or like when the ice berg was put in charge of the Titanic, do you get that sinking feeling?.. ::) ;D
-
I am sure he was as saintly as many who have been declared saints, like that awful woman Mother Teresa!
Compare your life to that of Mother Teresa who do you believe lived and lead the better life?
So using your comparison and knowing she dedicated her life to helping others and you think she is 'awful' what does that make you?
In Mother Teresa own words:-
Spread love everywhere you go. Let no one ever come to you without leaving happier.
Peace begins with a smile..
If you judge people, you have no time to love them.
In the last one she says: "If you judge people, you have no time to love them."
Is she right?
-
Forgive me, but Brexit will show the loyal and disloyal. No company provides work for the benefit of the worker. It is all about making money.
If companies cared about their work force they would not be any job losses. We work to live not live to work.
This was a vote for the people by the people. The rest is irrelevant because the people are not defined by their jobs when it comes to their Country.
Do we really want companies here who do not give to hoots about their work force?
The industry of this country is not who the Country is. The people of this Country are representing themselves not industry. Voted to leave so let the Government get on with getting us out.
Industry is what wins wars, it is what people do for at least a third of there day, Industry is what puts food on the table, what pays for ambulances and care. Industry IS the people. Before Brexit, that aberration in the grey matter of the Brexiteer and the twinkle in the financial ballbag of the disaster capitalist there was industry and industry will be there after the last livelihood which went because of Brexit is restored.
Brexiteers lied to you about brexit and you entered into it ridiculously uninformed and have chosen to remain that way.
On the other hand if you are going to throw your house open as a soup kitchen and wayhouse for those made unemployed by Brexit, I take it all back.
-
Jim, nice one, previous page. I saw a short version, the UK proposed the backstop, and then accused the other side of accepting it. All too surreal.
-
Spud,
Did you know the plan was to make the Roman Catholic Church the main religion of the EU in the future this helped get those Countries on board.
As we have seen with the Good Friday Agreement, one way to prevent conflict caused by religious differences is to reduce barriers to trade and travel between countries. The EU does this.
Just like Hitler the EU would stop at nothing to keep the Countries in the Union where they can control them.
We cannot become reliant on just a few Countries for our trade and living.
We aren't.
Read the Tower of Babel Spud. Genesis 11:1-9 and see what disaster could await with Countries of one union with one language.
The EU preserves the different languages.
English is spoken a lot as a second language. Just think about this very carefully what I am going to tell you. King James Bible
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
How would you get this to happen throughout the world?
Revelation is written in symbols; buying and selling is not meant to be taken literally.
-
Compare your life to that of Mother Teresa who do you believe lived and lead the better life?
So using your comparison and knowing she dedicated her life to helping others and you think she is 'awful' what does that make you?
In Mother Teresa own words:-
Spread love everywhere you go. Let no one ever come to you without leaving happier.
Peace begins with a smile..
If you judge people, you have no time to love them.
In the last one she says: "If you judge people, you have no time to love them."
Is she right?
I wouldn't refuse to give my patients pain killers like that ghastly MT did saying suffering was good for the soul, the sick creep! >:( I met someone who used to work with her and have it first hand that is what she did.
-
Spud,
Did you know the plan was to make the Roman Catholic Church the main religion of the EU in the future this helped get those Countries on board.
Just like Hitler the EU would stop at nothing to keep the Countries in the Union where they can control them.
We cannot become reliant on just a few Countries for our trade and living.
Read the Tower of Babel Spud. Genesis 11:1-9 and see what disaster could await with Countries of one union with one language.
English is spoken a lot as a second language. Just think about this very carefully what I am going to tell you. King James Bible
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
How would you get this to happen throughout the world?
Our lives and the things that happen are part of a bigger plant. King James Bible
And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
Isaiah 46:10 King James Version (KJV)
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Do you know why the people of earth not saved will carry on living a normal life right to the end and allowing these things? They do not believe or know the word of God and turn so they might be saved. The message of Christ is a universal message which stretches through out the world and therefore the universe for none exist outside the mind of a man to see and witness it.
Christ is the Son of God and all who believe will be saved. But believers can now see the start of the end as the world forms the alliances which will lead to the " A piece of Bread could buy a bag a of Godl" Gods people will survive as he lead them in the wilderness and provided he will provide during those times too. Be it, that he takes them out of that place or gives them their needs to survive.
God has always shown that his people survive because his provision does not rely on the worlds abundance which belongs to him.
If you take the worlds way of thinking you see they believe they earn everything they get by working hard and so deserve everything that the poor don't have.
Gods way is clear... the food and the animal chain are all provided by him the fullness of the earth is Gods. He ultimately gave it, so all mankind could survive.
The mankind today has no humility they believe they have earned everything they have. In truth what they earn is worth nothing without Gods provision of food.
Take away the abundance of fruit, vegtables and farm animals and what are you left with? Hard work, earnings and nothing to spend it on.
Hope it helps/. ><>
This is on a par with the 'np moon landings' guff.
Tell the Germans that they are majority Catholic - or the Dutch....not that it matters.
No-one can 'make' anyone conform to any church.
Not even the 8illuminati.
-
Do you believe he showed Allegiance in his actions to God and Mankind?
You are a person who believes the Ice berg should have been left in charge of the Titanic.
Jesting aside... Do you feel you accomplished anything by your remark? ;D
Or like when the ice berg was put in charge of the Titanic, do you get that sinking feeling?.. ::) ;D
Whilst no-one can condone his intention, I applaud his feelings. Jamie Stuart was a traitor.
-
Saying that Mother Theresa led a better life than Joe Bloggs seems barmy to me. As LR said, her methods seem very dubious, but in any case, what does "better" mean?
-
Ken Clarke: "... It gives the impression that the government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes"
Someone in the House: "AH....!"
Love it :-)
-
How many of those companies are european companies?
Are the banks really going to shut down like LLoyds with our money in them?
How many of those companies are British or originated here?
Who owns them if any registered here?
You just could not see it, could you. It was about taking over our Country not support it. The Gas and electric company British Gas and Powergen/Norweb we owned. Now the companies owned by foreign countries like France and Germany charging us through the eyes and nose for our own fuel.
We pay a tv licence but pay for our tv at source through other companies.
They mounted a financial take over of our companies and assets and then proceeded to charge inflated rates for our own fuel.
If you really understood what Brexit is about, you would know it is about saving our identity and individualism as a Country to allow us to breath and live on our own without the use of a life support system switched on an run by the EU. Wake up.... Brexit is a narrow escape from worse things to come.
Do you even have a clue as to what you are talking about?
As an example let us take British Gas. This was sold off by Thatcher in the 80's to release cash to give tax cuts to the rich. As well as to satisfy the idealogical zeal of the right of the tory party for their doctrine of private=good, and public=bad. It had fuck all to do with the EU. It was the stupidity and short sightedness of our government, elected by us, that led to the sale of our utilities. Now if you look across the channel, many countries, France and Germany among nthem had the sense to hold onto their services and protect them, which they all did legally under EU law. So quite frankly your theory is just nonsense. It was the ineptitude of successive governments voted for by us (not by any European voters) that led to the UK shedding its services to the highest bidder from overseas.
I cant help but think you dont have that strong a grasp on reality. Or you are displaying an incredible lack of knowledge on the history of the UK economy.
-
Watching the events tonight is ridiculous in so many ways, and May has substantial responsibility for this but it's frightening that I watched Fox and Gove mirror what they were 35 years ago, and the house mirror what I saw 35 years ago.
-
I don't know where they are going with this, as no deal is the default. How can you reject a default? The Tories are also appearing to bring May's deal back a 3rd time. Oh FFS.
-
And the vote on the Spelman amendment was a big shock. Be interesting if any ministers voted for it.
-
Parliament has voted no to a No Deal Brexit. The vote is non binding though.
-
I don't know where they are going with this, as no deal is the default. How can you reject a default? The Tories are also appearing to bring May's deal back a 3rd time. Oh FFS.
the vote on No Deal is non binding so it can still happen. Had it been binding there would be no option except to ask for an extension on article 50 and if refused by the EU, to withdraw it altogether.
-
MP's vote to reject No Deal Brexit by 312 to 308.
So there you go Hard Brexiteers, in your own terms you have been overwhelmingly been beaten by an overwhelming majority.
The people have spoken.
Orang Utan sit pensive and small multicoloured Hummingbirds skip from flower to flower.
-
Parliament has voted no to a No Deal Brexit. The vote is non binding though.
And by only four votes. If Brexit doesn't go through in some form, expect riots.
-
Parliament has voted no to a No Deal Brexit. The vote is non binding though.
The original referendum was also non-binding ...
-
:(
Parliament has voted no to a No Deal Brexit. The vote is non binding though.
It can't be in these votes even with an extension.
-
How realistic is it to say that there should have been three options on the ballot paper: hard Brexit, soft Brexit or Remain?
Remain would probably have got about the same as it did get I.e. 48%, maybe a bit less. The leave vote would probably have been split enough so that Remain would have had the highest number of votes
-
The original referendum was also non-binding ...
But in this case the non binding aspect has legal implications, as opposed to the referendum which effectively had only political.implications.
-
:( It can't be in these votes even with an extension.
why not? It would leave the government with no option except to withdraw article 50 but they can do that unilaterally.
-
Forgive me, but Brexit will show the loyal and disloyal. No company provides work for the benefit of the worker. It is all about making money.
If companies cared about their work force they would not be any job losses. We work to live not live to work.
The problem is that tariffs put a company at a competitive disadvantage compared to those that do not pay tariffs. The company can care about their workers till the cows come home but if they’ve gone bust everybody loses their job.
-
why not? It would leave the government with no option except to withdraw article 50 but they can do that unilaterally.
Because in and of itself it didn't include any revocation. And the possibility is still there to ask for an extension. Or indeed vote for May's deal.
-
Because in and of itself it didn't include any revocation. And the possibility is still there to ask for an extension. Or indeed vote for May's deal.
They’ve already voted against May’s deal twice. How many more times do they need to vote against it before you concede it’s a no?
Yes, they can ask for an extension, but the EU might say no.
If tonight’s vote had been binding and the EU had said no to an extension, the only way out is to withdraw article 50 because just letting no deal happen would be against the law. Unfortunately (from my perspective) no deal is still allowed because the vote was advisory.
-
They’ve already voted against May’s deal twice. How many more times do they need to vote against it before you concede it’s a no?
Yes, they can ask for an extension, but the EU might say no.
If tonight’s vote had been binding and the EU had said no to an extension, the only way out is to withdraw article 50 because just letting no deal happen would be against the law. Unfortunately (from my perspective) no deal is still allowed because the vote was advisory.
Except it can't be binding because the EU have to accept the extension, and there was nothing in the amendment about an extensuon. Therefore it couldn't be binding.
-
Except it can't be binding because the EU have to accept the extension, and there was nothing in the amendment about an extensuon. Therefore it couldn't be binding.
What?
The EU doesn’t have to accept an extension. But it does have to accept us withdrawing article 50. So there is a way out if the vote were binding.
-
What?
The EU doesn’t have to accept an extension. But it does have to accept us withdrawing article 50. So there is a way out if the vote were binding.
I didn't say it had to accept an extension. The point is that it precisely doesn't and anything that is about rejecting no deal in itself cannot be binding.
-
What?
The EU doesn’t have to accept an extension. But it does have to accept us withdrawing article 50. So there is a way out if the vote were binding.
So my second use of extension was wrong, and I meant revocation. But the point remains, just saying no deal does nothing. And no deal isn't about a revocation.
-
If as seems to have happened, the govt changed from a free vote to a whipped vote, and members of the govt voted against it, then that is extraordinary.
Overall I think another vote on May's Deal is likely and will succeed.
-
Quite bizarre
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/fear-and-loathing-in-the-lobbies-how-the-government-whipped-against-its-own-motion/
-
Signs that the DUP are crumbling, and the ERG will probably follow. You could see it coming with all the malarkey about the Vienna convention, just legal wriggle room. May is smiling.
-
Now that parliament has voted for asking for an extension, seeing rumours that the EU might offer a 4 YEAR extension!
-
Now that parliament has voted for asking for an extension, seeing rumours that the EU might offer a 4 YEAR extension!
From the EU’s point of view, the longer the extension, the better. The demographics of the UK are on their side.
May is going to have yet another vote. It occurs to me that she might win that if the DUP is faced with her deal or stay in the EU.
-
From the EU’s point of view, the longer the extension, the better. The demographics of the UK are on their side.
May is going to have yet another vote. It occurs to me that she might win that if the DUP is faced with her deal or stay in the EU.
I agree, it looks to me, that her deal will go through at some time. The idea that they floated of the honesty box border was a n attempt to flag to the DUP that things could be worse.
Of course, there is the question of Farage and thanks have managed to persuade Salvani to veto any extensio n. (Taking Back Control)
-
I agree, it looks to me, that her deal will go through at some time. The idea that they floated of the honesty box border was a n attempt to flag to the DUP that things could be worse.
It seems somewhat ironic that she is allowed as many votes on her deal as she likes until she gets the answer she wants but even one more referendum would be a “betrayal of democracy”.
-
So May voted for the extension along with 111 other Tories, but 188 Tories voted against with a number of her cabinet including her Brex it and Trade Secretaries.
-
Be interested to see if Bercow steps in preventing her presenting the same deal for a third time, especially if this Vienna Convention issue turns out not to be an issue at all.
-
It seems somewhat ironic that she is allowed as many votes on her deal as she likes until she gets the answer she wants but even one more referendum would be a “betrayal of democracy”.
I think it was Caroline Lucas that pointed that out to May but got the Brexit, will of people, democracy answer in some form. As I have said before on here I think we are past irony, and even coppery, and are now onto zincy
-
And it would seem that the Brexit Secretary proposed the motion then voted against it.
-
MP's have boxed themselves into a corner, they vote against another referendum, vote against no deal.
The EU are going to say take or leave it, knowing that MPs will have to take it.
-
MP's have boxed themselves into a corner, they vote against another referendum, vote against no deal.
The EU are going to say take or leave it, knowing that MPs will have to take it.
Take or leave what exactly?
Do you mean the Withdrawal Agreement - if so what is the problem with that?
-
This seems incredibly dangerous. Accept the deal on the basis that you know you are going to break it if it all gets a bit violentbin Ireland!
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-legal-idUSKCN1QV38C
-
Also just the idea that you can abrogate a treaty because there are difficulties. It's one way to be seen as reliable. But they are looking for wriggle room.
-
Also just the idea that you can abrogate a treaty because there are difficulties. It's one way to be seen as reliable. But they are looking for wriggle room.
Don't always agree with Craig Murray but this feels right
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/geoffrey-coxs-new-legal-advice-on-brexit-incentivises-unionist-violence/?fbclid=IwAR18812EfFA290oTsDg1Xj-JQCVBgJQ9Dk6jF2qCkbADUWPhneQExAYjxrM
-
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/03/geoffrey-coxs-new-legal-advice-on-brexit-incentivises-unionist-violence/?fbclid=IwAR18812EfFA290oTsDg1Xj-JQCVBgJQ9Dk6jF2qCkbADUWPhneQExAYjxrM
That is shocking, as well as being short-sighted: presumably this will be digested by the likes of Keir Starmer so that should Cox outline this in the HoC he will be challenged.
-
It is ludicrous, but I can't see that it matters.
The backstop is there to guarantee the GFA, but if things have deteriorated to the extent that it needs to be suspended (assuming it was ever in operation) the GFA would have also been broken.
Borders would be imposed and the next step would be WWIII.
-
It seems now that whether or not May's deal survives is down to the DUP - utter madness!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47602746
-
Just to clarify: if we leave without a deal, the UK won't impose tariffs at the Irish border, so as to avoid a hard border, is that correct?
-
The worst of it is, many commentators on the mainland assume the DUP speak for NI; they do not. They don't even speak for the 'unionist' community; probably just over fifty percent thereof. Membership of the DUP is increasingly aging, as young - more enlightened - folk seek other ideologies, and there seems to be a small, but increasing, number in the community once labelled 'loyalost' who favour Irish unification. I have friends in 'stroke city' who work with the Corymeela community (The NI equivalent of the interdenominational Iona Community in Scotland) who are frankly terrified at the consequences of a no-deal, hard, WTO or similar conclusion to this Westminster farce. The bridges built between the two factions were becoming all but permanent. Now the foundations are shaking. (By the way, 'stroke city' is the local name for Derry/Londonderry, not some comment on the medical outlook...)
-
May needs them for MV3, but even if they switch and bring some more Cons. over with them, it could still be very close. MV4?
-
Is Bercow actually ruling out MV3? Cor blimey.
-
Looks that way - in response to Hilary Benn he more or less said that there would need to be changes involving the EU before there could be MV3, and that changes of opinion etc were unlikely to be substantial enough.
-
The Guardian reports that the government may prorogue parliament in order to start a new session so as to have MV3 - can't see that going down well.
-
Looks that way - in response to Hilary Benn he more or less said that there would need to be changes involving the EU before there could be MV3, and that changes of opinion etc were unlikely to be substantial enough.
Yes ... or a change of context - if the motion put forward a different proposition - eg. a plan for a customs union, or maybe a cross party negotiating group for the long term trade and political deal, or a referendum to confirm outcome? These don't require any new immediate commitments by the EU27.
I think they were coming to the point where it looked as if MV3 wouldn't pass without a substantial change of strategy anyway.
-
If MV3 wasn't looking like passing then, not sure what Bercow was looking to achieve other than increase the advance for his memoirs. I think he's decided he doesn't care about anything that his detractors think they can do to him .
I'm not sure on the rules of proroguing, and not sure that anyone is coming out of this looking anything other than an idiot..
-
There is also the time element.
Was listening to Radio 4 and it was noted that since an extension of whatever length requires a Statutory Instrument to go through both the HoC and HoL to change the 29th March date, and that would take some time even if it was nodded-through in both places.
Of course she may have lost her MV3 anyway if Bercow hadn't intervened, or would lose even if they prorogue Parliament so as to have MV3 at some future date in a new session, so a longer extension would may well been required no matter what - and it seems she needs to get the EU to agree that this weekend.
It is a mess though.
-
This is quite a good analysis of the effects.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/03/has-john-bercow-really-ruled-out-third-meaningful-vote
-
Erskin May 1 - Theresa May 0
-
Just to clarify: if we leave without a deal, the UK won't impose tariffs at the Irish border, so as to avoid a hard border, is that correct?
I can't see how that would work. Sure, we can unilaterally declare we will not impose tariffs, but that doesn't mean the EU has to follow suit.
-
If MV3 wasn't looking like passing then, not sure what Bercow was looking to achieve other than increase the advance for his memoirs. I think he's decided he doesn't care about anything that his detractors think they can do to him .
Maybe he's just tired of the piss-take that this has become. May's deal has already been voted down twice. At some point you have to say that is a no.
If the PM had some substantive changes to the deal, another vote would be fair enough, but she hasn't. The only thing that has changed since last time is that the alternatives are now effectively MV3 or ask to extend the deadline. She was hoping the bill would pass if the MPs are under duress.
-
I can't see how that would work. Sure, we can unilaterally declare we will not impose tariffs, but that doesn't mean the EU has to follow suit.
I was mainly concerned about whether a no deal Brexit would automatically result in a hard border. And does the fact that the default is for no deal on 29 March override the government's commitment to avoiding a hard border?
-
Despite all these administrative problems caused by exiting without a deal (e.g. if we leave without a deal we may have a driving licence problem if we want to drive in EU countries until the government sort out arrangements), I agree with Bercow not permitting May to hold multiple MVs over the same deal. Apart from the procedural issue, the government, and especially May, seem to be losing more and more domestic credibility if they keep losing MVs by large majorities.
It is all getting very Monty Pythonesque - but the Dutch PM seems to be paying May a compliment when he said:
“She reminds me occasionally of that character from Monty Python where all the arms and legs are cut off but he then tells the opponent: ‘Let’s call it a draw.’ She’s incredible. She goes on and on. At the same time, I do not blame her, but British politics.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/17/dutch-pm-compares-theresa-may-to-monty-python-limbless-knight
ETA: Some newspapers are reporting the Dutch PM's words in a way that discredits May. They mention the Monty Python bit but not the bit where he calles May "incredible" and says he doesn't blame her.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/18/limbless-monty-python-knight-may-became-butt-brexit-jokes/
-
I was mainly concerned about whether a no deal Brexit would automatically result in a hard border. And does the fact that the default is for no deal on 29 March override the government's commitment to avoiding a hard border?
Yes. There would be an automatic hard border. Our government could say “we’re going to let goods through unimpeded anyway”. But I don’t think the EU would be able to do the same thing.
-
Yes. There would be an automatic hard border. Our government could say “we’re going to let goods through unimpeded anyway”. But I don’t think the EU would be able to do the same thing.
But... the UK, Ireland and the NI parties are signed up to the GFA and have repeatedly declared that there will be no hard border. I expect that, possibly after a period of confusion with a rise in violence and smuggling, we would end up with a de facto "Irish sea" border.
-
But... the UK, Ireland and the NI parties are signed up to the GFA and have repeatedly declared that there will be no hard border. I expect that, possibly after a period of confusion with a rise in violence and smuggling, we would end up with a de facto "Irish sea" border.
So, avoiding crashing out and a subsequent hard border would be a legitimate purpose for an extension, then... Unless the govt want to claim they'd done everything possible to avoid a hard border.
-
So, avoiding crashing out and a subsequent hard border would be a legitimate purpose for an extension, then... Unless the govt want to claim they'd done everything possible to avoid a hard border.
Yes, but May is not following a strategy that will get the Withdrawal Agreement accepted by parliament even with an extension. In fact an extension and the Speaker's statements yesterday leave her "running down the clock" tactic even more useless.
-
Yes, but May is not following a strategy that will get the Withdrawal Agreement accepted by parliament even with an extension. In fact an extension and the Speaker's statements yesterday leave her "running down the clock" tactic even more useless.
Now I get why not getting the deal through risks no Brexit at all: she has to avoid crashing out.
Perhaps working on Labour's proposal could also be a purpose for an extension.
-
But... the UK, Ireland and the NI parties are signed up to the GFA and have repeatedly declared that there will be no hard border. I expect that, possibly after a period of confusion with a rise in violence and smuggling, we would end up with a de facto "Irish sea" border.
You can't have an open border without some agreement with the EU about it. It doesn't matter what the GFA says, if the EU won't let our goods in unrestricted, it won't be an open border.
This is the main reason why May's withdrawal agreement isn't getting through. It keeps us in the customs union until such time as we sort out the Irish border issue with the EU and that might never happen.
-
Yes, but May is not following a strategy that will get the Withdrawal Agreement accepted by parliament even with an extension. In fact an extension and the Speaker's statements yesterday leave her "running down the clock" tactic even more useless.
Not if her goal is to sabotage Brexit so it never happens.
-
I expect most people have heard the joke, a French politician has named her cat Brexit - he asks to go out, but when she opens the door, he just stands there.
-
I expect most people have heard the joke, a French politician has named her cat Brexit - he asks to go out, but when she opens the door, he just stands there.
Sensible cat. ;D
-
Not if her goal is to sabotage Brexit so it never happens.
Shhh... you'll out her :)
-
I will be one very happy bunny if Brexit never happens.
-
Looks like deal or no deal, if Tusk is saying that an extension is conditional on the deal being passed.
-
Hopefully the option of rescinding A50 is the last option standing if no-deal is a no-no.
Barring that, this might be a good time for the option of passing May's deal subject to a referendum, since the EU might well allow that (and a longer extension to organise it) on the basis it could result in no Brexit, and doing that next week also relieves the HoC of making the final decision.
-
And some clever clogs have pointed out that Tusk didn't reject a long deal, but May has. So it's not either deal or no deal.
-
Seems that the Maybot is to 'address the nation' at 8.15pm - cue the usual robotic mantras: 'biggest democratic exercise' yak yak yak, '17.4 million people' yada yada yada, and not forgetting that old chesnut 'take back control of our money, laws and borders'.
Her, her party (or most of them) and Brexit need to be binned.
-
So apparently Corbyn walked out of cross party talks with May because Umunna was there and 'He isn't a proper leader'.
-
So apparently Corbyn walked out of cross party talks with May because Umunna was there and 'He isn't a proper leader'.
He's still playing party politics?
-
He's still playing party politics?
Or just personal politics?
-
Watched her 'address', complete with her usual stock phrases: it seems it isn't her fault at all!
She is a waste of space and needs to go sooner rather than later. If her deal gets voted down next week, as it should, I can't see how she can stay as PM.
-
Watched her 'address', complete with her usual stock phrases: it seems it isn't her fault at all!
She is a waste of space and needs to go sooner rather than later. If her deal gets voted down next week, as it should, I can't see how she can stay as PM.
She is fucking unbelievable. There are no other words necessary.
-
I feel sorry for May, she has done her best, to get the best deal for the UK, even though she wasn't a Brexit supporter, unlike Corbyn!
-
I feel sorry for May, she has done her best, to get the best deal for the UK, even though she wasn't a Brexit supporter, unlike Corbyn!
She might have done her best but look where it’s led us. And now she will not face reality. She still thinks she can get her deal through by running it down to the deadline and hoping. This is going to end in a No Deal situation.
-
I feel sorry for May, she has done her best, to get the best deal for the UK, even though she wasn't a Brexit supporter, unlike Corbyn!
Why do you feel sorry for her? I genuinely do not understand your viewpoint. She has created this mess. Triggered Article 50 without having a clear goal. Wasted time on an unneeded, unwanted General election. Set down red lines that alienated vast parts of the HOC. Ran down the clock continuously in the hope of forcing MP's to back her deal. She is incompetent. As I have pointed out before Corbyn is not in charge of this process May is.
The Tories gave us the referendum, negotiated the deal, and messed it up. To distract with cries of What about Corbyn is a waste of time. Concentrate on who got us into this mess. Step up Mrs May.
-
She might have done her best but look where it’s led us. And now she will not face reality. She still thinks she can get her deal through by running it down to the deadline and hoping. This is going to end in a No Deal situation.
And her speech last night was a disgrace
-
Why do you feel sorry for her? I genuinely do not understand your viewpoint. She has created this mess. Triggered Article 50 without having a clear goal. Wasted time on an unneeded, unwanted General election. Set down red lines that alienated vast parts of the HOC. Ran down the clock continuously in the hope of forcing MP's to back her deal. She is incompetent. As I have pointed out before Corbyn is not in charge of this process May is.
The Tories gave us the referendum, negotiated the deal, and messed it up. To distract with cries of What about Corbyn is a waste of time. Concentrate on who got us into this mess. Step up Mrs May.
While I agree with all of this, Corbyn walking out of the meeting last night was a joke.
-
Why do you feel sorry for her? I genuinely do not understand your viewpoint. She has created this mess. Triggered Article 50 without having a clear goal. Wasted time on an unneeded, unwanted General election. Set down red lines that alienated vast parts of the HOC. Ran down the clock continuously in the hope of forcing MP's to back her deal. She is incompetent. As I have pointed out before Corbyn is not in charge of this process May is.
The Tories gave us the referendum, negotiated the deal, and messed it up. To distract with cries of What about Corbyn is a waste of time. Concentrate on who got us into this mess. Step up Mrs May.
Those who unwisely voted to leave the EU created the mess which May has tried unsuccessfully to sort out.
-
I thought yesterday she was looking dysfunctional, or as the Guardian put it, she's gone rogue. But her version of Brexit was a very narrow one.. Now, blaming parliament seems dangerous to me, as many MPs get death threats. She should be replaced, but the alternatives look scary, e.g., Johnson.
-
Baked beans or lentils? We thought we'd splash out, and have both stockpiled. Not much in the allotment at the moment either.
-
So apparently Corbyn walked out of cross party talks with May because Umunna was there and 'He isn't a proper leader'.
Yep.
He's aiming for the "Mr Irony" award - with a good chance he'll get it.
Talk about childishness?
With less than a fortnight to go, he shows his true abilities - again.
-
I must admit last night, I was freaked out by May, she looked ill. Talking about "indulgence" in parliament is beyond irony. However, I have recovered my good cheer, it's off to get the lentils in.
-
Those who unwisely voted to leave the EU created the mess which May has tried unsuccessfully to sort out.
I think the "mess" was ongoing for quite some time even before the brexit vote. She has not tried to sort it out - as Trent says she is incompetent, just as she was as Home Secretary prior to PM.
She became PM with a majority, squandered in hubris, with clear support in parliament for leaving the EU, as per referendum, again devalued and squandered .
The 2 years since A50 was triggered has been wasted, mostly by David Davis , and now she is laying the groundwork for Boris Johnson, the clown, to take the wheel.
-
Those who unwisely voted to leave the EU created the mess which May has tried unsuccessfully to sort out.
Nope. Those who unwisely offered a referendum in the first place are responsible. That would be the Conservative government.
I don't know why you continue to defend the indefensible. It is the Conservative party's fault we are in this mess. Theresa May has been at the heart of the Tory party in one form or another for many years. She is responsible in large part for this mess.
It really is no point blaming the voters. After all, if you ask a stupid question, don't be surprised that you get a stupid answer.
-
Nope. Those who unwisely offered a referendum in the first place are responsible. That would be the Conservative government.
I don't know why you continue to defend the indefensible. It is the Conservative party's fault we are in this mess. Theresa May has been at the heart of the Tory party in one form or another for many years. She is responsible in large part for this mess.
It really is no point blaming the voters. After all, if you ask a stupid question, don't be surprised that you get a stupid answer.
Labour would not have done any better, imo. I speak as one who voted for our Labour Party candidate in the last election.
-
Labour would not have done any better, imo. I speak as one who voted for our Labour Party candidate in the last election.
We will never know, but give me Starmer over Davis et al, anyday.
-
Those who unwisely voted to leave the EU created the mess which May has tried unsuccessfully to sort out.
Quite right... I've emailed my MP to explain why I voted leave and why I now think we should remain. Meanwhile, this petition to parliament is gaining about 200 signatures every 10 seconds!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
-
Quite right... I've emailed my MP to explain why I voted leave and why I now think we should remain. Meanwhile, this petition to parliament is gaining about 300 signatures every 10 seconds!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
Apparently the petition has crashed as so many are trying to sign it!
-
Quite right... I've emailed my MP to explain why I voted leave and why I now think we should remain. Meanwhile, this petition to parliament is gaining about 200 signatures every 10 seconds!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
I managed to sign it before it crashed. At that time it was up to about 639,000 signatures.
-
I managed to sign it before it crashed. At that time it was up to about 639,000 signatures.
The petition is up and running again now, and was up to 1,000,000 signatures when I signed it.
-
The petition is up and running again now, and was up to 1,000,000 signatures when I signed it.
It's down again now.
-
It's down again now.
So many people are anxious to sign it, I hope the House of Commons takes note.
-
So many people are anxious to sign it, I hope the House of Commons takes note.
Of course people will say that it is a mere fraction of 17.4 million
-
So how does May get the deal approved given Bercow won't allow it to be voted on?
-
Of course people will say that it is a mere fraction of 17.4 million
Indeed. Loathsome Leadsom already has.
-
So it is 22nd May if May gets her deal through. I suspect Bercow will allow another go on the basis that the extension date is a change that is significant, but should she fail again that will be it: I'd imagine she'd resign at that point (assuming she has any scruples left).
I doubt A50 will be rescinded any time soon, but should her deal fail again the EU will seemingly offer a longer extension but with conditions around political changes that would find agreement in the HoC and, perhaps, a GE or referendum to confirm the support of the electorate. Aside from the usual suspects in the lunatic fringe, I'd hope the HoC would ensure no deal is avoided, since for example there are already reports that teachers in Kent might have to adopt a duty or care role due to disruption/congestion in that area.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/21/kent-teachers-care-stranded-pupils-parents-traffic-disruption-no-deal-brexit
It is madness that we are a week away from this type of thing.
-
I don't think though that the extension date is part of the legislation so Bercow is going to have to do a bit of dancing to allow the vote.
-
Petition currently running at 1,220,000
-
It would be stunning if Bercow refused MV3 - would concentrate minds wonderfully.
-
It would be stunning if Bercow refused MV3 - would concentrate minds wonderfully.
If he does there are 2 choices. Revoke or no deal. Though if a referendum were added to the legislation then that would be new but that needs a longer extension.
I see Corbyn is out in Brussels talking about his deal. This seems quixotic given everything the EU has said.
-
Reports now say the 22nd May has been replaced by something unspecified as yet.
-
...
I see Corbyn is out in Brussels talking about his deal. This seems quixotic given everything the EU has said.
Whatever deal he wants the WA will have to be a part of it. And indeed there is nothing stopping him approving it now except that he will have no control or influence over any longer term negotiations falling out from the political declaration.
May has some simple things she could do (or could have done) to get her deal to pass and achieve brexit But she's not willing to dump Davis, Johnson, Mogg and the other bone heads and give Corbyn a chance to prove he can actually manage anything. Maybe he doesn't want that anyway, would rather settle for looking heroic fighting against "tory brexit" as the country goes down.
Also she has cabinet members who would prefer no-deal to a customs union.
-
Whatever deal he wants the WA will have to be a part of it. And indeed there is nothing stopping him approving it now except that he will have no control or influence over any longer term negotiations falling out from the political declaration.
May has some simple things she could do (or could have done) to get her deal to pass and achieve brexit But she's not willing to dump Davis, Johnson, Mogg and the other bone heads and give Corbyn a chance to prove he can actually manage anything. Maybe he doesn't want that anyway, would rather settle for looking heroic fighting against "tory brexit" as the country goes down.
Also she has cabinet members who would prefer no-deal to a customs union.
The WA is the thing on the table. It isn't part of something, it is the something. The idea that this is hugely changeable as Labour 's push works, particularly given they are not in power, seems bizarre.
-
May's decision to call an election which she said she wouldn't to make it easier for the Tory party has substantially led to the disaster we face. She is a racist, incompetent liar and her speech last night was disgraceful.
-
The petition is up and running again now, and was up to 1,000,000 signatures when I signed it.
Five minutes ago over 1,300,00.
-
Five minutes ago over 1,300,00.
1.8 million now.
-
The WA is the thing on the table. It isn't part of something, it is the something. The idea that this is hugely changeable as Labour 's push works, particularly given they are not in power, seems bizarre.
If that is "the thing" why doesn't he support it and give Labour MPs a free vote? That gets a brexit rather than no deal and he can dispose of May later after her right wing turn on her (again)?
-
If that is "the thing" why doesn't he support it and give Labour MPs a free vote? That gets a brexit rather than no deal and he can dispose of May later after her right wing turn on her (again)?
No, it ends with no deal. An extension is for something. The EU have said the WA is the deal. There is not a magic new deal
-
Five minutes ago over 1,300,00.
Broken 2,000,000. I wonder how many signatures it has to have before the BBC starts reporting it.
-
No, it ends with no deal. An extension is for something. The EU have said the WA is the deal. There is not a magic new deal
Sorry, you are not making sense to me.
The WA is not a deal, it allows for a 2 years transition period, during which all the things Corbyn wants can be negotiated or implemented. Whatever the long term deal he wants the WA must be agreed as is before further negotiations. All the changes he needs are to the non binding Political Declaration not the WA (as I understand things).
-
Aren't the EU also saying (covertly) vote against the deal, get rid of May, and get a long extension and a soft Brexit? Depends if enough Tories are regicides.
-
Aren't the EU also saying (covertly) vote against the deal, get rid of May, and get a long extension and a soft Brexit? Depends if enough Tories are regicides.
I don't think so. They have clearly tried to keep as many options open for as long as they can.
-
I see Hilary Benn et al have already tabled an amendment for next week (see 8.37 entry in BBC live stream) so as to allow indicative votes, and Bercow still has confirm he will allow MV3.
I wonder if those Labour MPs who supported May before, on the basis that we had to abide that the result of that flawed referendum. would oppose her MV3 now (if it happens) on that basis that leaving under a softer Brexit has probably just become an option.
-
A long extension seems possible, but seems to require an improbable series of events, e.g., getting rid of May, and finding a leader who is not hard Brexit, I.e., not Johnson. A general election seems obvious, but Tories will probably resist.
-
No-one with anysense in the Tory pary (assuming such creaturesexist) would go fora leadership contest, though. Were a hard righter like Johnson, or, heaven forbid, Rees-Mogg, to get the poisoned chalice, many of the more moderate Tories would simply throw in the towel andquit, leaving what was left of the Tories with no chance of a continuing mandate to govern.
-
No-one with anysense in the Tory pary (assuming such creaturesexist) would go fora leadership contest, though. Were a hard righter like Johnson, or, heaven forbid, Rees-Mogg, to get the poisoned chalice, many of the more moderate Tories would simply throw in the towel andquit, leaving what was left of the Tories with no chance of a continuing mandate to govern.
There already a number of shadow campaigns for leadership out there, Johnson's been given 15k by JCB for his campaign, Raab has a slogan - Ready for Raab, Truss has a new charity thing, it's all systems go. The current front runner seems to be Gove
-
Yes, May stays, appalling though she is, as the Tories are worried about splits if a hard or soft new leader is elected. I suppose the hope is that the Commons rejects her deal, and votes for something else, e.g., soft Brexit, and May quits. The EU is almost giving a nudge.
-
Suppose MV3 failed and May (claiming she had tried her best) then quit. Would a motion requesting a long extension (including UK MEP elections being organised and held) pass?
-
Suppose MV3 failed and May (claiming she had tried her best) then quit. Would a motion requesting a long extension (including UK MEP elections being organised and held) pass?
No idea. The EU seem to be dangling that carrot, and there are supposed to be a majority of remain or soft Brexit MPs. Trouble is, it requires some Tories to wield the axe.
-
Yes, May stays, appalling though she is, as the Tories are worried about splits if a hard or soft new leader is elected. I suppose the hope is that the Commons rejects her deal, and votes for something else, e.g., soft Brexit, and May quits. The EU is almost giving a nudge.
I still think that for an MP wanting a soft brexit the safest thing to do is to vote for May's deal, then push for staying in the customs union during the implementation period. Especially if it looks like there is no solution to the Irish border issue.
-
I still think that for an MP wanting a soft brexit the safest thing to do is to vote for May's deal, then push for staying in the customs union during the implementation period. Especially if it looks like there is no solution to the Irish border issue.
Yes, that's possible. One problem is that if May goes, we may get a headbanger as leader. If she stays, she is the headbanger.
-
Yes, that's possible. One problem is that if May goes, we may get a headbanger as leader. If she stays, she is the headbanger.
I don't think she can last long even if her deal passes. Her right wing will revolt and a no confidence vote could pass.
-
I don't think she can last long even if her deal passes. Her right wing will revolt and a no confidence vote could pass.
A vote of no confidence in the government, or in her?
I don't think her own party are going to vote against their own government in a vote of no confidence in parliament. And there cannot be another vote of no confidence in May by her own party MPs until Dec as they tried and failed to win such a vote before xmas and a tory leader cannot face another vote of confidence for a year following victory in such a vote.
-
A vote of no confidence in the government, or in her?
I don't think her own party are going to vote against their own government in a vote of no confidence in parliament. And there cannot be another vote of no confidence in May by her own party MPs until Dec as they tried and failed to win such a vote before xmas and a tory leader cannot face another vote of confidence for a year following victory in such a vote.
I meant a no confidence vote against the government. The government only have a slim majority and could well lose the support of the DUP and any hard brexiters who see anything other than no-deal as betrayal.
-
I meant a no confidence vote against the government. The government only have a slim majority and could well lose the support of the DUP and any hard brexiters who see anything other than no-deal as betrayal.
Possibly but I would not be sure.
It is certainly possible that the DUP could jump ship on confidence, but whether that would be to voting against the government rather than abstaining isn't clear.
I think it unlikely that any current Tory MPs would vote against their own government in a confidence vote - to do so would mean instant expulsion from the party and if they were then party-less (or not confirmed as a candidate for another party) in the resulting general election they'd be out of parliament.
Not certain that the TIGGers would vote agains the government rather than abstain - they aren't fans of Corbyn in case you hadn't noticed ;)
-
No-one with anysense in the Tory pary (assuming such creaturesexist) would go fora leadership contest, though. Were a hard righter like Johnson, or, heaven forbid, Rees-Mogg, to get the poisoned chalice, many of the more moderate Tories would simply throw in the towel andquit, leaving what was left of the Tories with no chance of a continuing mandate to govern.
And, of course, the reverse also applies (i.e. were a more moderate MP to win, the right of the party would quit). A leadership campaign now, irrespective of the winner, would destroy the Tories, probably for a generation.
-
I meant a no confidence vote against the government. The government only have a slim majority and could well lose the support of the DUP and any hard brexiters who see anything other than no-deal as betrayal.
But a general election now might see a lot of Tory MPs losing their seats and the DUP losing their leverage. The government will not lose a vote of no confidence.
-
One of the interesting things happening is that the EU have bypassed May, as they have realized she is completely rigid, and hates parliament. So they are offering other choices, but whether or not MPs can utilize this - dunno. I notice that Peston is pessimistic about it.
-
It all seems pointless if the MPs aren't given free/unwhipped votes.
-
Nice to know that no-deal planning is going well:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/secret-cabinet-office-document-reveals-chaotic-planning-for-no-deal-brexit
Yet some still yearn for no-deal.
-
Nice to know that no-deal planning is going well:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/secret-cabinet-office-document-reveals-chaotic-planning-for-no-deal-brexit
Yet some still yearn for no-deal.
Given how well planning for a Deal Brexit is going, would you expect anything else?
-
And let us always remember that the WA is the easy bit.
-
Quite right... I've emailed my MP to explain why I voted leave and why I now think we should remain. Meanwhile, this petition to parliament is gaining about 200 signatures every 10 seconds!
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
Applause for Spud.
It's good that we can rethink and be prepared to change our minds.
-
4 million signatures now ...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/uri-geller-promises-to-stop-brexit-using-telepathy
I suppose we need a giggle where Brexit is concerned!
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/uri-geller-promises-to-stop-brexit-using-telepathy
So what if he fails...………
It's the thought that counts.
-
And let us always remember that the WA is the easy bit.
It should be easy but is confounded by too many other issues being brought in. They could separate out the parts:
A binding vote on the divorce agreement this essentially fixes whether we leave with a deal as opposed to remain or leave with no deal.
If the first part is passed, debates on amendments to the political declaration to be put to the EU.
-
Those in support of Brexit will soon start to complain when they discover what a disaster it will be.
-
I've had a few conversations with Leave voters, and they both used the 'Leave won, so we should leave' argument. I think this can be answered by the fact that the option to revoke article 50 is officially permitted. Just as a general election win can be overturned by a later election, so they can legitimately overturn the referendum result.
-
Those in support of Brexit will soon start to complain when they discover what a disaster it will be.
You can see how you thinking is completely unreasonable.
NO GOVERNMENT past or present would have allowed a BREXIT VOTE has such a think been possible.
Truth is that Brexit is best for our companies and our farmers and it makes us independent spending the billions on our people and country rather than the EU countries.
The cost of bail out is too much and the fact we have seen countries like Greece really struggle shows no countries can be unequally yoked.
I guess you follow the sheep to the slaughter house...
-
I've had a few conversations with Leave voters, and they both used the 'Leave won, so we should leave' argument. I think this can be answered by the fact that the option to revoke article 50 is officially permitted. Just as a general election win can be overturned by a later election, so they can legitimately overturn the referendum result.
They are different types of election because one changes from election to election.
This is a vote to leave something permenantly... it cannot be overturned without a change of law and making the United Kingdom a laughing stock and untrustworthy.
It is the best thing which can happen to our country and will save and lead the way for others to follow.
I am surprised at the number of people who are lying about what they voted. I know friends who failed to tell others in their circle they voted to leave. It is a fact a lot of those who have businesses want to leave because it opens up a wider market abroad for them.
This has more to do with holidays etc than common sense of what is best for the country as a whole.
We are British and want to keep our identity and our history as being just that.
-
So the indication is that Johnson will vote for May's deal as long as she resigns after it is ratified. No principles - just a dishonest shyster. It's either worth voting for or not. Making it all about his personal ambition shows what a dangerous and lying piece of stinking cockcheese he is
-
So the indication is that Johnson will vote for May's deal as long as she resigns after it is ratified. No principles - just a dishonest shyster. It's either worth voting for or not. Making it all about his personal ambition shows what a dangerous and lying piece of stinking cockcheese he is
Recent headlines about BloJo suggest he is concentrating on panache and wants a ''Sir Francis Drake at Bowling'' moment when the call comes for him to take the reigns.
You can almost hear him think ''Shall I be at a Party or on a beach or On the job''. Calling him stinking cockcheese is a slur on and insult to stinking cockcheese IMV.
-
You can see how you thinking is completely unreasonable.
NO GOVERNMENT past or present would have allowed a BREXIT VOTE has such a think been possible.
Really? You can look at the British government over the last five years and still believe it is competent enough not to cause disaster.
Truth is that Brexit is best for our companies and our farmers and it makes us independent spending the billions on our people and country rather than the EU countries.
What billions? You know the government has already spent something like five billion on Brexit. Companies are leaving the country in droves and the EU CAP is practically all that stops some farmers from going to the wall.
The cost of bail out is too much and the fact we have seen countries like Greece really struggle shows no countries can be unequally yoked.
Greece's troubles don't stem from being in the EU, the stem from being in the Euro.
I guess you follow the sheep to the slaughter house...
Slaughter has been postponed to April 12th.
-
So the indication is that Johnson will vote for May's deal as long as she resigns after it is ratified. No principles - just a dishonest shyster. It's either worth voting for or not. Making it all about his personal ambition shows what a dangerous and lying piece of stinking cockcheese he is
That encapsulates Brexit completely. If MPs had done what they think is right instead of looking out only for personal or party ambition, we wouldn't be here now. Margaret Beckett in 2017:
"Although I accept that decision and I will vote for the Bill, I fear that its consequences, both for our economy and our society, are potentially catastrophic"
Why? If you believe Brexit is going to be catastrophic, why vote for a bill enabling it? It's shear cowardice.
Boris Johnson is the worst of them though. It's always been about being Conservative Party leader and prime minister for him. It looks like he'll be leader of a smouldering pile of wreckage though.
-
You can see how you thinking is completely unreasonable.
NO GOVERNMENT past or present would have allowed a BREXIT VOTE has such a think been possible.
Truth is that Brexit is best for our companies and our farmers and it makes us independent spending the billions on our people and country rather than the EU countries.
The cost of bail out is too much and the fact we have seen countries like Greece really struggle shows no countries can be unequally yoked.
I guess you follow the sheep to the slaughter house...
In my opinion Brexit will ruin this country, we need to be in the EU. The UK is far too small to stand alone in the 21st century. We won't have billions to spend if it goes through. Britain has been built on incomers, most people in the UK have ancestors who weren't born here.
-
They are different types of election because one changes from election to election.
This is a vote to leave something permenantly... it cannot be overturned without a change of law
Agreed, but it's written into EU law that the UK can change its mind and stay in. While we're in the EU we have the right to change UK law and remain.
and making the United Kingdom a laughing stock and untrustworthy.
It is the best thing which can happen to our country and will save and lead the way for others to follow.
I am surprised at the number of people who are lying about what they voted. I know friends who failed to tell others in their circle they voted to leave. It is a fact a lot of those who have businesses want to leave because it opens up a wider market abroad for them.
This has more to do with holidays etc than common sense of what is best for the country as a whole.
We are British and want to keep our identity and our history as being just that.
Unfortunately the Leave side is divided into those who want "no-deal" (and thereafter a renegotiation of the trade agreement, where we end free movement but keep free trade... which is not possible... we would end up trading by WTO rules) and those who see that such a renegotiated deal is impossible and so want to stay in a customs union - a soft Brexit.
But those who want No deal would rather remain in than agree to the soft Brexit option. Those who want a soft Brexit will not agree to No deal.
So the idea that there are two camps is an illusion because there are three.
The majority of the British public voted to Leave, which means there are 17 million wanting either a hard or a soft Brexit, and 16 million wanting no Brexit.
If the 17 million are split into opposing groups then I suppose any referendum should be to decide which Leave group wins. But don't forget that most hard brexiters would rather Remain in than have a soft Brexit, and a lot of soft Brexiters would rather remain in than have a hard Brexit.
So analysis of the referendum results shows that Remain probably has the overall majority; it should be re-run using questions that reflect the three-way nature of the decision.
-
... The majority of the British public voted to Leave ...
No they did not. The majority of those voting voted to leave. In terms of the total electorate - which is the closest you could come to "the British public" - a minority voted to leave.
End of pedantic objection.
I do agree, however, with your analysis of the existing situation. I think that a further referendum is essential to sort the May mess out. Then there should be a Constitutional determination that referenda will never be used again by the government of the United Kingdom.
-
I expected to be corrected in some way, HH. Ta. I think actually a straight revoking of Article 50 would be better than a referendum, but while the very difficult woman is at the wheel and not for revoking or allowing indicative or free voting, it's looking like a clock-running-down session is going to again drive us all mad and give us colds, even with Spring here. She's saying deal or no deal (wigginhall has it, wigginhall has it).
-
Interesting comment on LBC by a DUP person yesterday: he said something about, I think it was the EU, preparing for "in-country checks" in a no deal situation (checks on goods away from the N Ireland border). He said if these are fine, why is there a backstop?
-
So the choices for the indicative votes are:
No Deal (B) – John Baron (Conservative)
Agrees to leave the EU on 12 April without a deal.
Common market 2.0 (D) – Nick Boles (Conservative)
Government joins the European Economic Area (EEA) through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and negotiates a temporary customs union until alternative arrangements can be found.
EFTA and EEA (H) – George Eustice (Conservative)
Remains in the European Economic Area (EEA), and applies to re-join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).
Declines to form a customs union but seeks “agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade”.
Customs union (J) – Ken Clarke (Conservative)
Enshrine the objective to form a customs union in primary legislation.
Labour’s alternative plan (K) – Jeremy Corbyn
Negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to secure Labour’s position, and pass these objectives into law.
Revocation to avoid no deal (L) – Joanna Cherry (SNP)
If the Withdrawal (Agreement) Bill has not been passed before exit day, the government will ask MPs to approve no deal. If this does not pass, the government will revoke Article 50.
Confirmatory public vote (M) – Margaret Beckett (Labour)
Government cannot implement or ratify the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration unless and until they have been approved in a referendum.
Contingent preferential arrangements (O) – Marcus Fysh (Conservative)
Malthouse Plan B: The UK makes its budgetary contributions to the EU to the end of 2020 and agrees with the EU a period of two years in which UK goods have full access to the EU.
As seen elsewhere B, D, H, J, K, L, M, O: 'Tough Scrabble hand'
-
And Bercow insisting that any MV3 must meet his test of change.
-
Margaret Beckett's speech (she's arguing for a yes to May's deal but only if then approved by a referendum) is worth watching. My view is that the exit referendum was so corrupted it should be re-run anyway, but it felt as though there was finally a grown up in the room. Very good.
-
And Bercow insisting that any MV3 must meet his test of change.
that man does seem to be very much puffed up with his own self-importance.
Now that my Alexa is accessing BBC Radio again, I have been listening to a bit more news and am hopeful that the deal on offer will get through.
-
Theresa May has promised Tory MPs she will stand down if they back her EU withdrawal deal.
She told backbench Tories: "I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to do what is right for our country and our party."
The PM said she knew that Tory MPs did not want her to lead the next phase of Brexit negotiations "and I won't stand in the way of that".
She did not name a departure date at a packed meeting of the 1922 committee.
-
Glad to see the back of the useless May: now we just need to see the back of this particular Tory government, and this Brexit madness.
-
So no indicative vote wins though two got more than May's MV 2, and Customs Union was only down by 8. I note Labour didn't support as a whip the revocation of Art 50 if we have no deal 4 days before exiting, despite supporting that unananimously in the Scottish Parliament today.
Damn you l'esprit de l'escalier, just realised that they should have held the indicative voted with big lights saying Yes, No, Abstain, and John Bercow, in the Mike Reid role (not the calypso racist) shouting 'Runaround Now!'
-
Looking like Labour abstentions on a second referendum meant it didn't pass despite being whipped for.
-
On the subject of the racist incompetent lying PM saying she is about to resign soon (just like she said she wasn't going to call a GE), what then means that you as an MP would vote for a deal you wouldn't before? If some form of MV3 does get through, and I don't know why Bercow gets such shite for putting a precedent here, then those changing their mind, including the dangerous slug, Johnson are in some cases voting to get a chance to be PM. One of the many things that May is responsible for is allowing Johnson to be in the tent pissing in, and pissing on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's chances of being released by keeping him to save the Tory party. A disgrace leading a band of disgraced chancers.
-
After the pure trash of the last few months, no-one with any sense could ever look up to that shambolic farce in Westminster again with anything other than total disdain for a pseudodemocratic anachronism.
-
While I am by some distance not a fan of WM, not sure it is just its anachronistic qualities that are at issue. I see this as far more about having a lying incompetent racist trying to save a party above country, and that party dealing with its own divisions above country.
-
The whole Brexit business is a terrible mess and getting worse with each day that passes. :o People slag off May, but I very much doubt Corbyn would do any better if he was PM.
-
The whole Brexit business is a terrible mess and getting worse with each day that passes. :o People slag off May, but I very much doubt Corbyn would do any better if he was PM.
Which is only relevant if they are saying he would do better than the incompetent lying racist pro tem PM
-
While I am by some distance not a fan of WM, not sure it is just its anachronistic qualities that are at issue. I see this as far more about having a lying incompetent racist trying to save a party above country, and that party dealing with its own divisions above country.
I completely share your sentimentsabout the leader mycountry happily rejected, NS; but she, like her bumbling oaf opposite - Corbyn -aee products of the shambolic farce of Westmibster, steeped in the insane unwritten code of conduct which administers it, andwilling to be part of the unwritten rigmarole that passes for a constitution which enshrines it.
-
The whole Brexit business is a terrible mess and getting worse with each day that passes. :o People slag off May, but I very much doubt Corbyn would do any better if he was PM.
Exactly - and those who do that constant dragging down of Theresa May do not have a valid candidate who would take over, sort out the Irish border problem, maintain a level-headed attitude, etc as far as I can see. I suppose they would then find out, surprise, surprise!!, that the next person would make some mistakes too. I do wonder how much misogyny is a part of the dislike of her.
-
Exactly - and those who do that constant dragging down of Theresa May do not have a valid candidate who would take over, sort out the Irish border problem, maintain a level-headed attitude, etc as far as I can see. I suppose they would then find out, surprise, surprise!!, that the next person would make some mistakes too. I do wonder how much misogyny is a part of the dislike of her.
No, Susan. I don't dislike her because she's a woman.
I despise her because she heads a government which has made the lives of many disabled, sick, poor and vulnerable people unbearable.
I dislike her because of her clinging on to a 'precious union' which only she and her partners in bribery from the medieval period in NI value.
And I cordially detest her for failing tolisten to the parliament my country elected. (I did say 'parliament', not 'party'or indeed 'government')
-
No, Susan. I don't dislike her because she's a woman.
I despise her because she heads a government which has made the lives of many disabled, sick, poor and vulnerable people unbearable.
I dislike her because of her clinging on to a 'precious union' which only she and her partners in bribery from the medieval period in NI value.
And I cordially detest her for failing tolisten to the parliament my country elected. (I did say 'parliament', not 'party'or indeed 'government')
Has the Labour party done any better? The Tories are far from perfect, but that goes for Labour too, especially until Corbyn.
-
She probably competes for being the worst PM ever, although Eden runs close. She lies consistently, she is a racist, and she didn't want Parliament involved in Brexit. And her ability to reach out to people is zero.
-
Ones opinions on the attributes or flaws of the two leaders notwithstanding, the fact is that they were each elected into their positions at difficult times and, not having been able to demonstrate convincing leadership, remain weak - which, imv, accounts for their inflexibility and inability to negotiate.
From the, pretty much expected, inconclusive results of the indicative votes it seems clear that if we are to leave with the deal rather than no-deal, Labour will have to vote for it. May should be (or have been) negotiating with Corbyn not her no-eyelids right wing.
Maybe she can still do this, one step removed, by putting Ken Clarke or Hammond in charge of organising such a deal.
-
While I am by some distance not a fan of WM, not sure it is just its anachronistic qualities that are at issue. I see this as far more about having a lying incompetent racist trying to save a party above country, and that party dealing with its own divisions above country.
That could apply to either main party leader.
-
Here's an interesting video in which James O'Brian interviews an ex Brexiteer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGwz-u5otzk
The part from 9 minutes on in which they talk about why moderate Brexiteers don't seem to get any exposure in the media is particularly interesting, in my view.
-
Exactly - and those who do that constant dragging down of Theresa May do not have a valid candidate who would take over, sort out the Irish border problem, maintain a level-headed attitude, etc as far as I can see. I suppose they would then find out, surprise, surprise!!, that the next person would make some mistakes too. I do wonder how much misogyny is a part of the dislike of her.
No misogyny needed. She is incompetent. Thatcher, hoever much I despised her, and I did, was not incompetent. But much, much worse than her incompetence are the issues that NS has been highlighting so well. It is almost like somepeople are willing to turn a blind eye to Grenfell and Windrush and "HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT"..
In light of the accusation of misogyny on the part of May's detractors, can I lob a wholly unsubstantiated one of racism back to her supporters, because you really must be exceptionally dim if you can't see the racism implicit in her actions.
-
Dan Hodges earlier (https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1111263520593772545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1111263520593772545&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flive%2Fuk-politics-parliaments-47696409)
Passing the WA would fulfill two objectives that both sides of the debate claim to desperately want. We would legally leave the EU. And we would remove the threat of a No Deal Brexit. It represents a sensible compromise. And as a result, MPs will obviously reject it.
Wish I hadn't suggested it now :(
Clearly putting the WA alone to a vote is brain dead unless guarantees are made on the participation and process to be used in the phase 2 negotiations. Labour will have no bargaining power or influence if they back the WA only without a deal on the PD implementation.
-
Exactly - and those who do that constant dragging down of Theresa May do not have a valid candidate who would take over, sort out the Irish border problem, maintain a level-headed attitude, etc as far as I can see. I suppose they would then find out, surprise, surprise!!, that the next person would make some mistakes too. I do wonder how much misogyny is a part of the dislike of her.
Last time I looked it isn't within my remit to choose the leader of the Tory party. Were I to have the power I wouldn't chose a lying incompetent racist who in putting saving her party above doing what's best for the country insisted on the red lines which created the backstop issue.
And no I am not being misogynist here, and unless you want to actually evidence that instead of throwing out an unfounded accusation, then it would seem sensible to withdraw it.
-
Good review of the Brexit history: the current crop of fuckwit Tories are shown to be a bunch of hapless amateurs (though we already knew that).
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-uk-lost-brexit-eu-negotiation/
-
Exactly - and those who do that constant dragging down of Theresa May do not have a valid candidate who would take over, sort out the Irish border problem, maintain a level-headed attitude, etc as far as I can see. I suppose they would then find out, surprise, surprise!!, that the next person would make some mistakes too. I do wonder how much misogyny is a part of the dislike of her.
I do wonder how much misogyny plays a part in Susan's defence of Theresa May. When people are highly critical of the performance or values displayed by male politicians, like those of that oaf Boris Johnson, Susan does not "wonder" about misandry. Maybe Susan thinks women are by nature inferior and should be given special protection from the criticism that men routinely face in their jobs?
-
I can see I should have maihntained my usual stance of staying well out of the political discussions.
However, today I am far more delighted about the following: I have just come home from day surgery (had to wait 2.1/2 hours for transport home otherwise I'd have been home earlier) having left here at 3:0 p.m. During that time I have had a lumpectomy under a local anaesthetic and feel absolutely fine and well - now that is absolutely amazing and fantastic, thanks to the NHS.
-
Dagenham! Utterly Dagenham!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/102858/new-royal-yacht-britannia-would-‘unite’-country-after
-
Not even close. What happens now who knows?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47752017
-
And..........
..... we're back where we started
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47752017
MPs reject the May deal again.
So I think we really are down to two choices:
No Deal
Withdraw article 50.
-
What a mess, STUFF BREXIT, we need to stay in the EU.
-
Call me a cock-eyed optimist but maybe just maybe after trying every possible permutation and failed enough MPs will finally do the right thing and put it to the country in another referendum, only this time with the checks and balances in place to avoid the utter corruption of the prior one. I'd have thought a commitment to another referendum would be good enough for the EU to agree the necessary extension.
-
Call me a cock-eyed optimist but maybe just maybe after trying every possible permutation and failed enough MPs will finally do the right thing and put it to the country in another referendum, only this time with the checks and balances in place to avoid the utter corruption of the prior one. I'd have thought a commitment to another referendum would be good enough for the EU to agree the necessary extension.
Stuff it. I say withdraw article 50.
-
Call me a cock-eyed optimist but maybe just maybe after trying every possible permutation and failed enough MPs will finally do the right thing and put it to the country in another referendum, only this time with the checks and balances in place to avoid the utter corruption of the prior one. I'd have thought a commitment to another referendum would be good enough for the EU to agree the necessary extension.
You're a cock-eyed optimist. I think it will be incredibly difficult to get a motion through approving s second referendum. EU commission saying No Deal is 'a likely scenario' and I fear that it is possibly the most likely scenario now.
-
You're a cock-eyed optimist. I think it will be incredibly difficult to get a motion through approving s second referendum. EU commission saying No Deal is 'a likely scenario' and I fear that it is possibly the most likely scenario now.
I'd have thought now would be the time for a No Confidence motion, since if it succeeds I'd imagine that the prospect of a GE would be grounds for the EU to suggest a longer extension of A50 in the hope that the eventual outcome would be no Brexit, and less disruption in the EU.
It is a mess - more that ever we need Malcolm Tucker.
-
jeremy,
Stuff it. I say withdraw article 50.
Trouble is, if that happened there's a large community who would object strongly to what they'd see as the negation of their democratic decision. The problem with explaining to them that they were conned with a prospectus with was fundamentally not true is that the people who did the lying - Gove, Davies, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage, Fox etc - are still there, and bizarrely too are taken seriously by a BBC in particular that seems to be incapable to holding them to account.
Take Raab for example. He resigned as Brexit secretary in protest again the deal that he'd negotiated. Then in December he said that the deal was worse than staying in. Then today he voted for it. Where the hell do you even begin with idiots like that?
-
I noticed that after the vote today May said, "I fear we're reaching the limits of the process in this house". Might be nothing, but could "in this house" be a hint that given a choice between and GE and second referendum that would at least leave the Tories in power she'd opt for the latter?
-
I noticed that after the vote today May said, "I fear we're reaching the limits of the process in this house". Might be nothing, but could "in this house" be a hint that given a choice between and GE and second referendum that would at least leave the Tories in power she'd opt for the latter?
Could be read in support of either. I note it is 'reaching' and not 'reached'
-
Just seen the quote from Chris Grayling - I don't suppose, having given a ferry contract to a company with no boats, he intended to be ironic:
'Parliament has to sort this out: we cannot simply leave the country drifting rudderless into I don’t know what'.
Priceless.
-
Has there actually been a third vote on the deal? If so, why did burko change his mind a bout allowing it?
-
Has there actually been a third vote on the deal? If so, why did burko change his mind a bout allowing it?
Because the govt changed it to just being a vote on the Withdrawal Agreement alone, and that was deemed significant enough change. It still lost.
-
Because the govt changed it to just being a vote on the Withdrawal Agreement alone, and that was deemed significant enough change. It still lost.
And if she was minded to give it a fourth go next week, following Bercow's dictum she'd have to devise a version at least "significantly" different from the one she tried today.
-
Marina Hyde on the Tory contenders
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/29/tory-leadership-contest-brexit-conservative-party?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
thanks for above replies.
-
jeremy,
Trouble is, if that happened there's a large community who would object strongly to what they'd see as the negation of their democratic decision.
The community that wants to Remain is pretty large too and many of them see Brexit as a negation of their EU rights.
There are two options left given the deadline: exit with no deal. Remain. Which are you going to choose?
-
...
There are two options left given the deadline: exit with no deal. Remain. Which are you going to choose?
Not sure how you figure that... most commentators think that all the options remain on the table unchanged except, possibly, another short extension - that card already having been played once.
Once thing is clear though, whatever the conclusion of the further indicative votes next week: The Tories cannot be trusted with a mere change to the PD, adding a CU say, as May or a new PM could drop it during the implementation period.
-
I wonder how long it will be before the Brexit zealots realise that:
a) Brexit was a bad idea to start with, and an idea was all it was back in 2016.
b) The Maybot and her attempt to manage her party have demonstrated that with a sufficient level of incompetence a bad idea can be easily converted into a shambolic mess.
c) A good idea, in light of the current situation, would be to realise that the game is now up (and is a farce anyway), so A50 should be rescinded and the subject should never ever be raised again.
-
Many of those voting leave will simply see this as an attempt to defeat their vote. I don't see that the incompetence of the govt will be anything that convinces them. I would like to remain but I can't see any easy way out of leaving. If we were to revoke, I would expect that we would see the rise of a party to the right of the Tories.
-
It would probably be difficult for politicians to go direct to revoke as things stand, where those in favour of revoking would probably prefer that the electorate told them so in a 2nd referendum based, this time, on more than just an idea - and if we ever get to that point then making the outcome binding this time might be a better idea.
One aspect of the current situation is that Brexit has now become toxic and divisive, though I suspect given the history of discontent in the Tory party discontent was unavoidable, and that no matter what happens next the discontent will remain.
-
A 2nd referendum has its own problems. I just don't see it as being something likely to go well. I feel we have painted ourselves into a corner which is filled with poisonous snakes.
-
Just in case anyone missed it in the other news but Vote Leave withdrew its appeal against its illegal funding fine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47755611
-
Seeing the story this morning regarding Dominic Grieve it seems to me that the Tories have lurched to the right and that people in those areas where support for the Tories is endemic, and where UKIP had a brief flurry during their 15 minutes of fame, have too: and when they talk about 'the country' they mean the bits that they inhabit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/30/dominic-grieve-loses-confidence-vote-held-by-beaconsfield-tories
-
I think that the best solution now would be to revoke Article 50 but follow this up with what David Cameron should have done following the Scottish independence referendum: establish a Royal Commission (or similar) to examine the state and nature and condition of the United Kingdom which includes recommendations for constitutional arrangements appropriate to the twenty first century. This should include relationships with supranational bodies and a recognition of the need to operate effectively in an increasingly globalised economy.
Among is considerations should be a grown-up parliamentary system and a suitable use for a redundant World Heritage site on the northern bank of the Thames opposite St Thomas' Hospital.
-
Not sure how you figure that... most commentators think that all the options remain on the table unchanged except, possibly, another short extension - that card already having been played once.
Once thing is clear though, whatever the conclusion of the further indicative votes next week: The Tories cannot be trusted with a mere change to the PD, adding a CU say, as May or a new PM could drop it during the implementation period.
Everything except No Deal and Withdraw Article 50 requires us to ask the EU for another extension. As you’d say, another short extension will not fly.
-
Gordon Brown's suggestion of a period of public consultation, along the lines that Ireland did, seems worth considering. Most of the 'we should just get out' voxpops I've seen come from areas of the UK that voted Leave and give the impression that the electorate elsewhere (such as here in Scotland) are similarly inclined - we aren't, but we don't get heard as much.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/uk-year-extension-brexit-take-back-control
-
Gordon Brown's suggestion of a period of public consultation, along the lines that Ireland did, seems worth considering. Most of the 'we should just get out' voxpops I've seen come from areas of the UK that voted Leave and give the impression that the electorate elsewhere (such as here in Scotland) are similarly inclined - we aren't, but we don't get heard as much.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/uk-year-extension-brexit-take-back-control
It suffers from the same problem as all the other “solutions” except no deal and cancel. You need to get EU support to do it.
By the way, please stop propagating the myth that regions voted one way or the other. Regions didn’t vote at all. By claiming they did, you are erasing over a million people in Scotland and thirteen million people in England all of whose votes counted exactly as much as yours did.
-
Everything except No Deal and Withdraw Article 50 requires us to ask the EU for another extension. As you’d say, another short extension will not fly.
And asking for a further extension is a choice so when you said there were only 2 choices left you were factually wrong. Perhaps you meant to say there were only 2 choices under our control but you didn't.
-
I think that the best solution now would be to revoke Article 50 but follow this up with what David Cameron should have done following the Scottish independence referendum: establish a Royal Commission (or similar) to examine the state and nature and condition of the United Kingdom which includes recommendations for constitutional arrangements appropriate to the twenty first century. This should include relationships with supranational bodies and a recognition of the need to operate effectively in an increasingly globalised economy.
Among is considerations should be a grown-up parliamentary system and a suitable use for a redundant World Heritage site on the northern bank of the Thames opposite St Thomas' Hospital.
Well, yes, but that choice was in the other side of the room that we just painted ourselves into the corner of with our collection of poisonous snakes.
-
Seeing the story this morning regarding Dominic Grieve it seems to me that the Tories have lurched to the right and that people in those areas where support for the Tories is endemic, and where UKIP had a brief flurry during their 15 minutes of fame, have too: and when they talk about 'the country' they mean the bits that they inhabit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/30/dominic-grieve-loses-confidence-vote-held-by-beaconsfield-tories
It is not Beaconsfield specifically, it is the Tory party in this instance. It is said that this has become such a shibboleth that they would deselect achieve who is a principled honest Tory. It may be may be just that I have a stinking cold but we seem to be in incredibly dark times. The appearance yesterday of 2 sectarian flute (And they were flute bands not pipe bands, Channel 4) bands - the DUP's present to May in return for the billions - is just depressing. One of them, the Livingston True Blues Flute Band, had posted that they were getting a speech and some food from Tim Martin of Weatherspoon, and he was only Tim (one of our many slang names for Roman Catholics) they were going to be nice to.
There has been a lot of talk about the Ulsterisation of Scottish politics in the last couple of years, which for me has generally ignored that certainly on the West of Scotland, it always has been a bit. It would be a great danger though if this were to spread to the Brexit debate.
-
NS,
You're a cock-eyed optimist. I think it will be incredibly difficult to get a motion through approving s second referendum. EU commission saying No Deal is 'a likely scenario' and I fear that it is possibly the most likely scenario now.
Sorry - missed this before. I think you're right inasmuch as getting approval for a second referendum would be hard (though I think that's what should happen because the first one was so corrupted, and because parliament can't reach a decision of its own) but what's interesting about the permanent customs union option is that some tories who may be sympathetic are saying they can't back it because it wasn't in their manifesto and it's not what the 17m odd voted for. The second bit is bollocks of course - part of the cleverness of the wording of the referendum is that no matter which of the multiple leave options are put forward the proponent will say "and that honours the result of the referendum" as if in some way each can claim that all 17m wanted each possible model. That can't be though - some would be appalled at the idea of leaving the customs union, some would be appalled at retaining it etc.
As for the manifesto part though, maybe that's a way through - pick an option and put it back to the country for a vote on the basis that it wasn't in the manifesto so they'd need a new mandate. Perhaps if parliament skinnied down to, say, May's deal or customs union (both subject to public ratification) and voted on a winner, then the referendum would be:
Remain vs
Parliament choice exit vs
No deal exit
With first and second choice options.
If any of them got more than 50%, that'd be the winner. If none of them did though, then you'd eliminate the third place one and go with the majority cast for either of the remaining two.
-
It is not Beaconsfield specifically, it is the Tory party in this instance. It is said that this has become such a shibboleth that they would deselect achieve who is a principled honest Tory. It may be may be just that I have a stinking cold but we seem to be in incredibly dark times.
I don't know whether - due to advancing senility, perhaps - my perceptions are likely to be shared and accurate, but I have the feeling, suspicion, that there are aspects of the world in which Conservatives exist that are not entirely dissimilar to those existing in Germany in the late 1920s/early 1930s. A sharp move to the right and increasing levels of intolerance and even aggression.
Please tell me that i am wrong.
-
HH,
I don't know whether - due to advancing senility, perhaps - my perceptions are likely to be shared and accurate, but I have the feeling, suspicion, that there are aspects of the world in which Conservatives exist that are not entirely dissimilar to those existing in Germany in the late 1920s/early 1930s. A sharp move to the right and increasing levels of intolerance and even aggression.
Please tell me that i am wrong.
I think it's dangerous to take that too far, but May's disgusting "hostile environment" policy, her "deport and hear appeals afterwards" statement, the Windrush episode etc seem to me to at least be giving licence to the neo-fascists. Same thing in the US by the way with Trump's equivocation about the hard right's actions there. The reason UKIP's traction fell away for a while was that the tories have essentially become UKIP in all but name, so UKIP had to reinvent itself as even more extreme - hence the speeches in Parliament Square yesterday.
-
In reply both to HH, and bhs, I agree that bluehillside's idea has appeal but I also feel HH's sense of dread and hence any such solution will result in some ongoing civil and fucking uncivil unrest. I note that even in an entirely minor thing that trains in St Pancras have been disrupted by some wazzock apparently draped in a St George Cross walking on the rails and then somehow ending up in the roof. As I have mentioned before, where I live I regularly have weekends disrupted by the flute bands with their followers often drunk at 9 in the morning. I fear we might be about to live in a sort of constant Orange walk, and in the end we will all want to be drunk at 9 in the morning.
-
Brandon Lewis - The UK Tory party chairman has attacked the Labour party by their vote yesterday for ensuring no Brexit.
Meanwhile the Scottish Tories have attacked the SNP for their votes yesterday for ensuring a No Deal Brexit.
Mmm...
-
Everything except No Deal and Withdraw Article 50 requires us to ask the EU for another extension. As you’d say, another short extension will not fly.
I don't think asking the EU27 for a long extension is a problem. The decisions they have made so far have been entirely reasonable, so can be expected to allow an extension if the UK proposes a sensible plan to get to a conclusion. eg. resignation of May and a general election.
-
Good blog
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-horror-show-continues.html?m=1
-
I don't think asking the EU27 for a long extension is a problem. The decisions they have made so far have been entirely reasonable, so can be expected to allow an extension if the UK proposes a sensible plan to get to a conclusion. eg. resignation of May and a general election.
Less sanguine about this than you. It takes 1 of the 27 to veto, and I can see, and to extent fear that happening. If it were to happen though then I can see an immediate revocation of Article 50.
I also think that a general election and/or May going may not feel enough of a solution for some of the 27, and I think they might be right. Add to that, the need to hold European elections which I suspect will be entirely poisonous, and will be seen as a de facto rerun of the referendum, even though the result will be effectively meaningless.
-
NS,
Good blog
http://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-horror-show-continues.html?m=1
Sure is. Thanks for posting.
-
Less sanguine about this than you. It takes 1 of the 27 to veto, and I can see, and to extent fear that happening. If it were to happen though then I can see an immediate revocation of Article 50.
I also think that a general election and/or May going may not feel enough of a solution for some of the 27, and I think they might be right. Add to that, the need to hold European elections which I suspect will be entirely poisonous, and will be seen as a de facto rerun of the referendum, even though the result will be effectively meaningless.
Generally agree, nothing is certain except, of-course, that unless we request an extension there will not be one.
-
Perhaps it would help if the EU refused an extension, thus giving May the option of leave without a deal or revoke. They may be waiting for a sign that she would revoke.
-
Conversely, staying adamant that she won't revoke would be a good tactic to keep the EU open to extensions.
-
Perhaps it would help if the EU refused an extension, thus giving May the option of leave without a deal or revoke. They may be waiting for a sign that she would revoke.
As already covered it doesn't take the EU, it just takes 1 member of the EU and I suspect that if they did then Article 50 would be revoked. It seems more likely to me that would be a parliament decision rather than May.
-
Conversely, staying adamant that she won't revoke would be a good tactic to keep the EU open to extensions.
It isn't going to be up to her.
-
As already covered it doesn't take the EU, it just takes 1 member of the EU and I suspect that if they did then Article 50 would be revoked. It seems more likely to me that would be a parliament decision rather than May.
I think so too - no deal is bad news for the EU, so by refusing an extension so as to encourage A50 being rescinded presumably protects them from disruption. Of course, if it happens that way the political fallout would extreme both domestically and between the UK and the EU.
There doesn't seem to be an option that isn't a bad option.
-
Gordon,
There doesn't seem to be an option that isn't a bad option.
There never was. It's notable that even the sunlit uplands liars in chief seem to have reverted more to a "we can salvage something from this, just keep the faith" mode.
-
Gordon,
There never was. It's notable that even the sunlit uplands liars in chief seem to have reverted more to a "we can salvage something from this, just keep the faith" mode.
I think the options have all got worse though because of the way that it has been handled.
-
Unfortunately behind a paywall but within my 2 free articles a week, I often read Hugo Rifkind's Saturday column. This is very funny.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/804f18e4-525f-11e9-ab3c-aad12815c817
-
Let us hope these two are damaged by this: I'd imagine, in the current climate, they won't be able to hide.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/30/gove-johnson-under-fire-vote-leave-fine-appeal-dropped
-
Dominic Grieve.....at last a tory I could follow but alas, apparently one has to be UKIP to be a tory these days.
-
Dominic Grieve.....at last a tory I could follow but alas, apparently one has to be UKIP to be a tory these days.
While I think Grieve is an honest and honourable man, would you follow him to vote for disability checks, or voting against climate change legislation? But given that the person leading the campaign for the vote to deselect him stood against him for UKIP, your second point may well be valid, as long as one adds in willing to lie about stuff.
-
I think so too - no deal is bad news for the EU, so by refusing an extension so as to encourage A50 being rescinded presumably protects them from disruption. Of course, if it happens that way the political fallout would extreme both domestically and between the UK and the EU.
There doesn't seem to be an option that isn't a bad option.
Revoke is not a bad option.
-
Revoke is not a bad option.
True - though it would be contentious for a while.
-
Revoke is not a bad option.
In terms of what you want, or I want, maybe not. In terms of what might happen, yes, it's a shite option. I think it will provoke violence, I think it will lead to the rise of a substantial right wing movement. It may be the least worst option, who knows, but the idea that it isn't going to be bad seems pie in the sky. Watch the stuff outside parliament yesterday and tell me that when that happens to the power of Greyskull, it isn't bad.
-
I suppose that is where a 2nd referendum could come in handy: if the current argument is the 'will of the people' then if the result is to revoke following a 2nd referendum then that argument still applies and democracy isn't rationed, and might be preferable to the HoC doing it via a vote - even so, as NS says, it could get nasty.
-
The deselection of Grieve is going to be a joy compared to any part of R2
-
Sunday Times talking about Queen getting to involved possibly to stop a 'soft' Brexit. As republican as I am, I don't think she is that anything other than too clever to get involved.
-
I suppose that is where a 2nd referendum could come in handy: if the current argument is the 'will of the people' then if the result is to revoke following a 2nd referendum then that argument still applies and democracy isn't rationed, and might be preferable to the HoC doing it via a vote - even so, as NS says, it could get nasty.
Ofcourse, if Westminster DO sanction asecondreferendum, they must therefore notwithold a secondScottish referendum down the line.
After all, theyare not hypocrites,are they....?
-
Ofcourse, if Westminster DO sanction asecondreferendum, they must therefore notwithold a secondScottish referendum down the line.
After all, theyare not hypocrites,are they....?
That could cut both ways though. If the SNP were to vote for a 2nd referendum on a deal, then any Indyref should then arguably be followed by a vote on any negotiated deal.
-
That could cut both ways though. If the SNP were to vote for a 2nd referendum on a deal, then any Indyref should then arguably be followed by a vote on any negotiated deal.
I'm not upon SNP policy, but from what's left of my memory, that was the planway back in 1986-ish. I don't think it's beenchanged.
-
I'm not upon SNP policy, but from what's left of my memory, that was the planway back in 1986-ish. I don't think it's beenchanged.
It wasn't at the last referendum.
-
Ofcourse, if Westminster DO sanction asecondreferendum, they must therefore notwithold a secondScottish referendum down the line.
After all, theyare not hypocrites,are they....?
Once this whole sorry mess is over, I think there should be a law that the government will never hold another referendum ever again. We elect the government to govern, not to abdicate its responsibilities.
-
Once this whole sorry mess is over, I think there should be a law that the government will never hold another referendum ever again. We elect the government to govern, not to abdicate its responsibilities.
So if the SNP were to put a vote for independence in the Scottish Parliament and it passed then they could declare independence?
-
Just musing about what might happen. May has few options now, all of which she hates. If she kowtows to the tory headbangers and tries to crash out she’ll probably face a vote of no confidence from her own party, so risks defenestration; she won’t go to a second referendum because, for whatever reason, she’s so heavily invested in refusing it that the climb down would be unacceptable; the GE option terrifies her because she knows she’d wipe out her own party probably for a generation, and in any case risking Corbyn getting in is existentially abhorrent.
As for Labour, Corbyn’s godawfulness both in general and specifically on Brexit means he might win a GE if there is one, but on a historically low turnout as a huge swathe of the country would feel politically homeless and would stay at home.
So what about the breakaway group that’s just formed a political party (Change UK)? Perhaps if they could run candidates in every constituency specifically on a people’s vote ticket they would offer a home for the groundswell of disaffected voters who want nothing to do with Brexit, so would have a place to register that.
Pretty far-fetched right, except traditional politics is now so fundamentally broken that the realignment has to happen somehow, and essentially Macron did just that in France when he came from nowhere to overthrow the long-established order.
Or am I losing it here?
-
6 million signatories to "Revoke Article 50" now, far and away the most signed petition ever, more than 10 times the number for it nearest rival, "Leave the EU without a Deal" .
Shame the government only ever pays lip service to these petitions; if they were well organised with protections from abuse they could be a real component of a democratic voting system. All that walking down to polling stations on polling day is so last century.
-
Is there any MP who really believes that leaving with no deal is the best thing to do? Surely not? Wil someone please tell me it isn't so.
-
So if the SNP were to put a vote for independence in the Scottish Parliament and it passed then they could declare independence?
I said there should be a law against more referendums. What part of that was hard for you to understand?
-
she’ll probably face a vote of no confidence from her own party,
Not possible until the end of the year. Tory Party rules say she cannot be challenged again for the leadership for a year after the last challenge.
-
I said there should be a law against more referendums. What part of that was hard for you to understand?
Nothing. Can you answer the question?
-
Just the ticket ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/01/proposal-for-healing-tsar-to-reunite-britain-after-brexit
-
Once this whole sorry mess is over, I think there should be a law that the government will never hold another referendum ever again. We elect the government to govern, not to abdicate its responsibilities.
Thing is, though, Holyrood COULD -theoretically- holdareferendumwithout Westminsterconsent.
My basis for this goes back to the Tory privatisation of water. Long before the Scottish Parliament was recreated,the then StrathclydeRegional council held a referendumon whether their populace agreed with this.
Needless to say, we did not....and Westminster heeded the result, and, to this day,Scottish Water remains publicly owned.
That's a precedent for any putative future vote without Westminster consent.
Were such a referendum to be conducted freely and fairly, Westminster could not ignore the outcome.
-
NS,
Just the ticket ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/01/proposal-for-healing-tsar-to-reunite-britain-after-brexit
What's today's date again?
-
NS,
What's today's date again?
Hence the winking smiley
-
Just the ticket ;)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/01/proposal-for-healing-tsar-to-reunite-britain-after-brexit
How about Ivan the Terrible?
-
Nothing. Can you answer the question?
It's pretty obvious. If there is a law against referendums, there would be no Scottish independence referendum. That's what it means to have a law against something: you are not allowed to do it anymore.
-
Thing is, though, Holyrood COULD -theoretically- holdareferendumwithout Westminsterconsent.
Not if there was a law against it.
-
Not if there was a law against it.
Would that be The Wheredoyouthinkyou'regoingifwe'reupshitcreekyoulotarejollywellgoingtostayinitwithus Act of 2019?
-
It's pretty obvious. If there is a law against referendums, there would be no Scottish independence referendum. That's what it means to have a law against something: you are not allowed to do it anymore.
I didn't say referendum, by vote I meant one in the parliament, apologies for being unclear.
-
Vlad's been at the wine gums again ,,,
-
I didn't say referendum, by vote I meant one in the parliament, apologies for being unclear.
No. It’s me that should apologize as I misread your post. You clearly did say “vote in parliament”.
To answer the question you did ask, I am not a scholar of the British constitution but I would be surprised if the modern Scottish Parliament has the authority to repeal the Acts of Union. They could certainly have a vote for independence, but they would have to then convince the British parliament to go along with it. I think it would take many years of campaigning and debate, but I think you are more likely to end up with a solution that benefits everybody than by taking a snapshot of the opinions of people who may be swayed by nationalistic bias and and wishful thinking (this applies to both sides, by the way).
-
No. It’s me that should apologize as I misread your post. You clearly did say “vote in parliament”.
To answer the question you did ask, I am not a scholar of the British constitution but I would be surprised if the modern Scottish Parliament has the authority to repeal the Acts of Union. They could certainly have a vote for independence, but they would have to then convince the British parliament to go along with it. I think it would take many years of campaigning and debate, but I think you are more likely to end up with a solution that benefits everybody than by taking a snapshot of the opinions of people who may be swayed by nationalistic bias and and wishful thinking (this applies to both sides, by the way).
No problem. The issue I see with that then it would be problematic in terms of the UN ideas of self determination. If the decision is controlled by the overall state then the Baltic States could have been refused by the USSR.
-
So presumably all the 'Leave means leave' gang would be happy with a soft Brexit? If their sole purpose is to leave, it shouldn't matter what kind of deal we have.
-
Robert Buckland saying there was an attempted coup tonight and that 'a customs Union is not Brexit' ... Well sorry but it is, Brexit means Leave the EU, whether or not we stay in customs Union
-
The UK is beginning to look as stupid the US with that idiot, Trump, in charge. I think at the very least we should have another referendum, now people have a clearer idea how damaging Brexit is likely to be for this country.
-
The UK is beginning to look as stupid the US with that idiot, Trump, in charge. I think at the very least we should have another referendum, now people have a clearer idea how damaging Brexit is likely to be for this country.
Given the impasse istm that the UK should request an extension now, rather than continuing to debate options none of which are likely to pass with a significant majority given the inability of the two main parties to compromise or bargain. Then we should reassess how to resolve the issues.
First off there will be EU elections. The remain and soft-brexit groups should (in my dreams) form a coalition to fight these under a single banner making a case for Europe or ways to cooperate in the future if we leave.
-
The UK is beginning to look as stupid the US with that idiot, Trump, in charge.
"Beginning"? I think that ship has already sailed.
-
No problem. The issue I see with that then it would be problematic in terms of the UN ideas of self determination.
Well the UN ideas on self determination are a bit problematic in themselves. What defines a "people"? If the population of Scotland is a people and they wish to secede from the UK, shouldn't some of the peoples within Scotland be allowed to stay in the UK if they wish? For example, in the last referendum, the votes in both Scottish Borders and Orkney went two thirds to staying in the UK.
Wouldn't putting the UN principle of self determination into British law lead to the possibility of somewhere like Yorkshire or London being able to secede?
If the decision is controlled by the overall state then the Baltic States could have been refused by the USSR.
The USSR could have refused anyway. It wasn't the UN principle of self determination that made them let the Baltic states become independent.
-
for those who would like another referendum: how would you feel if you had felt sstrongly that (a)we should leave,(b) had a larger percentage of those who voted than the remainers and (c) haven't changed their minds, however unfortunate that appears to be to me?
-
Hi Susan,
for those who would like another referendum: how would you feel if you had felt sstrongly that (a)we should leave,(b) had a larger percentage of those who voted than the remainers and (c) haven't changed their minds, however unfortunate that appears to be to me?
Depends how it was done. If it was just announced, probably pretty unhappy. If the rationale was explained though, I’d have nowhere to go. Leaving aside the sandwich of 30-odd years before of the Telegraph, Sun, Express and Mail tilling the soil by lying about the EU and the inability afterwards of Parliament to find an answer, the filling is the 2016 referendum itself. It was corrupt in my view for three reasons:
1. None of the promises made by the loudest and most influential proponents were true.
2. It was illegally funded, with some £7m of campaign funds still unaccounted for.
3. The question was so vague that no matter what solution is proposed (hard exit, customs union, Norway, Canada etc etc) the proponent will claim that that’s what the 17-odd million wanted so it honours their wished. Manifestly this cannot be true.
If this stuff happened in a parish council meeting or a cricket match it’d be voided and run again. Yet somehow May and others seem determined to peddle the nonsense of “honouring the referendum” as if it was a legitimate democratic exercise.
It wasn’t and I find it hard see how anyone can “bring the country together” when the side that lost believes it was cheated.
-
for those who would like another referendum: how would you feel if you had felt sstrongly that (a)we should leave,(b) had a larger percentage of those who voted than the remainers and (c) haven't changed their minds, however unfortunate that appears to be to me?
I'd explain that what was asked in 2016 was just an idea, and that therefore those voting for Brexit were essentially voting in ignorance, and we now know that not only is Brexit imprecise, that attempts to make it happen with a coherent policy have been shamboli, and that in any form Brexit will be disadvantageous.
So if people are pissed off should Article 50 be pulled with or without a referendum because it prevents catastrophe they should perhaps vent their fury at the Tory party and relevant others for creating at situation that a) they hadn't planned for, and b) they can't manage. That names like Johnson, Farage and Fox are just some of the people inflicting this disaster on us should worry those who still think Brexit is a good idea.
Democracy isn't rationed and can reasonably be reapplied should circumstances require it - and they certainly require it now.
-
Mmm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-train-railway-line-cambridgeshire-nottinghamshire-police-a8851181.html
-
NS,
Mmm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-train-railway-line-cambridgeshire-nottinghamshire-police-a8851181.html
"British Transport Police (BTP) said short-circuiting devices were left on tracks near Yaxley, Cambridgeshire..."
"Tommy Robinson"'s real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
Just thought I'd mention it.
-
bluehillside and Gordon
I agree with your replies, but I don't think a large number of those who voted leave would be happy with any explanations. When I hear some of the callers (only on five Live because I can only stand a very limited number even there of that!) I hear the bigoted ], blinkered opinions of those who would be impervious to any rational reasoning. And I sigh deeply and switch off.
-
NS,
"British Transport Police (BTP) said short-circuiting devices were left on tracks near Yaxley, Cambridgeshire..."
"Tommy Robinson"'s real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
Just thought I'd mention it.
Do you think it might be a false flag operation then?
-
jeremy,
Do you think it might be a false flag operation then?
No idea. Might be a message of some sort, might be just a co-incidence.
-
jeremy,
No idea. Might be a message of some sort, might be just a co-incidence.
It strikes me as odd that all the violence or threatened violence associated with Brexit seems to be associated with Brexiteers. Are there no Remainers prepared to blockade a motorway or derail trains? People have advanced arguments that we need to go through with Brexit because there might be violence otherwise. Nobody seems to be claiming that, if we do go through with Brexit, Remainers will be rioting in the streets.
I wonder why it is. Why is it that only Brexiteers seem to be associated with disruptive protests a la French farmers? What’s wrong with us Remainers?
-
jeremy,
It strikes me as odd that all the violence or threatened violence associated with Brexit seems to be associated with Brexiteers. Are there no Remainers prepared to blockade a motorway or derail trains? People have advanced arguments that we need to go through with Brexit because there might be violence otherwise. Nobody seems to be claiming that, if we do go through with Brexit, Remainers will be rioting in the streets.
I wonder why it is. Why is it that only Brexiteers seem to be associated with disruptive protests a la French farmers? What’s wrong with us Remainers?
Because the remainers are far too lovely for all that unpleasantness. The Peoples' Vote march was all mumsy, middle England, swapping apple pie recipes, just terribly nice. The angriest they'd ever get would be tutting if someone parked over the dividing line in the Waitrose carpark. A week later the the Brexiters were all Doc Martens, marching pipe bands, buzz cuts, women dressed as Boadicea, stale beer and temper tantrums. Different demographics.
-
jeremy,
Because the remainers are far too lovely for all that unpleasantness. The Peoples' Vote march was all mumsy, middle England, swapping apple pie recipes, just terribly nice. The angriest they'd ever get would be tutting if someone parked over the dividing line in the Waitrose carpark. A week later the the Brexiters were all Doc Martens, marching pipe bands, buzz cuts, women dressed as Boadicea, stale beer and temper tantrums. Different demographics.
Perhaps one of the reason 17.4 m people might be angry is being stereotyped?
-
When one thought the Brexit nonsense couldn't get any crazier, it just has, with May preparing to lick Corbyn's bottom! :o
-
And as a fan of Doc Martens, buzz cuts and the EU it is an obviously incorrect observation.
-
When one thought the Brexit nonsense couldn't get any crazier, it just has, with May preparing to lick Corbyn's bottom! :o
No actually. This is what she should have done a lot earlier, tried to build a consensus.
I won't even go into your juvenile playground statement. ::)
-
No actually. This is what she should have done a lot earlier, tried to build a consensus.
I won't even go into your juvenile playground statement. ::)
YAH BOO SUCKS. Corbyn is a leaver, in case you hadn't worked that one out.
-
YAH BOO SUCKS. Corbyn is a leaver, in case you hadn't worked that one out.
Yes I had worked that out and your point is? (Although I think unenthusiastic remainer more accurately sums up his position)
So even if he is a leaver it is not in the same way that Boris or Rees Mogg are. I'll take Corbyn's version over theirs any day.
Had you worked that out?
-
Yes I had worked that out and your point is? (Although I think unenthusiastic remainer more accurately sums up his position)
So even if he is a leaver it is not in the same way that Boris or Rees Mogg are. I'll take Corbyn's version over theirs any day.
Had you worked that out?
You think Corbyn is the BIG CHEESE, I had worked that one out. If he ever becomes PM it would be interesting to see how he copes.
-
You think Corbyn is the BIG CHEESE, I had worked that one out. If he ever becomes PM it would be interesting to see how he copes.
I don't. I'm just not as prejudiced as you.
-
When one thought the Brexit nonsense couldn't get any crazier, it just has, with May preparing to lick Corbyn's bottom! :o
You mean negotiate with the opposition in a bid to sort out what's best for the country rather than trying to save her party above the country as she has done since she became leader, surely?
And it's actually even now set up as a trap so that Labour gets some of the blame for her partisan incompetence - not that they need many lessons on that.
-
jeremy,
Because the remainers are far too lovely for all that unpleasantness. The Peoples' Vote march was all mumsy, middle England, swapping apple pie recipes, just terribly nice. The angriest they'd ever get would be tutting if someone parked over the dividing line in the Waitrose carpark. A week later the the Brexiters were all Doc Martens, marching pipe bands, buzz cuts, women dressed as Boadicea, stale beer and temper tantrums. Different demographics.
'Marching pipe bands'?
Haud the bus.......
The only bands I heard were two branches of the flute tootling Orange walk from the Orange belt of Scotland doing their caveman shuffle for the benefit of Londoners.
Now you see what WE have to put up with........
-
Does Brexit mean leaving all of the EU's institutions, as Rees-Mogg says?
And what is the correct way to say it? Bregzit, Breksit or Brrexit (as per bbc news readers)?
-
You mean negotiate with the opposition in a bid to sort out what's best for the country rather than trying to save her party above the country as she has done since she became leader, surely?
And it's actually even now set up as a trap so that Labour gets some of the blame for her partisan incompetence - not that they need many lessons on that.
It is more likely May is going to be thrown to the wolves for trying to negotiate with Corbyn.
-
It is more likely May is going to be thrown to the wolves for trying to negotiate with Corbyn.
They could be a strong team, with her ademic qualifications and his gardening skills :)
-
Well, she did at least finish her degree, that's more than Corbyn managed to do ,,,
-
And what is the correct way to say it? Bregzit, Breksit or Brrexit (as per bbc news readers)?
Brexshit?
-
Brexshit?
Exponents, Brexshiteers, they're all a bit potty!
-
This strikes true in many ways
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/brexit-westminster-mental-health-crying-toilets/
-
Too wet for Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47819517/house-of-commons-finishes-sitting-due-to-water-leak
-
God must be fed up with Brexit too, and sent a mini Noah's Flood. ;D
-
Some suggestions that May will use talks with Labour to wind the clock down. Sir, what an infamous suggestion!
-
Wiggs,
Some suggestions that May will use talks with Labour to wind the clock down. Sir, what an infamous suggestion!
Heaven forfend! Assuming it gets through the HoL though, won't she now be forced to seek an extension rather than allow the UK to crash out?
-
My daughter told me this Brexit joke just now.
The year is 2338, the House of Commons is having its weekly vote on May's Brexit agreement, but no one knows how this tradition started. ;D
-
...A little light relief for Friday.... https://uokhun.uk/2019/04/02/idiot-tries-burning-eu-flag-but-it-doesnt-burn-because-it-was-made-to-eu-safety-regulations/?fbclid=IwAR14KrahMdIECUe83Xb4M2By2X-pirXTrH6DVqtBySk0Az_uQWY4QMjP8hs
-
The Bruges Group on full flow
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1115571908165152769.html
-
The Bruges Group on full flow
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1115571908165152769.html
Stupid idiots! >:(
-
Applause for Spud.
It's good that we can rethink and be prepared to change our minds.
I think what finally did it was the Government saying they will allow Europeans with a job offering a minimum salary of £50,000 pa (or whatever it was) to come to work here. So mean.
-
The Bruges Group on full flow
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1115571908165152769.html
What LR said, and to make the point
We used to have a five-star Michelin restaurant in Westminster. Now we accept our laws in pre-packaged deals from Brussels ready to put in the microwave.
I wonder where he thinks Michelin is based.
-
I see May has got until Halloween to sort out Brexit!
-
I see May has got until Halloween to sort out Brexit!
istm the longer the delays the more likely there will be an election or second referendum which could result in revocation of A50.
The negotiations between May and Labour don't seem to be going anywhere. It will soon be clear to all that we are being led by donkeys.
-
istm the longer the delays the more likely there will be an election or second referendum which could result in revocation of A50.
The negotiations between May and Labour don't seem to be going anywhere. It will soon be clear to all that we are being led by donkeys.
A second referendum is what I am hoping for. With luck people might vote to stay in the EU, if that were to be the case. Britain is a tiny little country, no longer a big cheese in this world, and needs the support of the rest of Europe, imo.
-
The negotiations between May and Labour don't seem to be going anywhere. It will soon be clear to all that we are being led by donkeys.
Blimey, that particular sea going vessel left port a long time ago for me.
-
A second referendum is what I am hoping for. With luck people might vote to stay in the EU, if that were to be the case. Britain is a tiny little country, no longer a big cheese in this world, and needs the support of the rest of Europe, imo.
EU elections to be held first -if we elect mostly eurosceptics sort of indicates that result would be to leave in another referendum - ie. with deal or no-deal.
-
Blimey, that particular sea going vessel left port a long time ago for me.
Indeed. Anyway, now the matter has been put off for a bit, they've decided to have a holiday :)
-
Looks like British Steel has been kneed in the bollocks by Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47921375
-
Looks like British Steel has been kneed in the bollocks by Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47921375
May pops up to remind us that No deal Brexit is still spectre at our feast of bargain bucket feast of buffalo wings, chicken poppas and free litre bottle of Sprite Zero from Billericay Fried Chicken.
-
Interesting article from The Guardian noting that the savvy Irish government were on-the-ball while the Tory-twats 'masterminding' Brexit didn't have a clue.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/18/how-the-irish-backstop-emerged-as-mays-brexit-nemesis
-
Yes. Clearly the backstop is essential until some alternative has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of both the UK and Ireland/EU.
I can understand that the DUP don't care for the GFA or if there is a border or not. However the Tory brexiter's objections just show how irrational and misconceived their thinking on brexit has been all along.
-
Grayling's 'contribution' to Brexit planning continues to entertain.
Having backed away from the company with no ferries he had to buy off Eurotunnel for £33m when they cried foul, albeit ostensibly this was for 'improvements' to their terminal. Now P&O are suing the government since they say this £33m of government money to Eurotunnel places them, P&O that is, at a competitive disadvantage.
One wonders what Grayling knows that protects him so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48063672
-
Fintan O'Toole's book on Brexit, Heroic Failure is excellent
-
Fintan O'Toole's book on Brexit, Heroic Failure is excellent
I'll have to read it to find out what he thinks is so heroic about this mess.
-
Increasingly concerned about the lack of balance on BBC QT.
Last night there was one current Tory (Rudd) and two ex-Tories (Soubrey and Farage) - effectively 3/5 of the panel reflected the current Tory infighting between the centre right (Soubrey) and the hard right (Farage).
And the other two were a current Labour MP and an ex-Labour donor.
And just Soubrey is in favour of remain/people's vote.
Where is the balance in a world where, even on the basis of the 2016 referendum, the country split is 52:48.
The BBC is really struggling in this new world where brexit is the biggest yes/no issue and it is getting it badly wrong.
-
Increasingly concerned about the lack of balance on BBC QT.
Last night there was one current Tory (Rudd) and two ex-Tories (Soubrey and Farage) - effectively 3/5 of the panel reflected the current Tory infighting between the centre right (Soubrey) and the hard right (Farage).
And the other two were a current Labour MP and an ex-Labour donor.
And just Soubrey is in favour of remain/people's vote.
Where is the balance in a world where, even on the basis of the 2016 referendum, the country split is 52:48.
The BBC is really struggling in this new world where brexit is the biggest yes/no issue and it is getting it badly wrong.
Keeping away from this thread and avoiding the word Brxxxt, I started listening to Question Time on Five Live last night, but it was sch a shambles that I turned off after about 15 minutes. Shouting not being controlled, most of the audience cheering for all the stupid things, and only a few rational words here and there.
-
Keeping away from this thread and avoiding the word Brxxxt, I started listening to Question Time on Five Live last night, but it was sch a shambles that I turned off after about 15 minutes. Shouting not being controlled, most of the audience cheering for all the stupid things, and only a few rational words here and there.
To be fair, Susan, yes, last night's was a mess - but, to be honest, the standard of the show has gone up a notch since Fiona Bruce took the chair.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48245499
A cross-party Brexit deal will not get through Parliament unless it is subject to a confirmatory public vote, shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer says.
They are obviously getting nowhere on a cross-party deal. IMO this is probably because they are trying to agree on the long term relationship issue - but this is waste of time as, even if the withdrawal then gets through, there is no way to ensure that whatever plan they agree on will be put into effect.
They need to agree to pass May's existing deal but with a scheme put in place that ensures full cross-party participation and agreement on the rest of (in fact the main) negotiations. If there is to be a second referendum it should be on the final trading deal - not the withdrawal agreement.
The whole second referendum idea is about to collapse: If, as expected, the Brexit party voters turn out in droves on May 23rd and eclipse the remain/peoples-vote vote , there is frankly no point in a second referendum and we will again be heading for a no-deal exit.
Anyone that wants to remain or have a second referendum must vote for one of the remain parties - not Labour (unless they commit to another referendum).
-
When the Government has finished testing the water, brexit will take place.
-
When the Government has finished testing the water, brexit will take place.
And how do you think the good people of Northern Ireland will feel about that - or d
on't they count?
-
To be fair, Susan, yes, last night's was a mess - but, to be honest, the standard of the show has gone up a notch since Fiona Bruce took the chair.
Agree that is was an awful mess, but cannot agree with you on Fiona Bruce - I think she is really poor as QT presenter, which isn't surprising given that she is an experienced news-reader, but has very little experience as a political interviewer, let alone as a host of a multi-politician panel format. There are many others who are experienced as political interviewers who would, in my opinion, have been much better choice following David Dimbleby's departure.
I was genuinely gob smacked watching QT a couple of months ago from Scotland (can't remember where). Fiona Bruce allowed one quarter of the programme to go by before bringing one panel member into the discussion. In that time I think she allowed Michael Forsyth 5 opportunities to talk and all other panel members had more than one opportunity to say their piece. It was frankly embarrassing and not a good look when the completely ignored panel member was a black woman.
-
Agree that is was an awful mess, but cannot agree with you on Fiona Bruce - I think she is really poor as QT presenter, which isn't surprising given that she is an experienced news-reader, but has very little experience as a political interviewer, let alone as a host of a multi-politician panel format. There are many others who are experienced as political interviewers who would, in my opinion, have been much better choice following David Dimbleby's departure.
I was genuinely gob smacked watching QT a couple of months ago from Scotland (can't remember where). Fiona Bruce allowed one quarter of the programme to go by before bringing one panel member into the discussion. In that time I think she allowed Michael Forsyth 5 opportunities to talk and all other panel members had more than one opportunity to say their piece. It was frankly embarrassing and not a good look when the completely ignored panel member was a black woman.
I've stopped watching it since Fiona Bruce took over , mind you , I am a misogynist
-
I've stopped watching it since Fiona Bruce took over , mind you , I am a misogynist
No issue with a woman chairing QT - in fact Kirsty Wark would have been my preferred choice, followed by Emily Maitlis. Both are experienced political interviewers, including dealing with panel discussions - skills that Bruce simply lacks.
-
The two recent 'Storyville' episodes on BBC4 'Brexit: Behind Closed Doors' are worth a watch.
It presents a background 'fly on the wall' account of the negotiations from the EU perspective, and focuses on the activities and discussions of Verhofstadt (in particular) and Barnier - unexpectedly the UK side come across being both secretive (none of their discussions are shown) and useless.
Worth a watch, and yet more confirmation that Brexit is a shite idea made shitier by this hapless government and useless PM.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004xn9
-
And makes May look even worse, though the entire govt are a shower of idiots. The inability to understand the Irish issue makes them culpable in the farce we are in. Anyone supporting the lying racist incompetent PM supports lying racist incompetence.
-
This could be interesting should Johnson be summoned regarding his Brexit claims.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/14/boris-johnson-could-be-challenged-in-court-on-brexit-vote-claim
-
Vote for a committed remain partry in the Euro-elections a week on Thursday: Green, Lib Dem, Change, Plaid Cymru, or SNP. Are there others? I'm voting Green.
-
We have already voted as we have a postal ballot.
-
I got an election leaflet from this (https://www.englishdemocrats.party/about) bunch of nutters today. Shall I vote for them? Decisions, decisions... no.
-
I got an election leaflet from this (https://www.englishdemocrats.party/about) bunch of nutters today. Shall I vote for them? Decisions, decisions... no.
You could use this:
https://www.remainunited.org/be-tactical/
-
unexpectedly the UK side come across being both secretive (none of their discussions are shown) and useless
Unexpected by whom? It has been obvious to me since day one of the negotiations. The EU has always been up front and transparent. The UK less so. As for uselessness, well the uselessness of the British negotiating team is about the one thing Leavers and Remainers are united on.
-
Unexpected by whom? It has been obvious to me since day one of the negotiations. The EU has always been up front and transparent. The UK less so. As for uselessness, well the uselessness of the British negotiating team is about the one thing Leavers and Remainers are united on.
Ah - I think I perhaps used the wrong word, I meant it in the sense of 'unsurprisingly' (which would have been a better choice).
-
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-eu-powers-silent-erosion-uk.html
New analysis by the UK Trade Policy Observatory is warning that what should have been the technical formality of transferring EU powers into national law when the UK leaves the European Union, could instead open the gates for the widespread use of outlawed carcinogenic pesticides that have been shown to alter human reproductive, neurological, and immune systems.
-
This chimes
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/19/what-is-nigel-farage-secret-that-would-be-telling
-
According to reports/rumours in the Guardian/BBC live politics blogs May is to resign tonight: if so good. All we need now is the Tory government to fall and for Brexit to be cancelled.
-
According to reports/rumours in the Guardian/BBC live politics blogs May is to resign tonight: if so good. All we need now is the Tory government to fall and for Brexit to be cancelled.
Latest on BBC live is she is refusing to resign.
-
Latest on BBC live is she is refusing to resign.
Indeed. It's mess as it stands: laughable that Brexit is a Tory-inspired policy and that it is imploding the party responsible for it, which is no bad thing of course.
She can't even resign effectively nor, it seems, can they get rid of her effectively - the Tories can't have much left by way of feet to shoot themselves in.
-
The odious and over-rated (especially by herself) Leadsom has just resigned, no doubt to prepare her bid to replace May. Maybe, if more follow her over the next day or so May will be forced out sooner rather than later.
Problem is, of course, there is nobody competent waiting in the wings.
-
The odious and over-rated (especially by herself) Leadsom has just resigned, no doubt to prepare her bid to replace May. Maybe, if more follow her over the next day or so May will be forced out sooner rather than later.
Problem is, of course, there is nobody competent waiting in the wings.
Why do you think it is a good thing that May is ousted? What if she is replaced by somebody who thinks no deal is a good idea?
-
Why do you think it is a good thing that May is ousted? What if she is replaced by somebody who thinks no deal is a good idea?
My hope is that this hopeless Tory government fall and that anything that contributes to their misfortune is, therefore, a good thing.
-
My hope is that this hopeless Tory government fall and that anything that contributes to their misfortune is, therefore, a good thing.
I'd add, in the interests of Scotland, that Boris Johnson would be a great idea to further unravel the already rotting bonds of the union.
-
My hope is that this hopeless Tory government fall and that anything that contributes to their misfortune is, therefore, a good thing.
I think the Brexit issue is far more important than schadenfreude against political parties you don't like. I'd rather the Tories clung on to power until the next general election than we leave the EU, especially with no deal.
-
I'd add, in the interests of Scotland, that Boris Johnson would be a great idea to further unravel the already rotting bonds of the union.
It seems a hard Brexit would be a gift to Scottish nationalists, who could then press ahead with an independence referendum. I just wonder if English Leave voters are aware of this and if they would want a Brexit that was followed by Scottish independence and possibly Irish reunification?
-
It seems a hard Brexit would be a gift to Scottish nationalists, who could then press ahead with an independence referendum. I just wonder if English Leave voters are aware of this and if they would want a Brexit that was followed by Scottish independence and possibly Irish reunification?
I would be all for Irish reunification.
-
It seems a hard Brexit would be a gift to Scottish nationalists, who could then press ahead with an independence referendum. I just wonder if English Leave voters are aware of this and if they would want a Brexit that was followed by Scottish independence and possibly Irish reunification?
I suspect leave voters in England and Wales aren't bothered by the strong anti-Brexit feeling in Scotland, as reflected in this EU election result. The outcome was very different here, with 'remain' parties coming top in every Scottish constituency, but of course this hasn't really been mentioned 'down south', since there they seem to be in thrall to the machinations of both Nigel and the bun-fighting between Tories in competition for temporary custody of the poisoned chalice.
The political outlooks of the Scottish and English/Welsh electorates now seem irreconcilable to me, and those bleating about the need to 'bring the country together' (and similar expressions of sanctimonious twaddle) clearly aren't paying attention.
-
I suspect leave voters in England and Wales aren't bothered by the strong anti-Brexit feeling in Scotland, as reflected in this EU election result. The outcome was very different here, with 'remain' parties coming top in every Scottish constituency, but of course this hasn't really been mentioned 'down south', since there they seem to be in thrall to the machinations of both Nigel and the bun-fighting between Tories in competition for temporary custody of the poisoned chalice.
The political outlooks of the Scottish and English/Welsh electorates now seem irreconcilable to me, and those bleating about the need to 'bring the country together' (and similar expressions of sanctimonious twaddle) clearly aren't paying attention.
The country might be brought together by the threat of a UK breakup, though at the moment it doesn't look promising.
-
I would be all for Irish reunification.
We know you are. However you seem to be ignoring the very real threats involved. As an ideal I am all for Irish reunification. As a practical, workable possibility in the near to medium future I have to acknowledge it is a non starter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is away with the fairies.
-
We know you are. However you seem to be ignoring the very real threats involved. As an ideal I am all for Irish reunification. As a practical, workable possibility in the near to medium future I have to acknowledge it is a non starter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is away with the fairies.
At present that is probably the case, as the IRA is raising its ugly head again, but in the future I hope it will happen.
-
The country might be brought together by the threat of a UK breakup, though
If by country you mean the UK, Spud, some of us in Scotland would rather not be part of that, especially given the direction of political travel that seems to be endemic among the Brexit-supporting sections of the electorate in England and Wales.
-
If by country you mean the UK, Spud, some of us in Scotland would rather not be part of that, especially given the direction of political travel that seems to be endemic among the Brexit-supporting sections of the electorate in England and Wales.
Scotland; England's biggest county ;)
-
At present that is probably the case, as the IRA is raising its ugly head again, but in the future I hope it will happen.
The IRAwant reunification. It'd be the "Loyalist" terrorists kicking off if reunification happened.
-
At present that is probably the case, as the IRA is raising its ugly head again, but in the future I hope it will happen.
The problems with reunification would mainly involve the so-called Loyalist side...the Orange contingent.
Unfortunately, that could spill over to the West of Scotland, which has asmall, but distressingly active, sectarian element.
-
Scotland; England's biggest county ;)
... and if all goes according to plan, soon to become part of the Forth Reich. ;)
-
I'll just leave this here... https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/tories-would-now-rather-face-scottish-independence-lose-brexit?fbclid=IwAR2jf-x09XGeuK45tvb0SGT3OCkxJF_sQeN1Q2NFgVyz6AlfR8YQJMh5960
-
The results of that poll are interesting right enough, Jim: it seems a substantial majority of the Tory party would accept Scotland exiting the UK so long as they got their Brexit - and a kick in the teeth too for rape-clause Ruth's attempts to portray her dysfunctional party as valuing the allegedly 'precious' Union.
For some of us the feeling is mutual: they can have their Brexit madness and their 'precious' UK, but leave Scotland out of it.
-
Maybe - just maybe - this is the time for the Scots Tories to break away from the English party. Whether we like it or not, there is a deluded minority who support Tory policies here; an independent Scots Tory party might speak for them, rather than the pathetic Mundell bleating like a lobotomised sheep to no-one-because not even the Tories take him seriously anymore.
-
It's worth noting that a similar number were happy to have Brexit if it lead to the loss of NI, or significant bad economic effects. It also had 54 - 36 in favour of Brexit if it lead to the destruction of the Tory party.
-
It seems to me that for the most part Brexit has addled the political thinking of the Tory party at large just as it has their long-standing europhobic lunatic-fringe element (Cash et al): whatever the political outcomes of the coming months are I do hope it will lead to the demise of the Tory party 'as is' here in Scotland, and elsewhere too.
-
I'll just leave this here... https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/tories-would-now-rather-face-scottish-independence-lose-brexit?fbclid=IwAR2jf-x09XGeuK45tvb0SGT3OCkxJF_sQeN1Q2NFgVyz6AlfR8YQJMh5960
I don't see where the evidence comes from that the Tories would sacrifice the Union for Brexit. You may argue that it is an inevitable consequence, but your average Conservative Party member would disagree with you.
The Brexiteers of whatever stripe (and no, they are not all English and they are not all Tories) seem to be characterised by varying levels of delusion. This is the fundamental issue with respect to our negotiations with the EU. They want all the benefits of being in the EU without being in the EU and they can't understand why it won't happen. They want open borders with Ireland without having an open border with the EU of which Ireland is a part. It obviously can't work like that but they refuse to accept it.
Anyway, as long as there is a Conservative government in Westminster, you are not getting another referendum. They'll say you had your vote and you said no. They will refuse to acknowledge the fundamental change in the political landscape just as they are refusing to acknowledge the things that have happened since the Brexit referendum. You should probably be thankful for that because the chaos involved in Scottish independence will make Brexit look like a picnic.
-
I don't see where the evidence comes from that the Tories would sacrifice the Union for Brexit. You may argue that it is an inevitable consequence, but your average Conservative Party member would disagree with you.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-majority-of-tory-members-would-accept-scottish-independence-as-price-of-brexit-1-4949043
-
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-majority-of-tory-members-would-accept-scottish-independence-as-price-of-brexit-1-4949043
Well that's interesting and disturbing.
Half would rather call the whole thing [Brexit] off rather than allow the Labour leader inside Downing Street.
So they think Brexit is important enough to risk dismantling the UK but not important enough to let one particular man run the country for a maximum of five years. I think there's something off about that poll.
-
A hero for our time!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/gina-miller-legal-action-block-no-deal-brexit-boris-johnson?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3acCVBzrFtWMj-0Iode85dHVI0KMzvwezqe3gI7IjYjPsbabKfQmttsXk
-
This 2015 article by (the now rehabilitated) Roger Scruton (apparently a Tory supporter) is worth a read, such as his comments on MPs kowtowing to their constituents (such as Labour MPs in 'leave' areas) and using simple questions (such as 'Leave' vs 'Remain').
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/08/why-mps-have-a-duty-to-resist-online-petitions/
Parliaments exist to inject hesitation and circumspection into the legislative process. And when we think about it we all agree this is a good thing. We all agree that the common good, rather than mass sentiment, should be the source of law, and that the common good may be hard to discover and obscured by crowd emotions.
However, tempted by a ‘one-click’ response to a complex question, people can be persuaded to add their voice to campaigns designed to bypass argument in the interest of a foregone conclusion. Invariably the conclusion has the beauty and simplicity of a final solution to some problem that affects us all.
Conservative MPs should also take note of the great speech given by Edmund Burke to the electors of Bristol, in which he distinguished representation from delegation. The MP represents the interests of his constituents, not their opinions. And he represents those interests through a process designed to issue in laws that contribute to the wise government of us all. The representative does not sit on the benches of Parliament in order to jump up at every opportunity and repeat what the voters told him to say. He might well decide that the voters are ill-informed or moved by some passion that should, in their own interests, be overruled or discounted.
-
Saw this comment on the Grauniad blog: 'The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.'
Sums up the Brexit shambles nicely.
-
With Boris overseeing Brexit and Trump holding his hand, the mythical End Times are upon us!!!!! :o
-
I find everything about this issue depressing; even the word 'Brexit' causes my mood to sink.
-
I find everything about this issue depressing; even the word 'Brexit' causes my mood to sink.
I can't look at a clip of Boris Johnson on the news without swearing at the telly.
I never thought I'd live to see the end of my country.
-
The word 'Brexit' makes my BP hit the ceiling! :o
-
I find everything about this issue depressing; even the word 'Brexit' causes my mood to sink.
You are not alone. Brexit related anxiety or depression has been widely reported, climate change related also:
The Guardian: 'All I hear is anger and frustration': how Brexit is affecting our mental health (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/04/anger-and-frustration-how-brexit-is-affecting-our-mental-health)
BBC R4: The Upside of Anxiety (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007452)
Anxiety has become one of the defining characteristics of our modern age, with millions of us suffering from its various damaging effects. It comes in many shapes and sizes - status anxiety, social anxiety, and more recently Brexit and Eco-anxiety. Figures indicate a big rise in its prevalence, particularly among young people and members of minority groups
-
That's interesting Udayana, I didn't know Brexit had such a collective depressive effect. I've certainly been 'down', weary and anxious because of it, I thought it was just me over reacting and felt a bit of a fool.
Thanks for posting the links.
-
I can't look at a clip of Boris Johnson on the news without swearing at the telly.
I never thought I'd live to see the end of my country.
this is my country too and I'm now feeling good about it. If it all gets too much for you why not leave?
-
this is my country too and I'm now feeling good about it.
With a bunch of buffoons who are more interested in saving their careers than stopping the country from crashing out of the EU with no deal, how can you possibly be feeling good.
If it all gets too much for you why not leave?
No. Why don't the Brexiteers fuck off to some uninhabited island in the Pacific where they can have their 1950's monarchy with their pounds and furlongs and no Johnny Foreigners to spice up their dull existence.
This country is being destroyed and it's the Brexiteers' fault.
-
With a bunch of buffoons who are more interested in saving their careers than stopping the country from crashing out of the EU with no deal, how can you possibly be feeling good.
No. Why don't the Brexiteers fuck off to some uninhabited island in the Pacific where they can have their 1950's monarchy with their pounds and furlongs and no Johnny Foreigners to spice up their dull existence.
This country is being destroyed and it's the Brexiteers' fault.
fuck me!
Triggered or what
Get a grip man or you'll end up dissolving into a little puddle of salty tears
-
this is my country too and I'm now feeling good about it. If it all gets too much for you why not leave?
Oh no - it's the Trump playbook.
-
Oh no - it's the Trump playbook.
haha
Well spotted prof , some folk don't have a sense of humour 😂
-
With a bunch of buffoons who are more interested in saving their careers than stopping the country from crashing out of the EU with no deal, how can you possibly be feeling good.
No. Why don't the Brexiteers fuck off to some uninhabited island in the Pacific where they can have their 1950's monarchy with their pounds and furlongs and no Johnny Foreigners to spice up their dull existence.
This country is being destroyed and it's the Brexiteers' fault.
I agree. The extreme Brexiteers lied about the advantage Brexit would be to the UK, and many people were gullible enough to believe them. I think the result of leaving, especially with a no deal, will be a weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth! :o
-
Increasingly concerned about the lack of balance on BBC QT.
Last night there was one current Tory (Rudd) and two ex-Tories (Soubrey and Farage) - effectively 3/5 of the panel reflected the current Tory infighting between the centre right (Soubrey) and the hard right (Farage).
And the other two were a current Labour MP and an ex-Labour donor.
And just Soubrey is in favour of remain/people's vote.
Where is the balance in a world where, even on the basis of the 2016 referendum, the country split is 52:48.
The BBC is really struggling in this new world where brexit is the biggest yes/no issue and it is getting it badly wrong.
Give yourself a treat Proff, assuming you haven't already done so Go to YouTube and look for Lord Pearson's address to the HOLords about brexit
In his own words referring to the BBC:
'Since the referendum there has only been one programme examining the opportunities of Brexit on the BBC and cannot point to any other on this subject and that is just examining the possibilities not promoting them'.
A bit further on he referred to the findings of a survey by a company he used called 'Civitas' where this company found that:
'BBC interviewees since the referendum, out of 4275 guests 132 were supporters of the of the withdrawal from the EU or in fact this amounted to 3.2% of this guest list'.
I'd settle for, as compensation for their bias, seeing a re-run of the BBC's coverage of the referendum night with all of the beautifully picturesque, mortified looks on virtually all of the BBC's staff and I would enjoy seeing Jeremy Vine explaining his abandoned double yellow brick road, for old times sake.
Oh no the BBC always looks as though it has a bias whichever side you're on, pigs? Where?
ippy
-
fuck me!
Triggered or what
Get a grip man or you'll end up dissolving into a little puddle of salty tears
Too late. Brexit never fails to trigger me because of the way the people were swindled by a few xenophobic arseholes.
-
Give yourself a treat Proff, assuming you haven't already done so Go to YouTube and look for Lord Pearson's address to the HOLords about brexit
In his own words referring to the BBC:
'Since the referendum there has only been one programme examining the opportunities of Brexit on the BBC and cannot point to any other on this subject and that is just examining the possibilities not promoting them'.
A bit further on he referred to the findings of a survey by a company he used called 'Civitas' where this company found that:
'BBC interviewees since the referendum, out of 4275 guests 132 were supporters of the of the withdrawal from the EU or in fact this amounted to 3.2% of this guest list'.
I'd settle for, as compensation for their bias, seeing a re-run of the BBC's coverage of the referendum night with all of the beautifully picturesque, mortified looks on virtually all of the BBC's staff and I would enjoy seeing Jeremy Vine explaining his abandoned double yellow brick road, for old times sake.
Oh no the BBC always looks as though it has a bias whichever side you're on, pigs? Where?
ippy
So the BBC are biased
or
the BBC are telling it like it is.
-
So the BBC are biased
or
the BBC are telling it like it is.
It's always good to hear the minority view.
ippy
-
Give yourself a treat Proff, assuming you haven't already done so Go to YouTube and look for Lord Pearson's address to the HOLords about brexit
In his own words referring to the BBC:
'Since the referendum there has only been one programme examining the opportunities of Brexit on the BBC and cannot point to any other on this subject and that is just examining the possibilities not promoting them'.
A bit further on he referred to the findings of a survey by a company he used called 'Civitas' where this company found that:
'BBC interviewees since the referendum, out of 4275 guests 132 were supporters of the of the withdrawal from the EU or in fact this amounted to 3.2% of this guest list'.
I'd settle for, as compensation for their bias, seeing a re-run of the BBC's coverage of the referendum night with all of the beautifully picturesque, mortified looks on virtually all of the BBC's staff and I would enjoy seeing Jeremy Vine explaining his abandoned double yellow brick road, for old times sake.
Oh no the BBC always looks as though it has a bias whichever side you're on, pigs? Where?
ippy
So UKIP Peer quotes right wing think tank to support the notion that the BBC is biased - what will you be telling me next? That the Pope's a catholic or that bears do their number twos in the woods.
I do love this bit from the Civitas 'report':
'During the same period, two strongly pro-EU Conservatives, Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, made between them 28 appearances, with contributions totalling 11,208 words – over nine times the amount of airtime allocated to all left-wing withdrawalists.' - the period being 2002 to 2017.
Failed to mention that Nigel Farage has appeared 33 times on Question Time over a similar period at a rate of appearance per year higher than any other regular panelist in the programme's 40 year history.
-
... a few xenophobic arseholes.
What an interesting concept. Are such ... err ... individuals constipated when abroad?
-
Too late. Brexit never fails to trigger me because of the way the people were swindled by a few xenophobic arseholes.
Sadly Jezza, you can't change what IS but you can change what you think about it.
Good luck !
-
Sadly Jezza, you can't change what IS but you can change what you think about it.
Good luck !
You could have made the same point to europhobes prior to the 2016 referendum.
The whole point is that you can, potentially, change what IS but you have to work to make that happen. And while we continue to be in the EU there is all to play for.
-
So UKIP Peer quotes right wing think tank to support the notion that the BBC is biased - what will you be telling me next? That the Pope's a catholic or that bears do their number twos in the woods.
I do love this bit from the Civitas 'report':
'During the same period, two strongly pro-EU Conservatives, Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, made between them 28 appearances, with contributions totalling 11,208 words – over nine times the amount of airtime allocated to all left-wing withdrawalists.' - the period being 2002 to 2017.
Failed to mention that Nigel Farage has appeared 33 times on Question Time over a similar period at a rate of appearance per year higher than any other regular panelist in the programme's 40 year history.
I wouldn't argue with your figures about Nigel's appearances only surprisingly enough he was significantly outnumbered on Q T every time in the same way EU leavers whoever they were, were outnumbered.
Even the RT television news shows less bias about brexit than the BBC.
ippy
-
I wouldn't argue with your figures about Nigel's appearances only surprisingly enough he was significantly outnumbered on Q T every time in the same way EU leavers whoever they were, were outnumbered.
Even the RT television news shows less bias about brexit than the BBC.
ippy
Since the referendum (and in it's immediate run up) I believe the BBC has moved to unbiased panels with regard to brexit position. Prveiously (and not unreasonably) the panel make up reflected party political support, such that panelists were invited on the basis of party electoral support.
Why should a panel in 2010 involve equivalent panelist with regard to their position on the EU, when the EU was considered to be an important issue facing the country by less than 10% of the population.
You could pick any other number of minor concerns of the public and demand that QT should have equal numbers of people on either side, but ultimately it would be impossible to pick a panel.
-
And while we continue to be in the EU there is all to play for.
It's not like it's all going to go away if we leave, especially without a deal.
If we crash out, the full consequences will be all too apparent to everybody and will probably appal all but the extreme xenophobes and europhobes into realising what an idiotic and pointless act of national self-harm it was. Either way, we will still have to try and negotiate a future trading relationship with the EU.
I for one would vote for any party that pledged to reverse the idiocy and I doubt I'd be alone. The demographics are such (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html) that the country is almost certainly pro-EU by now, so the Reverse Brexit campaign starts the moment we leave...
-
It's not like it's all going to go away if we leave, especially without a deal.
True - actually it will be just the start of years and years of challenging negotiation and grid lock even once the worst immediate effects of no deal have worked through
I for one would vote for any party that pledged to reverse the idiocy and I doubt I'd be alone. The demographics are such (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html) that the country is almost certainly pro-EU by now, so the Reverse Brexit campaign starts the moment we leave...
Me too and there are millions like us.
The point is that it is easier to remain in the EU while we are still in - presumably revoke after a referendum. Once we have left there will be a different, and more challenging, conversation - in other words to rejoin. But perhaps the consequences of not being in the EU need to be apparent to get the population to wake up to the imperative of being a member.
-
The point is that it is easier to remain in the EU while we are still in - presumably revoke after a referendum. Once we have left there will be a different, and more challenging, conversation - in other words to rejoin.
This is true - and it's very unlikely we'd get the rebate and opt-opts back. The upshot of leaving is that we'd end up with a worse deal than we had, even if we rejoined. Even so, rejoining would probably be the best deal available.
But perhaps the consequences of not being in the EU need to be apparent to get the population to wake up to the imperative of being a member.
I fear so - unfortunately the cost, to people, livelihoods, and the country as a whole, wouldn't really worth the pleasure of being able to say "we told you so".
-
I wouldn't argue with your figures about Nigel's appearances only surprisingly enough he was significantly outnumbered on Q T every time in the same way EU leavers whoever they were, were outnumbered.
Even the RT television news shows less bias about brexit than the BBC.
ippy
The question of 'balance' is a curious one since it assumes that the 'balance' of the numbers of advocates for each proposition means that the arguments they each advance are of equal merit and are deserving of equal emphasis and air-time.
In the case of Brexit, given what is now known about both the actual consequences and that it is being led by a bunch of incompetents infected with Brexit zealotry but with no realistic plans from the outset, giving more coverage to the crap arguments of these so-called 'Brexiteers' won't improve the quality of their arguments. Their media appearances may well expose their idiocy, but since 'Brexit' has now become an article of faith for its enthusiasts I suspect they are well past being able to grasp the lunacy that, in their naivety and ignorance, they voted for.
-
Sadly Jezza, you can't change what IS but you can change what you think about it.
Good luck !
Why would I change my opinion on Brexit when it is right?
-
Sadly Jezza, you can't change what IS but you can change what you think about it.
Good luck !
Actually, let us look at this seriously.
In what way has Britain being a member of the EU harmed you? I'm looking for specific policies that have been detrimental to your life in some quantifiable way.
-
Since the referendum (and in it's immediate run up) I believe the BBC has moved to unbiased panels with regard to brexit position. Prveiously (and not unreasonably) the panel make up reflected party political support, such that panelists were invited on the basis of party electoral support.
Why should a panel in 2010 involve equivalent panelist with regard to their position on the EU, when the EU was considered to be an important issue facing the country by less than 10% of the population.
You could pick any other number of minor concerns of the public and demand that QT should have equal numbers of people on either side, but ultimately it would be impossible to pick a panel.
Yes and I largely agree with what you say but when you add the BBC's overall remoaner policy of never missing a trick no matter how small the item and whatever the time of broadcast the sheer tenacity of their remoaner agenda which they don't even try to disguise anymore isn't quite the sort of approach I would have expected from such as the likes of the BBC.
When you add the rather obvious reluctance to do an even slightly more balanced edition of QT to all of the rest of the BBC's undisguised remoaner propaganda efforts it's not quiet the such a small item as it at first seems to be.
ippy
-
Yes and I largely agree with what you say but when you add the BBC's overall remoaner policy of never missing a trick no matter how small the item and whatever the time of broadcast the sheer tenacity of their remoaner agenda which they don't even try to disguise anymore isn't quite the sort of approach I would have expected from such as the likes of the BBC.
When you add the rather obvious reluctance to do an even slightly more balanced edition of QT to all of the rest of the BBC's undisguised remoaner propaganda efforts it's not quiet the such a small item as it at first seems to be.
ippy
A no deal Brexit is going to be very bad. Read this story for example
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49170387
Trying to do a balanced treatment of the Brexit process is a bit like trying to be balanced about creationism. You can't do it unless you lie.
-
Trying to do a balanced treatment of the Brexit process is a bit like trying to be balanced about creationism. You can't do it unless you lie.
Yes - the extreme "Brexit at all costs" cult that has taken over the government has many of the reality denying characteristics of fundamentalist religions. The Tory party members are prepared to see the break up of the UK, serious economic damage, and even the destruction of their own party (source (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/18/most-conservative-members-would-see-party-destroye)). For what? What possible rational justification is there? What is so terrible about being in the EU that we should pay any price to get out?
The argument that it's the "will of the people" is now equally an article of blind faith. What is on offer now is nothing like what was described in the referendum campaign. It is only sane to ask people if they still want it under these circumstances. If you buy something based on a description that turns out to be inaccurate, you have the right to return it - where is the equivalent right here?
Just like a cult, it's members seem to have little regard for the truth Boris "the liar (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-are-we-so-surprised-that-boris-johnson-lied-when-he-s-been-sacked-for-lying-twice-before-a7105976.html)" Johnson couldn't resist lying about kippers in his campaign (source (https://fullfact.org/europe/boris-johnsons-kipper-claim-red-herring/)) and now Dominic Raab is trying to pretend that the possibility of a no deal was made clear to voters during the referendum (source (https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-we-cant-find-evidence-that-dominic-raab-warned-of-no-deal-brexit)).
Anyway - here's something to watch: 'The UK is completely fucked' - John Oliver on Britain's new prime minister (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/john-oliver-from-hbo-on-boris-johnson-1-6186991).
</rant>
-
Yes, Brexit seems like a cult or religion. Refusing another referendum shows the rigidity that you get in cults, you can't change your mind.
Another factor in the rise of Boris, is a sense of crisis, in which the charismatic leader stands tall. And the leader often feeds the sense of crisis.
But I don't know what happens next. If Boris takes a big lead in the polls, an election is tempting, then right wing government.
-
A no deal Brexit is going to be very bad. Read this story for example
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49170387
Trying to do a balanced treatment of the Brexit process is a bit like trying to be balanced about creationism. You can't do it unless you lie.
I Y O.
ippy
-
Yes, Brexit seems like a cult or religion. Refusing another referendum shows the rigidity that you get in cults, you can't change your mind.
Another factor in the rise of Boris, is a sense of crisis, in which the charismatic leader stands tall. And the leader often feeds the sense of crisis.
But I don't know what happens next. If Boris takes a big lead in the polls, an election is tempting, then right wing government.
Of course a big lead might currently be getting 34% of the vote - which in other times would be a disaster.
-
I Y O.
ippy
Said the creationist
-
I Y O.
ippy
Nope: that Brexit will be disastrous isn't just a matter of opinion, ippy, since there are ample facts about the likely consequences that support the opinion that Brexit will be disastrous.
Of course for the Brexit enthusiast facts no longer matter - they have faith now you know, and moreover a faith sustained by oodles of credulous gullibility. Try asking one what the actual benefits of Brexit are and you'll find them stuck in a loop of simplistic slogans (some of which are lies), before they eventually seek solace in the '17.4 million voted for it' ad pop.
-
I Y O.
ippy
Except it isn't just jeremyp's opinion - pretty much everybody with any expertise in the relevant fields thinks a no-deal Brexit will be very bad - you know, just like pretty much everybody with any expertise in the relevant fields thinks creationism is nonsense.
-
...
But I don't know what happens next. If Boris takes a big lead in the polls, an election is tempting, then right wing government.
I can see us heading closer and closer to a no-deal brexit whilst a small group make a lot of money betting against Sterling and the British economy. Then we exit without a withdrawal agreement for which the EU and/or Liberal/Labour "remoaners" are blamed.
If (or as) the economy then deteriorates we will get a series of increasingly right wing governments (back to blaming immigrants of-course).
-
I can see us heading closer and closer to a no-deal brexit whilst a small group make a lot of money betting against Sterling and the British economy. Then we exit without a withdrawal agreement for which the EU and/or Liberal/Labour "remoaners" are blamed.
If (or as) the economy then deteriorates we will get a series of increasingly right wing governments (back to blaming immigrants of-course).
The rich will rely on the poor to help them out. It seems to work.
-
The rich will rely on the poor to help them out. It seems to work.
It's the same the whole world over....
-
I Y O.
ippy
Yes. Did you read my link? Do you have an opinion on it.
-
The country's going to hell in a handbasket, and it's all the fault of Cameron, May, Johnson, and Fartage (and yes, the expression is "handbasket", not "handcart").
-
Nope: that Brexit will be disastrous isn't just a matter of opinion, ippy, since there are ample facts about the likely consequences that support the opinion that Brexit will be disastrous.
Of course for the Brexit enthusiast facts no longer matter - they have faith now you know, and moreover a faith sustained by oodles of credulous gullibility. Try asking one what the actual benefits of Brexit are and you'll find them stuck in a loop of simplistic slogans (some of which are lies), before they eventually seek solace in the '17.4 million voted for it' ad pop.
Again no to you and yours of a similar opinion anyway remainers lost the vote really that should be the end of the matter, I can however imagine I would be into some form of giant moan had the vote been the other way.
I can see there's no way leavers and remainers will ever agree over this subject but I will say I have many reasons for wanting to leave a federal Europe that in my view was placed on us by acts of subterfuge in my unalterable opinion.
The very top of my list of the many things about the the EU that I will never accept is that EU court being able to over rule our topmost court of appeal.
If the persistent attempts by the remainers are able to in some way to successfully subvert the democratic referendum vote to leave, I can see there'll be some kind of serious trouble break out all over the country, I think I could just about do some form of non violent civil disobedience myself and even the Scots can't all be remainers.
The UK geographical position won't be altering and as far as I know there's no likelihood of the UK declaring war on the EU, where is there any difficulty in making arrangements to get on with Europe apart from the obvious agreements etc.
I'm very happy to get on with Europe I just don't, like the majority of the UK population, want to be a part of the Federal EU, I wish them well.
ippy
-
Again no to you and yours of a similar opinion anyway remainers lost the vote really that should be the end of the matter...
Not if you actually believe in democracy as much as Brexiteers pretend to. What the leave campaign described was nothing like what turned out to be possible and it certainly wasn't a no-deal. Not to mention the barefaced lies.
FFS if you bought something from Amazon and the description was as unlike the reality as the leave campaign was, you'd be perfectly justified in sending it back and writing a disparaging review to the effect that it wasn't what you ordered. You personally may be happy to see people lose their jobs, the economy to be seriously damaged, and the break up of the UK to get your little England fantasy, but don't presume to speak for everybody who voted leave.
I can see there's no way leavers and remainers will ever agree over this subject but I will say I have many reasons for wanting to leave a federal Europe that in my view was placed on us by acts of subterfuge in my unalterable opinion.
An unalterable opinion tends to be an irrational one.
The very top of my list of the many things about the the EU that I will never accept is that EU court being able to over rule our topmost court of appeal.
What on earth is wrong with that?
I'm very happy to get on with Europe I just don't, like the majority of the UK population, want to be a part of the Federal EU, I wish them well.
The majority of the population didn't vote to leave - a small majority of those who voted did - on the basis of false promises and barefaced lies.
-
Not if you actually believe in democracy as much as Brexiteers pretend to. What the leave campaign described was nothing like what turned out to be possible and it certainly wasn't a no-deal. Not to mention the barefaced lies.
FFS if you bought something from Amazon and the description was as unlike the reality as the leave campaign was, you'd be perfectly justified in sending it back and writing a disparaging review to the effect that it wasn't what you ordered. You personally may be happy to see people lose their jobs, the economy to be seriously damaged, and the break up of the UK to get your little England fantasy, but don't presume to speak for everybody who voted leave.
An unalterable opinion tends to be an irrational one.
What on earth is wrong with that?
The majority of the population didn't vote to leave - a small majority of those who voted did - on the basis of false promises and barefaced lies.
We don't agree on our definition of democracy I would guess your reading and understanding of the choice given on the ballot paper was the same as mine, in or out, anything else you're bringing up appears to me to be a thorough dislike of the result and if it had gone the other way I have to admit I wouldn't of liked it either.
I can't see my unalterable not wanting to stay as a part of the EU is without reason no matter how much we disagree that's it, we disagree the EU court's being able to overrule our UK courts obviously doesn't bother you fair enough we don't agree, thus the referendum, leave won the day, it's hardly my fault your point of view didn't win the referendum.
I don't think you're stupid because you want to stay in the EU like you visa versa whichever way you wish to put it we both think the other monumentally wrong therefore the only answer a referendum, leave won so as soon as please.
ippy
-
I Y O.
ippy
I can't see any valid reason to use any quote or selection/whatever from the BBC on Brexit seriously.
ippy
-
Yes. Did you read my link? Do you have an opinion on it.
Their's no point looking at the BBC's one way output about anything to do with brexit, but no matter what it says leave won the referendum so we should be leaving.
ippy
-
Since the referendum (and in it's immediate run up) I believe the BBC has moved to unbiased panels with regard to brexit position. Prveiously (and not unreasonably) the panel make up reflected party political support, such that panelists were invited on the basis of party electoral support.
Why should a panel in 2010 involve equivalent panelist with regard to their position on the EU, when the EU was considered to be an important issue facing the country by less than 10% of the population.
You could pick any other number of minor concerns of the public and demand that QT should have equal numbers of people on either side, but ultimately it would be impossible to pick a panel.
It'd be a big surprise if the remainers were outnumbered by leavers on QT, a monumentally big surprise, the staff at the BBC would rather die than outnumber the remainers on QT, it won't happen ever.
ippy
-
We don't agree on our definition of democracy I would guess your reading and understanding of the choice given on the ballot paper was the same as mine, in or out, anything else you're bringing up appears to me to be a thorough dislike of the result and if it had gone the other way I have to admit I wouldn't of liked it either.
It was always a stupid question to put to in a referendum anyway (if, indeed, there is any place for them in our system at all), but in practice, all people had to go on about what leaving would entail is what the campaign said - and it was totally unlike the choices that are now before us. That's before we get to the lies and law breaking.
I can't see my unalterable not wanting to stay as a part of the EU is without reason...
I didn't say without reason, I was pointing out that an opinion that is unalterable (say, in the light of new information) is likely to be irrational.
...no matter how much we disagree that's it, we disagree the EU court's being able to overrule our UK courts obviously doesn't bother you fair enough we don't agree...
You still haven't said what about it you think is so terrible that you'd accept a no-deal, damage to the economy, working people losing their jobs, businesses going bust, and the break up of the UK, in order to stop it.
I just don't understand what the problem is. It's not like the EU is trying to impose some dreadful laws on us that we've had no say in.
...thus the referendum, leave won the day, it's hardly my fault your point of view didn't win the referendum.
I didn't suggest that it was.
I don't think you're stupid because you want to stay in the EU like you visa versa whichever way you wish to put it we both think the other monumentally wrong therefore the only answer a referendum, leave won so as soon as please.
And you still haven't given a hint of any reason why you want it so much you'd be prepared to sacrifice jobs and livelihoods, crash the economy, and make the UK a world laughing stock - assuming it survives as the United Kingdom at all.
What's so bad about it?
-
If the persistent attempts by the remainers are able to in some way to successfully subvert the democratic referendum vote to leave, I can see there'll be some kind of serious trouble break out all over the country, I think I could just about do some form of non violent civil disobedience myself and even the Scots can't all be remainers.
ippy
I suspect that you are over-playing 'democracy' here given the history involving the non-binding 2016 referendum, since the simplistic question used was clearly inadequate given the complexities that are now all too painfully apparent, and where those driving the 'leave' agenda in 2016 provided no substantive information regarding the consequences of Brexit: for example, I certainly can't remember the NI situation being raised by them back in 2016, therefore it is fair comment to say that those supporting 'leave' in 2016 did so in the absence of any meaningful information regarding the issues and practicalities: as H.L Mencken noted, when it comes to 'democracy' the presumption that collective wisdom arises from individual ignorance is 'pathetic' (his term), and this is all to obvious in the case of the Brexit referendum.
As regards 'serious trouble' when Brexit is binned it may be that there are outbreaks of dancing in the streets here in Scotland: but then Brexit, it seems to me, is largely an English affectation.
-
Their's no point looking at the BBC's one way output about anything to do with brexit, but no matter what it says leave won the referendum so we should be leaving.
ippy
You’re indulging in all the same tactics as creationists. Your opinion ion is unalterable no matter what new facts may emerge. You pretend reliable sources of information are biased because they don’t agree with you.
So tell us, can you name one aspect of EU membership that has disadvantaged you personally.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49223319
Give us a better deal or we'll shoot our own foot off. You can't make it up.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49223319
Give us a better deal or we'll shoot our own foot off. You can't make it up.
I can think of a couple of ways to force the EU27 into re-negotiating the backstop... this isn't one.
Still, if people want to vote to to make themselves poorer, elect clowns as leaders or trash the planet who am I to get in the way?
-
New nickname for the prime minister - Boris Badenough.
-
I can think of a couple of ways to force the EU27 into re-negotiating the backstop... this isn't one.
Really? What are they?
Still, if people want to vote to to make themselves poorer, elect clowns as leaders or trash the planet who am I to get in the way?
Because they don't just make themselves poorer.
-
Yes, making yourself poorer is a fantasy. You make a lot of people poorer, including those who don't want to be. But it's a cult, beyond reason.
-
Yes, making yourself poorer is a fantasy. You make a lot of people poorer, including those who don't want to be. But it's a cult, beyond reason.
Boris Johnson is certainly a cult.
-
It was always a stupid question to put to in a referendum anyway (if, indeed, there is any place for them in our system at all), but in practice, all people had to go on about what leaving would entail is what the campaign said - and it was totally unlike the choices that are now before us. That's before we get to the lies and law breaking.
I didn't say without reason, I was pointing out that an opinion that is unalterable (say, in the light of new information) is likely to be irrational.
You still haven't said what about it you think is so terrible that you'd accept a no-deal, damage to the economy, working people losing their jobs, businesses going bust, and the break up of the UK, in order to stop it.
I just don't understand what the problem is. It's not like the EU is trying to impose some dreadful laws on us that we've had no say in.
I didn't suggest that it was.
And you still haven't given a hint of any reason why you want it so much you'd be prepared to sacrifice jobs and livelihoods, crash the economy, and make the UK a world laughing stock - assuming it survives as the United Kingdom at all.
What's so bad about it?
Quote from: ippy on August 03, 2019, 05:47:39 PM
I can't see my unalterable not wanting to stay as a part of the EU is without reason...
I didn't say without reason, I was pointing out that an opinion that is unalterable (say, in the light of new information) is likely to be irrational.
Well yes it would look like that to you, I find the control of our courts by the EU unacceptable, you don't, it wouldn't matter what I put up to you why I think the way I do we're not going to agree; this kind of thing was nationwide thus a referendum.
ippy
-
You’re indulging in all the same tactics as creationists. Your opinion ion is unalterable no matter what new facts may emerge. You pretend reliable sources of information are biased because they don’t agree with you.
So tell us, can you name one aspect of EU membership that has disadvantaged you personally.
As you know jp, whatever change is made involving this scale of change will involve taking an overall decision, it' pretty obvious both our estimations are not going to the same ever, like I've said before this kind of thing or disagreement was nationwide thus a referendum.
ippy
-
Well yes it would look like that to you...
Don't you get why having an unalterable opinion, that is therefore not open to reason or new information, is not rational? It's like blind faith.
...I find the control of our courts by the EU unacceptable, you don't, it wouldn't matter what I put up to you why I think the way I do we're not going to agree...
- Why won't you say why you find it unacceptable? Can you name some instance where it has affected you, or even the country, adversely?
- If we crash out with no deal, what would you say to somebody who'd lost their job or business as to why you thought it was worth it?
- How do you know that it wouldn't matter what you said? My opinion isn't unalterable. Is this more blind faith?
-
I suspect that you are over-playing 'democracy' here given the history involving the non-binding 2016 referendum, since the simplistic question used was clearly inadequate given the complexities that are now all too painfully apparent, and where those driving the 'leave' agenda in 2016 provided no substantive information regarding the consequences of Brexit: for example, I certainly can't remember the NI situation being raised by them back in 2016, therefore it is fair comment to say that those supporting 'leave' in 2016 did so in the absence of any meaningful information regarding the issues and practicalities: as H.L Mencken noted, when it comes to 'democracy' the presumption that collective wisdom arises from individual ignorance is 'pathetic' (his term), and this is all to obvious in the case of the Brexit referendum.
As regards 'serious trouble' when Brexit is binned it may be that there are outbreaks of dancing in the streets here in Scotland: but then Brexit, it seems to me, is largely an English affectation.
I can't see that we'll ever be at one on this subject Gordon, just as a footnote I'll be making a point of celebrating if we manage to leave in spite of all of the remoaning subterfuge.
ippy
-
I can't see that we'll ever be at one on this subject Gordon, just as a footnote I'll be making a point of celebrating if we manage to leave in spite of all of the remoaning subterfuge.
ippy
I don't think there is subterfuge going on, ippy: those seeking to stop Brexit are clearly indicating their intention, and I hope they succeed in doing so by whatever means can be used to obtain that result.
-
I don't think there is subterfuge going on, ippy: those seeking to stop Brexit are clearly indicating their intention, and I hope they succeed in doing so by whatever means can be used to obtain that result.
I can easily understand your pov Gordon.
As you can see from the endless arguments involved the referendum was the only answer all I want is to see the result implemented.
Of course it's not all on the plus side for any point of view all anyone can do is make their own assessment, including any minus points I think overall in the long term outlook for the UK we will thrive and obviously you don't, I think you're side of this endless argument has got it wrong, perhaps remove subterfuge and insert gamesmanship.
ippy
-
I can easily understand your pov Gordon.
As you can see from the endless arguments involved the referendum was the only answer all I want is to see the result implemented.
Of course it's not all on the plus side for any point of view all anyone can do is make their own assessment, including any minus points I think overall in the long term outlook for the UK we will thrive and obviously you don't, I think you're side of this endless argument has got it wrong, perhaps remove subterfuge and insert gamesmanship.
ippy
It isn't even gamesmanship, ippy: Brexit must be stopped, and especially now we have an lying fuckwit of a PM and and cabinet now largely consisting of shit-faced weasels (like Truss et al) who now seem determined on a 'no deal' disaster.
-
It isn't even gamesmanship, ippy: Brexit must be stopped, and especially now we have an lying fuckwit of a PM and and cabinet now largely consisting of shit-faced weasels (like Truss et al) who now seem determined on a 'no deal' disaster.
Again leave or remain is one of those decisions where I don't think you'll find a definitive answer either way and I feel just like you do but visa versa
I'll vote for anyone that gets us out, at the moment it seems that Boris may well do the job if and when we're out I'll be back to having no idea who to vote for because I don't share much with any of them including Boris.
ippy
-
Really? What are they?
Because they don't just make themselves poorer.
I am for Remain, mostly for political rather than economic reasons, but the UK remaining in the EU is no longer a feasible proposition (except maybe in the unlikely event of Remain winning with a super-majority in 2nd ref.)
Given that we will leave, the Withdrawal Agreement as proposed is the best starting point possible. It has been rejected for spurious reasons by leavers determined to leave without any agreement and with maximum disruption. This group now direct the government. I doubt that they would accept any new WA even without the backstop, but I'm certainly not going to suggest any options that might help them.
It's done - we will all be poorer, better get used to it.
-
For me, it's a poignant irony that, apart from a few exceedingly wealthy free-marketers who stand to profit handsomely from a deregulated Britain outside of the EU, the bulk of the leave voters seem to have been in favour of taking back sovereignty in one manner or another, a return to the one-man, one-vote idea, and that doing so was worth the short- to mid-term financial hit that would result.
That's a judgement call on a personal basis, one that I personally don't agree with.
The manner in which we've been lumped with a lying twat-waffle of a Prime Minister purely through the entirely British electoral rules shows that 'taking back control' lie to be the untruth that it always was. That follows the dismal performance of the voting reform project that resulted in the 'Alternative Vote' referendum in 2011.
There are so many different interpretations of 'taking back control' and 'sovereignty' that trying to come up with a single coherent argument to stand against all of them is impossible - and that's why Remain lost, because they fought one campaign with one goal, whereas Leave fought hundreds (legally and illegally) with different goals, but one stepping stone on the way... and now huge swathes of people who voted in favour of that first step are going to find out that the rest of their plan is never going to materialise.
O.
-
... (except maybe in the unlikely event of Remain winning with a super-majority in 2nd ref.)
Why "not feasible"? Particularly since the current mess is due to "Leave" getting a little more than one third of the electorate in an "advisory" referendum?
-
For me, it's a poignant irony that, apart from a few exceedingly wealthy free-marketers who stand to profit handsomely from a deregulated Britain outside of the EU, the bulk of the leave voters seem to have been in favour of taking back sovereignty in one manner or another, a return to the one-man, one-vote idea, and that doing so was worth the short- to mid-term financial hit that would result.
That's a judgement call on a personal basis, one that I personally don't agree with.
The manner in which we've been lumped with a lying twat-waffle of a Prime Minister purely through the entirely British electoral rules shows that 'taking back control' lie to be the untruth that it always was. That follows the dismal performance of the voting reform project that resulted in the 'Alternative Vote' referendum in 2011.
There are so many different interpretations of 'taking back control' and 'sovereignty' that trying to come up with a single coherent argument to stand against all of them is impossible - and that's why Remain lost, because they fought one campaign with one goal, whereas Leave fought hundreds (legally and illegally) with different goals, but one stepping stone on the way... and now huge swathes of people who voted in favour of that first step are going to find out that the rest of their plan is never going to materialise.
O.
I think that this whole problem began with the Scottish Referendum. Not the referendum itself, but the prime minister's response to the result. I think that David Cameron's response should have been to establish some kind of commission to examine the constitutional structures and arrangements of the United Kingdom and to consider their appropriateness and validity in the 21st Century. He chose instead English Votes for English Laws.
We are stuck with system of constitutional arrangements which were designed for the first part of the 19th century. Even the small things are inadequate - like taking 10 minutes to conduct a single vote in the House of Commons.
Such a commission would need to examine all aspects govrenmental activity - local, central, regional, cultural, national, international. Had it been established Cameron would have ended his days feted as a great reformer, and there would have been no opportunity for reptiles like Farage to flourish.
-
If true, this doesn't look good: these Tory fuckers need to be stopped.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told
-
If true, this doesn't look good: these Tory fuckers need to be stopped.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told
It does look like the lying, incompetent narcissist PM, forced on us by 0.2% of the electorate (fuck democracy), is determined to drive us off the cliff. I dunno, maybe it has to happen in order to convince the people who've been taken in by the Brexit cult just what a bad idea it was and how it's in nobody's interest except (ironically) the rich elite that have lied to them.
Then we'll have to try and reverse it. Unfortunately a lot of people will suffer unnecessarily and an awful lot of money will have been wasted.
-
Why "not feasible"? Particularly since the current mess is due to "Leave" getting a little more than one third of the electorate in an "advisory" referendum?
Suppose that there was a second referendum or even an election before Johnson crashes us out: Assuming a roughly 52-48% result - in favour of remain this time, how can the UK expect to participate successfully in the EU from that point with such a deeply divided population?
Prior to the 2016 ref. only 11% thought membership of the EU was an important issue - now it is de facto the most important. We were able to continue in a fuzzy state for decades, but it will difficult to do so now we know that nearly half hate the EU (wrongly or not).
-
Suppose that there was a second referendum or even an election before Johnson crashes us out: Assuming a roughly 52-48% result - in favour of remain this time, how can the UK expect to participate successfully in the EU from that point with such a deeply divided population?
Prior to the 2016 ref. only 11% thought membership of the EU was an important issue - now it is de facto the most important. We were able to continue in a fuzzy state for decades, but it will difficult to do so now we know that nearly half hate the EU (wrongly or not).
We are truly in a no-win situation. Once the reality of no-deal hits home, with job losses, inflation and lower living standards you will have roughly 48% saying "I told you so" and roughly 52% saying this isn't what you promised at all. A recipe for social destabilisation at a rapid rate. Never, even in the darkest years of Thatcher did I feel such utter despair.
The blind willingness to follow the folly of Boris et al by some on this board only increases that despair.
-
There are reports that even if the government lost a vote of confidence the bold Boris would refuse to resign, and thereby creating an impasse that could be dragged out so as to allow Brexit to happen by default. I saw a comment somewhere that even if Westminster was paralysed it could be that, in view of the urgency, the Queen could intervene - it seems possible, albeit unlikely, but then the current situation is unique in the political history of the UK.
Some points taken from here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power
To refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister. This was last reputedly considered in 1910, but George V later changed his mind. Harold Wilson, leading a minority government in 1974, was advised Elizabeth II might refuse to dissolve Parliament if she could identify an alternative Prime Minister able to command a cross-party majority.
To summon and prorogue parliament
For example, in the hung parliament in 1974, the serving Prime Minister Edward Heath attempted to remain in power but was unable to form a working majority. The Queen then asked Harold Wilson, leader of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of seats in the Commons but not an overall majority, to attempt to form a government. Subsequently, Wilson asked that if the government were defeated on the floor of the House of Commons, the Queen would grant a dissolution, which she agreed to.
Since it seems, from reports, that part of the 'no deal' plan is to ensure that there is no time for a GE before 31st October, because parliament is in recess, could be dealt with if the Queen could be persuaded (not sure by whom) to summon parliament to allow a vote of no confidence and then dissolve it if the government loses.
It seems unlikely the Queen would get directly involved, but these are unusual times. Get some popcorn in now, since if Brexit happens there might be none in the shops.
-
This blog was written a few years ago but has some interesting stuff on the effects of the Fixed Term Parliament Act
https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/the-fixed-term-parliament-sic-act-and-professor-colin-talbot/
-
As you know jp, whatever change is made involving this scale of change will involve taking an overall decision, it' pretty obvious both our estimations are not going to the same ever, like I've said before this kind of thing or disagreement was nationwide thus a referendum.
ippy
Please answer my question. Can you name one aspect of the EU that has disadvantaged you personally?
Actually, I'll widen it slightly. Can you name one aspect of being outside the EU that will advantage you personally?
-
I am for Remain, mostly for political rather than economic reasons, but the UK remaining in the EU is no longer a feasible proposition (except maybe in the unlikely event of Remain winning with a super-majority in 2nd ref.)
I don't agree. A prime minister who isn't a venal greedy power mad fuckwit could stop this tomorrow.
-
If true, this doesn't look good: these Tory fuckers need to be stopped.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/05/no-deal-brexit-is-boris-johnsons-central-scenario-eu-told
It should tell the Brexiteers something that the EU seems to be completely transparent. We know exactly where they stand and what their position is. It's the British government that is lying to us, telling us one thing while telling the EU negotiations something else.
"Take back control" is looking really hollow at the moment.
-
I don't agree. A prime minister who isn't a venal greedy power mad fuckwit could stop this tomorrow.
except in the current climate that would seem likely to lead to riots.
-
except in the current climate that would seem likely to lead to riots.
Personally, I don't think giving in to threats of violence is a good way to run a country.
-
Personally, I don't think giving in to threats of violence is a good way to run a country.
Doesn't mean that just stopping Brexit is feasible.
-
Doesn't mean that just stopping Brexit is feasible.
It could be stopped tomorrow by a sane prime minister. It's certainly feasible. It isn't likely because we don't have a sane prime minister.
-
I don't agree. A prime minister who isn't a venal greedy power mad fuckwit could stop this tomorrow.
Of-course, but how are you going to get and keep such a PM in power? How could they build sufficient positive support for EU membership and participation for the long term?
-
It could be stopped tomorrow by a sane prime minister. It's certainly feasible. It isn't likely because we don't have a sane prime minister.
Feasibility and possibility and/or likely are not the same. It's not feasible for there to be such a PM, nor is it feasible for that to pass through the Commons currently.
-
Of-course, but how are you going to get and keep such a PM in power?
You're not. If more politicians put the country ahead of their careers, we would not be in this mess.
How could they build sufficient positive support for EU membership and participation for the long term?
Banning Boris Johnson from writing lying articles about the EU would be a start.
-
Feasibility and possibility and/or likely are not the same. It's not feasible for there to be such a PM, nor is it feasible for that to pass through the Commons currently.
You're right, they are not the same, but it is you who has got the meaning the wrong way around, not me.
-
You're right, they are not the same, but it is you who has got the meaning the wrong way around, not me.
We are talking about what is feasible here. Where am I wrong?
-
You're not. If more politicians put the country ahead of their careers, we would not be in this mess.
Banning Boris Johnson from writing lying articles about the EU would be a start.
nothing about the feasibility.
-
The backstop with added Derry Girls
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1157276169944911873.html
-
We are talking about what is feasible here. Where am I wrong?
I can’t be arsed to deal with yet another one of your stupid irrelevant pedant arguments. So let’s agree to disagree and talk about the substantial issues rather than your interpretation of the word “feasible”.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49280689
I want to say he's a bone headed idiot who doesn't understand what is going on, but I feel that he actually does and he is just trying to lay the blame at the door of the EU.
-
What a cunning plan!
https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-gove-discussed-closing-banks-the-day-after-no-deal-brexit-2019-8?r=US&IR=T
-
It seems even more chaotic now, if that were possible, with the notion of a GE the day after Brexit by default, and that a successful No Confidence vote can be ignored so as to let the clock tick towards 'no deal' - one wonders if this is all dastardly smoke and mirrors to distract, and if so for what purpose.
I'd have thought there is now a case to recall Parliament.
-
If it wasn't for climate change, Kashmir, Palestine, Hong Kong, Syria, Yemen, I would be worried we were the world's next big problem.
-
This (https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/67483723_1195223313995443_7853393034115809280_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_oc=AQmFTv8a3Z6tyEFYU5qxZ6Ezs-BdkGCsOEuhncr5GewqmehvQD_T3ezxQAAXSyXVqcI&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=70d29bd6e233638e9df80326c8596131&oe=5DD3E960)
-
A Brexit parable
Seven guys go on a binge trip to Brighton and halfway back to London, one of them, an exercise freak named Nigel, says “I think we should get the driver to stop and let us walk … and anyway I’ve always hated this coach company”
The others ask why and he says “Think of the lovely fresh air and the exercise we’ll get and we’ll have control of what we can do along the way! And we wont have to pay the exorbitant fares they charge for every mile!”
It is pointed out to him by his mates and the others on the coach that it’s dangerous and they could get run over.
“No, there’s bound to be a little footpath well away from any danger. Take no notice of these cowards they’re all laughable!”
…………………………………..
Three of them say, “It sounds okay, we’ll have some of that!”
The other three say “It sounds too dodgy”
And so they have a vote and the leavers win by 4 to 3 … they get off.
…………………………………
They find a footpath and walk along quite happily for 100 yards. “You see, what did those fools on the bus know!
But then the path runs out! “Oh no! “, four of them cry!
“There’s always the hard shoulder!” laughs Nigel.
“But that’s far too dangerous” cry four of the others.
“That’s what those cowards said about the path and what did they know!”
………………………………………….
They go on and then they come to a bridge … no hard shoulder!
“This is madness! We’ve got no safe way of going on! We’ll have to stop the next coach and ask if we can get back to the safe route” the others shout.
“Oh no, we had a democratic vote so we can’t go back on that!”
“But this is nothing like the picture you painted to us before that vote!”
“That doesn’t matter! It’s democracy!!!!
-
Please answer my question. Can you name one aspect of the EU that has disadvantaged you personally?
Actually, I'll widen it slightly. Can you name one aspect of being outside the EU that will advantage you personally?
It wouldn't matter whatever I put in a reply to you about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU would inevitably just end up in some sort or other of continuous wrangle so as I have said before this big disagreement is a no give way on either side argument tossing a coin wasn't a realistic direction to take so we had a referendum leave won and that should be the end of it.
I never wanted to be a part of a federal europe, something we had no say about, this transcends all of the arguments remainers keep on coming out as far as I'm concerned have no relevance to me.
As for going over a cliff edge, well I wouldn't have thought the UK as a nation is as clueless and dependent in the way remainers keep on implying.
I do have some sympathy for the remaining side but I have to admit it's wearing very thin at the moment and again if the rolls were reversed I wouldn't be very happy either but don't forget the remain side has about 99% of the media on side and leave still won the day in spite of the media's heavy bias.
ippy
-
It wouldn't matter whatever I put in a reply to you about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU would inevitably just end up in some sort or other of continuous wrangle...
You seem to want to do anything but actually answer the questions.
I never wanted to be a part of a federal europe, something we had no say about...
OK, why not, in what way has it disadvantaged you personally, and why is it so important to you that you are prepared to risk breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods?
...this transcends all of the arguments remainers keep on coming out as far as I'm concerned have no relevance to me.
Breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods has no relevance to you, that's nice for you, but in what way is being in a "federal Europe" (to the extent that's even true) relevant to you?
As for going over a cliff edge, well I wouldn't have thought the UK as a nation is as clueless and dependent in the way remainers keep on implying.
It's the assessment of pretty much every expert in the relevant fields that the UK will be adversely affected by any Brexit and that a no-deal will be seriously damaging.
This seems to be blind faith on your part - much like the faith you criticise theists for...
...but don't forget the remain side has about 99% of the media on side...
Total nonsense - take a look at the printed press.
...and leave still won the day in spite of the media's heavy bias.
By breaking electoral laws and lying. Even ignoring that, no-deal wasn't on voted on, neither, for that matter, was the leaving the single market.
Just in case you've forgotten: Leave campaigners: let's stay in the Single Market (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY)
-
You seem to want to do anything but actually answer the questions.
OK, why not, in what way has it disadvantaged you personally, and why is it so important to you that you are prepared to risk breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods?
Breaking up the UK, severe damage to the economy, and people losing their jobs and livelihoods has no relevance to you, that's nice for you, but in what way is being in a "federal Europe" (to the extent that's even true) relevant to you?
It's the assessment of pretty much every expert in the relevant fields that the UK will be adversely affected by any Brexit and that a no-deal will be seriously damaging.
This seems to be blind faith on your part - much like the faith you criticise theists for...
Total nonsense - take a look at the printed press.
By breaking electoral laws and lying. Even ignoring that, no-deal wasn't on voted on, neither, for that matter, was the leaving the single market.
Just in case you've forgotten: Leave campaigners: let's stay in the Single Market (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY)
Like I said find another whipping boy.
ippy
-
Just won't engage will you?
Tell me what happened to the easiest trade deal in history?
-
Like I said find another whipping boy.
You didn't have to say anything about it at all. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it (where have I heard that before?).
You posted (what appear to be) your articles of faith: the EU court and this "federal Europe" are "bad" and now you won't even try to defend that position or even offer the slightest hint as to why you think they are so bad that you'd risk so much to get rid of them. You also seem to want to repeat that the referendum should have settled the matter but you won't engage with the counterarguments.
You can shut up about it if you want but if you post opinions on the matter you can expect to have them challenged, and running away from that isn't a great look. It's not like you don't challenge people's ideas on this forum, is it?
-
Something from LBC just now: in politics, people are entitled to change their mind and vote differently in the future, but the result of a democratic vote has to be implemented or it is not democracy. So regarding the referendum, any further EU referenda must take place after we have implemented the result of the 2016 one.
-
Just won't engage will you?
Tell me what happened to the easiest trade deal in history?
Again, brexit leave or remain supporters will never agree, it won't happen it must be one of the most contentious subjects I've ever known in my lifetime, it's possible we might agree about that.
Brexit is so contentious tossing a coin wouldn't be appropriate therefore perhaps on something as divisive the best solution could have been a referendum.
I would be as it seems to me that those that wish to remain are devastated by the result, I get it I do, just enjoy your Guardian or the radio TV version, the BBC of the same.
It wouldn't matter whatever I was to say about my reasons for wishing to leave an organisation that was foisted on us here in the UK without even having a say about ever closer union, nothing, it'd be one long wrangle that we'd be extremely unlikely have any areas of agreement.
I suppose like the general Guardian like bitterness will filter through trying to strike out at those that they seem to think have hurt them, it would be much the same visa versa.
I don't belong to any political party I don't like any of them enough to vote for any of them, in normal times, whatever normal is, I very seldom know where to put my X however I do buy a newspaper once a week on a Saturday I can't buy the Guardian or any other liberal paper they make me feel bad tempered with their generally unrealistic outlook, I don't buy the times because I don't knowingly buy anything that has Murdoch's hand on it I buy the Telegraph even though I don't particularly share any of it's political views but I do find its flog em and hang em approach to a lot of subjects really amusing + the Mat cartoon.
Anyway having shared that lot with you for no particular reason I'll add again I've no intention of being anyone's whipping boy no matter how bad your feelings are hurt by the referendum result.
Regards ippy
-
Something from LBC just now: in politics, people are entitled to change their mind and vote differently in the future, but the result of a democratic vote has to be implemented or it is not democracy. So regarding the referendum, any further EU referenda must take place after we have implemented the result of the 2016 one.
The problem in this case is that what was promised by the leave campaign turned out to be (was always, actually) impossible to deliver. To borrow from John Oliver, if you promise the electorate a unicorn and all you can come up with is a horse with an ice-cream cone glued to its forehead, you have a problem.
The closest thing that could have been delivered would have been a much closer relationship with the EU, like (as was talked about in the campaign) staying in the single market. If May had decided to compromise across parties, rather than appease the extremists in her own party, we would probably have left the EU by now and the result would have been implemented.
Crashing out of the EU with no deal has never been voted on and has no democratic mandate at all - and neither does Boris the Liar.
-
Again, brexit leave or remain supporters will never agree, it won't happen it must be one of the most contentious subjects I've ever known in my lifetime, it's possible we might agree about that.
It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron) decided he could paint the lunatic Eurosceptic fringe of his own party into a corner: he failed, and never planned for the possibility that some sections of the electorate would be hoodwinked by a bunch of self-serving liars. There was no pressing public demand for Brexit prior to the 2015 GE.
In fact only the year before that GE, in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, this same Tory PM told us Scots that to stay in the EU we needed to stay in the UK - Brexit wasn't supposed to happen you see, and the electorate were supposed to tell the ERG nutters to go away and stop annoying everybody.
Now we seen what is, in effect, a political coup by right-wing politicians who seem, according to some reports, determined to get their way by fair means or foul: hopefully they can yet be stopped.
-
Anyway having shared that lot with you for no particular reason I'll add again I've no intention of being anyone's whipping boy no matter how bad your feelings are hurt by the referendum result.
Frankly, you seem to be hiding behind this "oh your feelings have been hurt" line in order to avoid debate.
If only a small part of what most experts think will happen if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal, actually happens, we will still be in deep trouble as a nation and yet you want to pretend it's all about emotions and people's feelings getting hurt.
There are real people whose jobs and livelihoods are threatened by this.
Emotionally, I'm almost tempted to hope that we do crash out, because actually seeing the consequences may be the only way many people will realise how they've been lied to, and, as a fantastic silver lining, it may sink the Tory party for a generation or more. Oh, and I get to say "we told you so".
Unfortunately, it's all too serious for that.
-
It wouldn't matter whatever I put in a reply to you about my reasons for wanting to leave the EU
I didn't ask you about your reasons for wanting the leave the EU. I asked you for an example of a way in which you have been disadvantaged by being in the EU or alternatively, a way in which you personally will be advantaged by not being in the EU.
would inevitably just end up in some sort or other of continuous wrangle so as I have said before this big disagreement is a no give way on either side argument tossing a coin wasn't a realistic direction to take so we had a referendum leave won and that should be the end of it.
I never wanted to be a part of a federal europe, something we had no say about, this transcends all of the arguments remainers keep on coming out as far as I'm concerned have no relevance to me.
All meaningles waffle because you can't answer my question.
As for going over a cliff edge, well I wouldn't have thought the UK as a nation is as clueless and dependent in the way remainers keep on implying.
The UK as a nation isn't clueless, it's just the Brexiteers that are clueless.
I do have some sympathy for the remaining side but I have to admit it's wearing very thin at the moment and again if the rolls were reversed I wouldn't be very happy either but don't forget the remain side has about 99% of the media on side and leave still won the day in spite of the media's heavy bias.
ippy
Please stop trying to transfer the blame onto our shoulders.
-
The problem in this case is that what was promised by the leave campaign turned out to be (was always, actually) impossible to deliver. To borrow from John Oliver, if you promise the electorate a unicorn and all you can come up with is a horse with an ice-cream cone glued to its forehead, you have a problem.
The closest thing that could have been delivered would have been a much closer relationship with the EU, like (as was talked about in the campaign) staying in the single market. If May had decided to compromise across parties, rather than appease the extremists in her own party, we would probably have left the EU by now and the result would have been implemented.
Crashing out of the EU with no deal has never been voted on and has no democratic mandate at all - and neither does Boris the Liar.
Well, it was a leave or remain option, so no deal is technically delivering on the result. Much as I as a leave voter would now like to see article 50 revoked, I think I agree with the point made on the radio, which was was that if a majority votes for a bad political party, that result has to be implemented so that those voters face the consequences of their decision. They can then have the chance to repent of it with the next vote.
No deal can still be averted, however, if article 50 is extended, and parliament decides we stay in the single market as you suggest.
-
I think I agree with the point made on the radio, which was was that if a majority votes for a bad political party, that result has to be implemented so that those voters face the consequences of their decision. They can then have the chance to repent of it with the next vote.
So, Spud, voters in Scotland are being punished because voters elsewhere in the UK voted for the Tories: why should we in Scotland be made to face the consequences of that, and on what basis should we Scots repent since we didn't vote for the shower of fuckwits that have inflicted Brexit on us in the first place?
Yes I know Scotland is part of the UK - but this perhaps illustrates that the UK doesn't work any more.
-
Yes Gordon, thinking out loud: I wonder if the UK is necessary now that there is the EU?
Regarding your first paragraph, isn't this the disadvantage of democracy?
-
Yes Gordon, thinking out loud: I wonder if the UK is necessary now that there is the EU?
Regarding your first paragraph, isn't this the disadvantage of democracy?
That rather depends on how democracy is arranged - it seems to me that the FPP approach is one problematic aspect, and another is that the four nations that comprise the UK aren't equitable in either political outlook or political party representation. In addition, in the case of Scotland, and aside from devolution, there are other important differences (the legal system being but one example).
-
Well, it was a leave or remain option, so no deal is technically delivering on the result. Much as I as a leave voter would now like to see article 50 revoked, I think I agree with the point made on the radio, which was was that if a majority votes for a bad political party, that result has to be implemented so that those voters face the consequences of their decision. They can then have the chance to repent of it with the next vote.
As you've pointed out, though, in a 'bad' election you get to vote again three, four, five years later. There is no going back on the EU departure, once we're out we're out and if we try to return we'll be held to a far, far less favourable deal than we currently have. No rebate, chances are no Sterling, membership of the ERM...
No deal can still be averted, however, if article 50 is extended, and parliament decides we stay in the single market as you suggest.
Unfortunately, there's a hard-core of do-or-die Eurosceptics who are playing their hand very well with a range of disaffected voters who have had 'Leave' pitched at them as everything from patriotic freedom to sticking it up the London elite, and it's a tactic that's working. Their lies are not being called out often enough because the same vested interests that benefit from Leave are the same interests that are funding the lying politicians and the deceitful media outlets that are failing to call them to account.
O.
-
chances are no Sterling, membership of the ERM...
ERM membership is not compulsory. This is somewhat bizarre because EU membership is compulsory and it is mandatory to be in the ERM before you join the Euro, but you don't have to join the ERM. Sweden is using this to avoid joining the Euro.
Unfortunately, there's a hard-core of do-or-die Eurosceptics who are playing their hand very well with a range of disaffected voters who have had 'Leave' pitched at them as everything from patriotic freedom to sticking it up the London elite, and it's a tactic that's working. Their lies are not being called out often enough because the same vested interests that benefit from Leave are the same interests that are funding the lying politicians and the deceitful media outlets that are failing to call them to account.
Sigh
-
ipster,
Again, brexit leave or remain supporters will never agree, it won't happen it must be one of the most contentious subjects I've ever known in my lifetime, it's possible we might agree about that.
Forget for a minute whether leaving is a good idea or a bad one and think about the referendum itself. We're told to treat it as a great exercise in democracy, and so it should be honoured come what may. To the contrary though, the exercise was such a corrupt one that, if it was an election for a parish council, it would be revoked and run again. Why?
1. Because few if any of the promises and statements made by the leave campaign were true. There never was £350m per week for the NHS, the German car industry never was going to tell Merkel what to do, the first negotiation never would have been in Berlin, there was no possibility of cherry picking from the four freedoms, there never was a technical solution to the Irish border problem, we could never have stayed in the customs market or in the singe market with the terms Farage et al demanded. You may have forgotten that pointing these things out was described at the time a "project fear", and now - incredibly - leave ministers are arguing instead that we knew all along we were voting to be worse off.
2. The leave campaign broke electoral funding law on at least two occasions, and there are serious questions still about some £7m of funding in respect of which all the records seem mysteriously to have disappeared. We have election funding rules for a reason, and yet somehow we're supposed it seems just to ignore that they were broken.
3. The question was so vaguely worded that no matter which of the various versions of it there could be - inside the single market/outside the single market, with a deal/ without a deal etc - each ignoramus, liar or vested interest merchant who argues for one of them will also claim "and that's what 17m people voted for". Necessarily, that cannot be true.
So no, I for one cannot be part of "bringing the country together" when my and, more importantly, my children's futures in Europe have been stolen from us by a corrupt process we're told we must respect for some reason.
-
Other than it was always going to get attention, this is just a bizarre idea. It seems guaranteed just to annoy anyone who voted leave and many who didn't.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49321430
-
Interesting 'Long Read' in the Guardian today looking at 'Remainists'. One aspect that caught my attention was the feeling that the BBC were biased in favour of Brexit, whereas our ippy thinks the BBC has an anti-Brexit bias.
“Unfortunately, the BBC is no longer a source of truth for what’s going on in the country.” This has become a signature lament for remainists, who accuse the broadcaster of pro-Brexit bias. Andrew Adonis, a Labour peer and anti-Brexit campaigner, has been particularly critical of what he calls the “public disservice broadcaster”. He tweeted in May that “BBC News is so debased and biased, it should be replaced by a new independent news service”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/13/brexit-remain-radicalisation-fbpe-peoples-vote
-
I have long felt that the BBC were not neutral on Brexit and that they gave more time to extreme leave views than was representative.
They fall into the trap of presenting every statement of against/for as having equal validity.
Clearly not the case with issues like "the easiest trade deal in history".
Not that some people with highly effective blinkers are able to see this.
-
They fall into the trap of presenting every statement of against/for as having equal validity.
This is exactly the problem. The BBC has a duty to provide balance even if one point of view is clearly less credible than another. They are not allowed to editorialise.
-
It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron) decided he could paint the lunatic Eurosceptic fringe of his own party into a corner: he failed, and never planned for the possibility that some sections of the electorate would be hoodwinked by a bunch of self-serving liars. There was no pressing public demand for Brexit prior to the 2015 GE.
In fact only the year before that GE, in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, this same Tory PM told us Scots that to stay in the EU we needed to stay in the UK - Brexit wasn't supposed to happen you see, and the electorate were supposed to tell the ERG nutters to go away and stop annoying everybody.
Now we seen what is, in effect, a political coup by right-wing politicians who seem, according to some reports, determined to get their way by fair means or foul: hopefully they can yet be stopped.
As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.
Regards, ippy
-
As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong...
You're telling people that they're wrong but you won't say why. This is why it looks like you're basing your view on blind faith. You mentioned the European court and a "federal Europe" but you won't say what's so bad about them that you'd risk so much to get rid of them.
There are plenty of things about the UK I think are wrong: the unelected House of Lords, the monarchy, the first past the post voting system, to name a few - and sure, I'd vote to get rid of them, but not if the risks were like those of a no-deal Brexit.
...and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.
Once again you are simply ignoring the points people have made about this.
-
As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.
Regards, ippy
Remainers got it 'wrong' in what sense?
It seems to me you are confirming what I've long suspected - that those voting 'leave' had no real idea of what they were voting for and, more to the point, neither did the politicians involved in promoting 'leave'.
-
As I said before I don't think remainers are idiots, in my opinion they've just got it wrong and I can't see that either side'll ever agree therefore referendum, remain lost in theory that should be end of story.
Regards, ippy
Can you name same things that were wrong with the EU that had an impact on you personally? Or some things that the Leavers got right that are going to improve your life?
-
I've just finished reading Robin Aitkens book, 'The Noble Liar', it's how the BBC works absolutely in a nutshell though it is a pity he went into godhead mode toward the middle of the book though.
ippy
-
What has this to do with jeremyp's questions which you constantly are refusing to answer?
My guess is that you have no answer, that you never even questioned the wisdom of leaving the EU - but living in the past seemed more attractive than living in the future.
-
What has this to do with jeremyp's questions which you constantly are refusing to answer?
My guess is that you have no answer, that you never even questioned the wisdom of leaving the EU - but living in the past seemed more attractive than living in the future.
'Guess away' and have a go at that book, try reading it, up until the godhead section he's expressing more or less everything about how I feel about brexit but I have to admit his English is a lot betterer than wot mine is.
ippy
-
'Guess away' and have a go at that book, try reading it, up until the godhead section he's expressing more or less everything about how I feel about brexit but I have to admit his English is a lot betterer than wot mine is.
ippy
So surprise, surprise. You agree with him when he backs up your feelings, and you don't when he doesn't.
Rational thinking?
I think not.
-
So surprise, surprise. You agree with him when he backs up your feelings, and you don't when he doesn't.
Rational thinking?
I think not.
Well, obviously. Why the sarcasm? Some people on here just can't help themsleves - they seem to be instinctively sarcastic, and do it almost without realising. It gets very tiresome.
-
'Guess away' and have a go at that book, try reading it, up until the godhead section he's expressing more or less everything about how I feel about brexit...
And does he manage to come up with any real, practical harm the EU does to ordinary people, or even to the country, that would justify the real risks to real people's jobs, the economy, and the integrity of the UK, posed by a no-deal?
-
Well, obviously. Why the sarcasm? Some people on here just can't help themsleves - they seem to be instinctively sarcastic, and do it almost without realising. It gets very tiresome.
When I need lessons in hypocrisy I now know where to come.
I only use sarcasm when all other options have failed. They have in the case of this particular poster.
-
So after Caroline Lucas's attempt at pulling the opposition to Brexit failed, here's Corbyn's attempt failing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49352250
-
So after Caroline Lucas's attempt at pulling the opposition to Brexit failed, here's Corbyn's attempt failing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49352250
The idea has some merit; but I very much doubt some otherwise amenable Tories would serve a Corbyn PM-ship, no matter how brief.
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.
-
This is exactly the problem. The BBC has a duty to provide balance even if one point of view is clearly less credible than another. They are not allowed to editorialise.
They are allowed to editorialise, and frequently do - look at the difference in outlook between Andrew Neil's descriptions of The Mash Report and their response to it. Collectively, the various elements of the BBC shouldn't favour any given agenda, but they do have an obligation to truth and accuracy.
The problem is that balance doesn't mean giving equal weight to each side of any argument, because the arguments on various sides do not have equal validity - that was the conclusion into the review of the coverage of climate science and the rebuke by Ofcom that was given to Radio 4 for continuing to listen to Nigel Lawson's fabricated nonsense on climate changes. Balance REQUIRES an editorial judgement, that's why it's the editorial choices that make the Daily Mail and the Guardian have vastly different outlooks, how the BBC manages to offend both sets of readership on a regular basis. It's also how the mere existence of 'codes of conduct' on the likes of Facebook and Twitter, which are editorial codes by another name, belie their claims to be 'platforms not publishers'.
O.
-
The idea has some merit; but I very much doubt some otherwise amenable Tories would serve a Corbyn PM-ship, no matter how brief.
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.
I thought Corbyn's idea is a logical step, as the opposition have first dibs if a VONC succeeds, plus its temporary nature. The Lib Dems were quick off the block denouncing it. I guess they prefer Brexit to Corbyn. And probably Tory MPs would find it impossible. Boris is grinning.
-
So surprise, surprise. You agree with him when he backs up your feelings, and you don't when he doesn't.
Rational thinking?
I think not.
Yes mostly, his book is quite rational up until the godhead sections but it's still a very good read.
I doubt you'd like the pre-godhead BBC/Guardian, (what's the difference), parts where he's explaining the roots of their brexit bias and I can see it would probably seem irrational to any remainer.
ippy
-
And does he manage to come up with any real, practical harm the EU does to ordinary people, or even to the country, that would justify the real risks to real people's jobs, the economy, and the integrity of the UK, posed by a no-deal?
I have to admit and agree with your intimation that this brexit is the most divisive political event of most of our lifetimes.
Regards ippy
-
The idea has some merit; but I very much doubt some otherwise amenable Tories would serve a Corbyn PM-ship, no matter how brief.
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.
I suppose the issue with it is there is no point in promising a referendum following a general election because the election determines if there will be a referendum not the pre election agreement. With both this and Lucas's idea, there seems to be an element of suggesting something that they know is going to rejected but they are seen to be suggesting something. That said the immediate rejection by the Lib Dems then looks like as much game playing as the original suggestion. Despite appearances this is not a debate of Leave vs Remain but multiple different viewpoints in each side battling each other. We have the People's Front of Remain vs the Remain People's Front vs the People for Remain etc etc. The election of Johnson with the enticement of actually being in power has given leave a more united people's front for Leave.
-
I suspect the Lib Dem reluctance to countenance a unity government under Corbyn's leadership is that they have very vocally campaigned to revoke the submission of Article 50 and remain. Corbyn, whilst of late coming out against a No Deal Brexit is still in favour of Brexit of some sort; given the Lib Dem recent history, I suspect they don't feel that they can go back on what they've said regarding supporting remain people and policies, even if they felt that Brexit was still inevitable and the only achievable goal was to ensure we didn't crash out on WTO terms.
O.
-
I suspect the Lib Dem reluctance to countenance a unity government under Corbyn's leadership is that they have very vocally campaigned to revoke the submission of Article 50 and remain. Corbyn, whilst of late coming out against a No Deal Brexit is still in favour of Brexit of some sort; given the Lib Dem recent history, I suspect they don't feel that they can go back on what they've said regarding supporting remain people and policies, even if they felt that Brexit was still inevitable and the only achievable goal was to ensure we didn't crash out on WTO terms.
O.
That's the problem though - you can't get a united Remain approach and in insisting on any aspect of it, you automatically get rid of the chance to Remain. The numbers are not there in parliament to have a revocation of Article 50. The Labour party stood in the lection on a leave manifesto.
-
I have to admit and agree with your intimation that this brexit is the most divisive political event of most of our lifetimes.
I didn't intimate that in my post - I asked you a question, which you ignored. ::)
-
Interesting opinion piece in the Grauniad regarding Corbyn's recent approach.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/jeremy-corbyn-labour-brexit-second-referendum
-
That's the problem though - you can't get a united Remain approach and in insisting on any aspect of it, you automatically get rid of the chance to Remain. The numbers are not there in parliament to have a revocation of Article 50. The Labour party stood in the lection on a leave manifesto.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It may be that there's the calculation that it's going to come down to a decision between remain or no deal leave, in which case they may feel there's a potential victory there. I suspect, rather, having stood for remain they can't be seen to be changing their colours again after the Student Fees blowback, and will retain their policy integrity in the confidence that they weren't going to win anything anyway, but at least this way they've lost with integrity?
Supposition, either way, unless something gets leaked at some point.
O.
-
Perhaps, perhaps not. It may be that there's the calculation that it's going to come down to a decision between remain or no deal leave, in which case they may feel there's a potential victory there. I suspect, rather, having stood for remain they can't be seen to be changing their colours again after the Student Fees blowback, and will retain their policy integrity in the confidence that they weren't going to win anything anyway, but at least this way they've lost with integrity?
Supposition, either way, unless something gets leaked at some point.
O.
Losing with integrity is losing. No one is coming out of this with a purity pass. I'm not arguing that the LDs are particularly in the wrong here but there really isn't much point in saying you'll do anything to stop no deal Brexit and then saying you won't do that. It's all a bit Meat Loaf.
-
Losing with integrity is losing. No one is coming out of this with a purity pass. I'm not arguing that the LDs are particularly in the wrong here but there really isn't much point in saying you'll do anything to stop no deal Brexit and then saying you won't do that. It's all a bit Meat Loaf.
Rafael Behr is saying that in the Guardian. Ironic that some Tories seem to be meeting Corbyn, but Swinson is preserving her purity. Better dead than red.
-
I didn't intimate that in my post - I asked you a question, which you ignored. ::)
I have said quite plainly why several times why, perhaps if you go back on some of my previous posts?
ippy
-
I have said quite plainly why several times why, perhaps if you go back on some of my previous posts?
You haven't (that I've seen, and I'm not the only one who's been asking) said what practical negative impact the EU has on you, or the country. You mentioned the court and you mentioned this "federal Europe" but those are abstract issues of principle - it doesn't say in what way they impact you (or even the country) so much and so negatively, that you'd risk people's jobs, severe economic damage, and the integrity of the UK, to get rid of them.
As I said, there are plenty of things I'd like to change about the UK and the way it's governed (monarchy, HoL, no written constitution, first past the post) but I'd not take the kind of risks a no-deal Brexit entails to get rid of them.
-
You haven't (that I've seen, and I'm not the only one who's been asking) said what practical negative impact the EU has on you, or the country. You mentioned the court and you mentioned this "federal Europe" but those are abstract issues of principle - it doesn't say in what way they impact you (or even the country) so much and so negatively, that you'd risk people's jobs, severe economic damage, and the integrity of the UK, to get rid of them.
As I said, there are plenty of things I'd like to change about the UK and the way it's governed (monarchy, HoL, no written constitution, first past the post) but I'd not take the kind of risks a no-deal Brexit entails to get rid of them.
Right again on very similar lines where have you seen any leavers or remainers agreeing other than the very odd one or two you'll always get that confound the norm?
It's not a split it's a gulf of a difference, it wouldn't matter whatever I wrote here about my favouring leave, I wont be seeing remain succeed without a fight and I wouldn't be even the slightest surprised you're thinking something exactly similar but visa versa and that's why we had a referendum, one side or the other had to be the losers, we probably both think others side put forward underhanded or dishonest arguments, however you wish to call it, I doubt we'd even agree on that.
The point is the winners should have the day and that's it and I want to say goodbye to the EU, the very thought of remaining in the EU repels me and the handing on of that lot to our children forever in just the way, I'll assume, you take the opposite view.
I don't see remainers as bad people or in the least bit dippy, just wrong, I hope this is the way you see it obviously with your opposing view to mine.
Regards ippy
-
I've heard reports that some suggest Kenneth Clark as an alternative; yes, he's a Tory, but he has no leadereship ambitions and has already intimated he would stand down at the next GE.
Yes. And the irony here is that the one single qualification for acceptability for a whole swathe of recent Conservative Party leaders was that their name was NOT Kenneth Clark. The extent of the right-wing disease that has infected the party for the last couple of decades, which lead to (for god's sake) Iain Duncan Smith as party leader, is evident in the current situation. Had Ken Clark been party leader we would now be in a different place.
-
Right again on very similar lines where have you seen any leavers or remainers agreeing other than the very odd one or two you'll always get that confound the norm?
It's not a split it's a gulf of a difference, it wouldn't matter whatever I wrote here about my favouring leave, I wont be seeing remain succeed without a fight and I wouldn't be even the slightest surprised you're thinking something exactly similar but visa versa and that's why we had a referendum, one side or the other had to be the losers, we probably both think others side put forward underhanded or dishonest arguments, however you wish to call it, I doubt we'd even agree on that.
The point is the winners should have the day and that's it and I want to say goodbye to the EU, the very thought of remaining in the EU repels me and the handing on of that lot to our children forever in just the way, I'll assume, you take the opposite view.
I don't see remainers as bad people or in the least bit dippy, just wrong, I hope this is the way you see it obviously with your opposing view to mine.
So..... you still won't answer the question.
You either can't or won't try to rationally defend your position. When people won't even try to defend it rationally, do you not see why Brexit gets compared to a cult?
As for the point about children, you do understand that the younger generations voted to remain? This is old people imposing their will on the younger generations who are the ones who will have to live with it - or reverse it.
"Age is the other great fault line. Under-25s were more than twice as likely to vote Remain (71%) than Leave (29%). Among over-65s the picture is almost the exact opposite, as 64% of over-65s voted to Leave while only 36% voted to Remain."
How Britain voted at the EU referendum (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted)
-
Follow-up regard Jo Swinson's (who happens to be my MP) initially reaction to Corbyn's letter - perhaps, to follow on from NS's earlier point, she has to do a reverse Meatloaf and decide to 'do that' to remove the prospect of no-deal, and hopefully Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/15/jo-swinson-brexit-jeremy-corbyn
-
I wont be seeing remain succeed without a fight and I wouldn't be even the slightest surprised you're thinking something exactly similar but visa versa and that's why we had a referendum, one side or the other had to be the losers, we probably both think others side put forward underhanded or dishonest arguments, however you wish to call it, I doubt we'd even agree on that.
You're still not getting this, ippy.
The only reason there was a referendum in 2016 was because the Eurosceptic lunatic fringe of the Tory party had plagued the last 3 Tory PM's (Thatcher, Major and Cameron), and the latter thought he could use a referendum as a sop to them and that the electorate would vote to stay in the EU, so at a stroke he would have sidelined said lunatic fringe - only to find that some sections of the electorate (more where you are than where I am) naively fell for the Brexit lies and, of course, nobody had thought through what would happen if they did.
That current events are as they are confirms the madness of both Cameron's referendum ploy and May subsequent approach, whose incompetence and 'party-first' approach has produced the utter chaos we see today - with a liar as PM and the Tory party infected by Brexit zealotry, and the irony here is that there was no pressing public demand back in 2015.
Brexit is a Tory-made mess, and we need to be rid of both it and them.
-
I can't help but think that the Harman/Clarke idea is the mother and father of all kludges. The whole idea of a government of national unity (GNU) which is specifically made up of Remainers feels not that G-Nice, and a G-likely to lead to G-problems. Many people will be G-nashing their teeth at them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612
-
I can't help but think that the Harman/Clarke idea is the mother and father of all kludges. The whole idea of a government of national unity (GNU) which is specifically made up of Remainers feels not that G-Nice, and a G-likely to lead to G-problems. Many people will be G-nashing their teeth at them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49367612
I think the point of an interim government (call it what you like) if remove no-deal as an option (unless there is a direct mandate from the public) and to put the final decision back to the people. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why it needs to be led by people (and I think co-leaders is a good idea) that you'd have confidence would achieve the latter, but not try to push on other political agendas. For that reason Harman/Clarke seems sensible, while I'd have concerns about other possible interims, most notably Corbyn who I suspect would not be able to achieve the 'nothing less' but would not hold to 'nothing more'.
-
I think the point of an interim government (call it what you like) if remove no-deal as an option and to put the final decision back to the people. Nothing more, nothing less. That's why it needs to be lead by people (and I think co-leaders is a good idea) that you'd have confidence would achieve the latter, but not try to push on other political agendas. For that reason Harman/Clarke seems sensible, while I'd have concerns about other possible interims, most notably Corbyn who I suspect would not be able to achieve the 'nothing less' but would not hold to 'nothing more'.
This just reads like a Remain point of view about what's reasonable. It's going to look dreadful to those not in agreement with the idea. All those who were complaining about Johnson being elected to PM by a charabanc of racist OAPs are then going to have dual PMs who are not elected by any party. And if you are in govt, you can't prevent events - what happens if there is a major crack down in Hong Kong?
-
This just reads like a Remain point of view about what's reasonable. It's going to look dreadful to those not in agreement with the idea. All those who were complaining about Johnson being elected to PM by a charabanc of racist OAPs are then going to have dual PMs who are not elected by any party. And if you are in govt, you can't prevent events - what happens if there is a major crack down in Hong Kong?
Harman/Clarke supported in a VOC in parliament to be joint interim PM would have no less democratic credibility than Johnson being supported by just 160 Tory MPs and then a tiny electorate of Tory members (none of whom can claim the mandate of being elected themselves).
And yes it is a remain position, of course and I agree that the notion of a government of national unity is mere spin - currently the country is completely split and nothing will heal that except time. However worst possible think to ensure that disunity persists is to implement a brexit or to revoke without it being clear that there is a direct mandate from the people for that exact plan at the time of its implementation. Leaving with no deal (or even a variant of May's deal) claiming there to be a mandate from a vote over 3 years ago that never specified either of those options in detail will do nothing to heal those divisions.
-
Harman/Clarke supported in a VOC in parliament to be joint interim PM would have no less democratic credibility than Johnson being supported by just 160 Tory MPs and then a tiny electorate of Tory members (none of whom can claim the mandate of being elected themselves).
And yes it is a remain position, of course and I agree that the notion of a government of national unity is mere spin - currently the country is completely split and nothing will heal that except time. However worst possible think to ensure that disunity persists is to implement a brexit or to revoke without it being clear that there is a direct mandate from the people for that exact plan at the time of its implementation. Leaving with no deal (or even a variant of May's deal) claiming there to be a mandate from a vote over 3 years ago that never specified either of those options in detail will do nothing to heal those divisions.
Essentially though that's just whataboutery - because another action is shite doesn't make this action any better.
-
Essentially though that's just whataboutery - because another action is shite doesn't make this action any better.
The situation is shite regardless - all possible routes out of where we are now have major negative effects, both on the country economically and socially and on confidence in the democratic process. It will take a long time to rebuild both - will will remain a country torn assunder (and potentially actually split) for years if not decades.
There is also the issue of the continuing process of brexit - none of the brexit options are an end, they are merely the start of the much more complex negotiations of a permanent relationship with the EU. No deal crashes the economy but we will still be starting likely 7 years (the average time to a trade deal) negotiations with the EU. We've only just started the process. A transition deal smooths matters in the short term but we will still be starting on years of negotiation. In both cases the government will remain gridlocked with just a single dominating issue and will continue to lack capacity to deal with the issues that most of us actually care about.
While it wouldn't prevent the ongoing disunity and splits, the only thing which allows the UK to move beyond the endless debate and negotiation over relationships with the EU is to remain. And if that is the decision of a majority in a confirmatory referendum against known brexit option (or options) which can be implemented immediately then that would go some way to mitigate the anger as it would be clear that the final decision had a democratic mandate.
-
The situation is shite regardless - all possible routes out of where we are now have major negative effects, both on the country economically and socially and on confidence in the democratic process. It will take a long time to rebuild both - will will remain a country torn assunder (and potentially actually split) for years if not decades.
There is also the issue of the continuing process of brexit - none of the brexit options are an end, they are merely the start of the much more complex negotiations of a permanent relationship with the EU. No deal crashes the economy but we will still be starting likely 7 years (the average time to a trade deal) negotiations with the EU. We've only just started the process. A transition deal smooths matters in the short term but we will still be starting on years of negotiation. In both cases the government will remain gridlocked with just a single dominating issue and will continue to lack capacity to deal with the issues that most of us actually care about.
While it wouldn't prevent the ongoing disunity and splits, the only thing which allows the UK to move beyond the endless debate and negotiation over relationships with the EU is to remain. And if that is the decision of a majority in a confirmatory referendum against known brexit option (or options) which can be implemented immediately then that would go some way to mitigate the anger as it would be clear that the final decision had a democratic mandate.
This reads as wishful thinking. Let's suppose that 52/48 vote to remain. First of all if you think the last referendum was divisive then you ain't seen nothing yet. In the event of a u turn with a referendum which was not part of the original plan, it's not going to be forgotten by those who voted Leave.
I agree there isn't a good place to go to here, but I think you miss the anger that such a decision will cause.
-
This reads as wishful thinking. Let's suppose that 52/48 vote to remain. First of all if you think the last referendum was divisive then you ain't seen nothing yet. In the event of a u turn with a referendum which was not part of the original plan, it's not going to be forgotten by those who voted Leave.
I agree there isn't a good place to go to here, but I think you miss the anger that such a decision will cause.
Yup it will be horrible and lead to simmering resentment for years. But so will taking the UK out with no deal, which has no democratic mandate whatsoever. I'd argue that the latter will be worse as not only will it lack any kind of democratic legitimacy, it will also direct affect many people's lives.
And don't forget that the 2016 referendum was advisory - the government and parliament could have enacted a binding referendum, but they didn't - so certainly in a constitutional sense there is complete legitimacy in putting the final deal back to the people (indeed there is legal and constitutional legitimacy for the government or parliament to simply revoke although I don't think that politically that would be a smart idea). And by the way if a confirmatory referendum involved tow (or three) options which are clear and immediately deliverable (e.g. deal, no-deal, revoke) then I'd be happy for that vote to be binding. I'd be pissed off if a leave option won, but I wouldn't be able to argue lack of democratic legitimacy. However the 2016 vote cannot be taken to imply a mandate for any specific brexit option and certainly not for no deal as there was absolutely no suggestion from anyone in 2016 that voting for brexit mean a no deal crash-out.
In a broader sense I find the notion that more democracy is somehow anti-democratic bizarre. It is an accepted part of our democratic process. We vote, and in a few years time we vote again - democracy isn't an event ossified in time, it is an ongoing process.
-
My take is that the interim government idea would be the very last throw of the dice should we get to mid-October and no other means of stopping no-deal has been implemented.
Bearing in mind that it would probably take around 2/3 months to get A50 extended and then arrange a referendum and/or GE (in whichever order) then, as NS notes, other events can happen in that time that would place demands on a temporary government whose legitimacy is essentially restricted to resolving the Brexit impasse. If no-deal at the end of October by default is to be prevented then MPs ideally need to force an extension of A50 by other means, and at that point the wobbly Jenga tower of current politics will probably collapse and there will be a need for a GE anyway.
It seems to me that views are already polarised so that whatever happens next will undoubtedly piss some people off, but that is a consequence of both the simplistic referendum conducted without due diligence in 2016 and May's disastrous GE decision in 2017 that has resulted an a political impasse in Westminster.
Something has to give.
-
My take is that the interim government idea would be the very last throw of the dice should we get to mid-October and no other means of stopping no-deal has been implemented.
Bearing in mind that it would probably take around 2/3 months to get A50 extended and then arrange a referendum and/or GE (in whichever order) then, as NS notes, other events can happen in that time that would place demands on a temporary government whose legitimacy is essentially restricted to resolving the Brexit impasse. If no-deal at the end of October by default is to be prevented then MPs ideally need to force an extension of A50 by other means, and at that point the wobbly Jenga tower of current politics will probably collapse and there will be a need for a GE anyway.
It seems to me that views are already polarised so that whatever happens next will undoubtedly piss some people off, but that is a consequence of both the simplistic referendum conducted without due diligence in 2016 and May's disastrous GE decision in 2017 that has resulted an a political impasse in Westminster.
Something has to give.
I agree with most of that. That said I cannot see how a GE will necessarily unlock the gridlock - there is no reason to suspect that the outcome would provide any greater clarity in parliament than we have now.
I think the most pressing matter is to formalise the parliamentary position against no deal - this happened in the Spring but was limited to a particular timeframe. Parliament needs to be allowed to take control of the parliamentary business again to pass a motion to require the government to request an extension in any circumstances where a deal has not been agreed by parliament. Of course this cannot assure is will happen as the EU could request that request, but it would change the dynamics such that the default if a deal isn't agreed is the request of an extension rather than no deal. If that happens then the next (and more tricky part, due to parliamentary numbers) will be to legislate for a confirmatory referendum to happen in that extension phase. Is the EU sees that a referendum will occur on the final deal then I think they will certainly grant an extension.
-
My take is that the interim government idea would be the very last throw of the dice should we get to mid-October and no other means of stopping no-deal has been implemented.
Bearing in mind that it would probably take around 2/3 months to get A50 extended and then arrange a referendum and/or GE (in whichever order) then, as NS notes, other events can happen in that time that would place demands on a temporary government whose legitimacy is essentially restricted to resolving the Brexit impasse. If no-deal at the end of October by default is to be prevented then MPs ideally need to force an extension of A50 by other means, and at that point the wobbly Jenga tower of current politics will probably collapse and there will be a need for a GE anyway.
It seems to me that views are already polarised so that whatever happens next will undoubtedly piss some people off, but that is a consequence of both the simplistic referendum conducted without due diligence in 2016 and May's disastrous GE decision in 2017 that has resulted an a political impasse in Westminster.
Something has to give.
I think the problem with Corbyn's idea was having the GE before legislating for the referendum, as who knows what would happen in a GE. That said as you point out then the Govt effectively then has to fold after the referendum but that creates a further problem that we could then have another disjunct on the referendum result and the GE result, in which case what happens?
-
So..... you still won't answer the question.
You either can't or won't try to rationally defend your position. When people won't even try to defend it rationally, do you not see why Brexit gets compared to a cult?
As for the point about children, you do understand that the younger generations voted to remain? This is old people imposing their will on the younger generations who are the ones who will have to live with it - or reverse it.
"Age is the other great fault line. Under-25s were more than twice as likely to vote Remain (71%) than Leave (29%). Among over-65s the picture is almost the exact opposite, as 64% of over-65s voted to Leave while only 36% voted to Remain."
How Britain voted at the EU referendum (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted)
What is it that you can't see about the fact we're never going to agree and we no doubt think each others side of this brexit divide as a crazy misinformed way of thinking, it's a impasse so therefore take a vote/referendum the winner should have taken all.
We're never going to agree on brexit why should I be supplying target practice? After all leaving the EU won the day.
Regards ippy
-
What is it that you can't see about the fact we're never going to agree and we no doubt think each others side of this brexit divide as a crazy misinformed way of thinking, it's a impasse so therefore take a vote/referendum the winner should have taken all.
We're never going to agree on brexit why should I be supplying target practice? After all leaving the EU won the day.
Regards ippy
But simply the demographic shift of older people dying and younger people attaining voting age since June 2016 means that without a single person changing their minds that majority for leave vanished months ago. Actually Jan 2019 was the crossover month.
So are you really implying that you should implement something that you can be confident no longer has a mandate without anyone changing their minds. You could, of course, actually find out whether in 2019 a brexit deal or a no-deal brexit is the 'will of the people' in a confirmatory referendum. Why are you so scared of democracy Ippy.
-
I think democracy now means never being able to change your mind. Cute, eh?
-
I think democracy now means never being able to change your mind. Cute, eh?
It goes even further than that as the deal and no-deal currently on offer weren't on offer in 2016, so we aren't asking people whether they've changed their minds, but asking whether they prefer the withdrawal agreement or no deal to what we currently have for the very first time.
-
We're never going to agree on brexit why should I be supplying target practice?
I can only conclude that you have no confidence in being able to rationally defend your position. Otherwise, why to you think you'd be target practice? Why wouldn't it be you using me for target practice?
After all leaving the EU won the day.
And, as has been pointed out, what is on offer now is nothing like the picture painted by the leave campaign and (as prof reminded us) the demographics alone would mean that we are now a remain supporting country if nobody at all has changed their mind (source (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html)).
-
But simply the demographic shift of older people dying and younger people attaining voting age since June 2016 means that without a single person changing their minds that majority for leave vanished months ago. Actually Jan 2019 was the crossover month.
So are you really implying that you should implement something that you can be confident no longer has a mandate without anyone changing their minds. You could, of course, actually find out whether in 2019 a brexit deal or a no-deal brexit is the 'will of the people' in a confirmatory referendum. Why are you so scared of democracy Ippy.
Why should I be so scared for democracy should have been your question, we're never going to agree on this one Proff, console yourself listening to the BBC they're completely on your side as is most of the media.
Regards, ippy.
-
I can only conclude that you have no confidence in being able to rationally defend your position. Otherwise, why to you think you'd be target practice? Why wouldn't it be you using me for target practice?
And, as has been pointed out, what is on offer now is nothing like the picture painted by the leave campaign and (as prof reminded us) the demographics alone would mean that we are now a remain supporting country if nobody at all has changed their mind (source (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html)).
Like I said about target practice and all of the rest!
Best out of three, five, how many?
I have to admit I would feel very bitter as you seem to be if the vote had gone the other way.
Regards, ippy.
-
Like I said about target practice and all of the rest!
Best out of three, five, how many?
I have to admit I would feel very bitter as you seem to be if the vote had gone the other way.
Regards, ippy.
It's not a matter of being bitter.
It's a matter of worrying about the negative impacts of Brexit.
After all, you shouldn't have to spend billions of pounds to ameliorate the effects of a supposedly good idea.
-
Why should I be so scared for democracy should have been your question, we're never going to agree on this one Proff, console yourself listening to the BBC they're completely on your side as is most of the media.
"Most of the media"? The BBC is trying to maintain neutrality in the face of devastatingly biased facts, but they're doing what they can. The Mail, Express, Sun, Star and Telegraph are all pro-Brexit, against the Guardian, Mirror and (arguably) the FT which favour remain, whilst the Times tries to maintain a balanced position. On TV the BBC is reverting to an economic focus as it's where the hard data is on estimates (after all, how does one measure 'vassal statedness') which could be construed as a pro-remain stance, whilst Sky is fairly strongly in favour of Brexit whilst ITV and Channel 4 are slightly more favourable to leave than remain.
Most academic reviews of the media landscape consider that the UK has a generally right-wing press, so the pro-Brexit lean shouldn't be a huge surprise. Anyone with eyes could see the mere fact that the repeatedly unelected Nigel Farage's continual presence on-screen was a fairly strong indication that someone behind the cameras had an interest in making sure the Leave campaign was, and continues to be, heard out of all proportion to its actual representation.
O.
-
Like I said about target practice and all of the rest!
You've completely ignored what I said (again).
I have to admit I would feel very bitter as you seem to be if the vote had gone the other way.
As Trent said, it's not about bitterness, it's about the real harm that is being done, and the further harm that will be done by a no-deal. You seem to be saying that you're prepared to sacrifice prosperity, jobs, and the integrity of the UK, on the alter of your ideals about the EU court and this nebulous "federal Europe" that you find so frightening.
As I asked before (and you ignored): what would you say to somebody whose job is lost or whose business is destroyed as a result of Brexit? How would you justify your position to them?
-
Best out of three, five, how many?
Actually the 2016 referendum was already the second with an almost identical question on whether or not to remain in the EU.
But you are missing the point - this isn't about having referendums until you get the right result. It is about being confident that what is actually proposed to be implemented has a mandate at the point when it is to be implemented.
And I'm consistent on this - the kinds of decision seen in the EU referendum and the Scottish indy ref cannot, in my view, be subject to a single referendum as, by definition at that time there is nowhere near enough clarity on what the detail looks like. So there should be a 2 stage process (and I said this years back in 2014 about the indyref). The first vote should provide a mandate to negotiate an agreement, in these cases on leaving the EU and on leaving the UK. Once that deal is agreed on both sides and is implementable the deal should be put back to the people to determine whether they still want to proceed with leaving the EU/UK on the basis of the agreed deal.
This isn't having referendum after referendum but putting the people in charge at the beginning and at the end of the process.
Surely you cannot be happy with a situation where we might leave the EU, later this year in a manner that doesn't have majority support of the people.
-
You've completely ignored what I said (again).
As Trent said, it's not about bitterness, it's about the real harm that is being done, and the further harm that will be done by a no-deal. You seem to be saying that you're prepared to sacrifice prosperity, jobs, and the integrity of the UK, on the alter of your ideals about the EU court and this nebulous "federal Europe" that you find so frightening.
As I asked before (and you ignored): what would you say to somebody whose job is lost or whose business is destroyed as a result of Brexit? How would you justify your position to them?
What's so difficult about the point I keep on making that we're never likely to agree and that was why we had a referendum.
Apart from the UK's arrangements changing when we leave of course there'll be a loss and some gains here and there, other than that I think that overall the UK will be far better off in the long run and of course even when I have said only that much I'll put my tin hat on ready for any response.
We're never going to agree various people were aware of this golf of a divide here in the UK so guess what; A REFERENDUM!!
Regards, ippy.
-
Actually the 2016 referendum was already the second with an almost identical question on whether or not to remain in the EU.
But you are missing the point - this isn't about having referendums until you get the right result. It is about being confident that what is actually proposed to be implemented has a mandate at the point when it is to be implemented.
And I'm consistent on this - the kinds of decision seen in the EU referendum and the Scottish indy ref cannot, in my view, be subject to a single referendum as, by definition at that time there is nowhere near enough clarity on what the detail looks like. So there should be a 2 stage process (and I said this years back in 2014 about the indyref). The first vote should provide a mandate to negotiate an agreement, in these cases on leaving the EU and on leaving the UK. Once that deal is agreed on both sides and is implementable the deal should be put back to the people to determine whether they still want to proceed with leaving the EU/UK on the basis of the agreed deal.
This isn't having referendum after referendum but putting the people in charge at the beginning and at the end of the process.
Surely you cannot be happy with a situation where we might leave the EU, later this year in a manner that doesn't have majority support of the people.
I'm sure the first referendum was about the EEC? I voted against that as well as voting leave at the recent referendum.
As it happens the EEC had it been stuck to was quite benign compared to the ever closer union with the EU that we had imposed on us without a choice.
It's not personal to you as an individual but we're never likely to agree with each other as long as you're on the remain side.
Regards, ippy.
-
What's so difficult about the point I keep on making that we're never likely to agree and that was why we had a referendum.
Apart from the UK's arrangements changing when we leave of course there'll be a loss and some gains here and there, other than that I think that overall the UK will be far better off in the long run and of course even when I have said only that much I'll put my tin hat on ready for any response.
We're never going to agree various people were aware of this golf of a divide here in the UK so guess what; A REFERENDUM!!
Regards, ippy.
ippy
The referendum occurred for Tory-party management purposes: at that time there was no pressing public demand to exit the UK.
As regards 'the UK will be far better off in the long run' I'm afraid that the facts contradict you, and if Brexit does happen it may well be the end of the UK anyway. I think that if MPs manage to spike the 31st October trap the electorate will subsequently take the opportunity to bin Brexit (be it via a referendum or a GE).
-
It's not personal to you as an individual but we're never likely to agree with each other as long as you're on the remain side.
Regards, ippy.
Surely you can agree that the most important political decision in generations should be based on a clear mandate from the people on the basis of the actual implementation deal at the time it is implemented. Would you really be happy with leaving in Oct 2019 in a manner that does not have the support of the people in Oct 2019?
-
What's so difficult about the point I keep on making that we're never likely to agree and that was why we had a referendum.
Nothing, it's just beside the point - it appears to be your excuse for not engaging in a rational defence of your position. When you post challenges to the theists here, do you expect to be able to agree?
Apart from the UK's arrangements changing when we leave of course there'll be a loss and some gains here and there, other than that I think that overall the UK will be far better off in the long run...
Since pretty much all the relevant experts disagree, what makes you think they are all wrong? The is doubly the case for a no deal, which most experts think will be catastrophic. Even Boris the Liar is spending billions of pounds bribing the public to mitigate the effects.
Even Brexit's most enthusiastic cheerleaders are tacitly admitting that we face a serious economic problem.
So what would you say to one of the people your stance is going to put out of work, as to why being in the EU was so utterly dreadful as to make the price worth paying?
-
As it happens the EEC had it been stuck to was quite benign compared to the ever closer union with the EU that we had imposed on us without a choice.
The people we elected to government had a choice - that's how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.
In any case, the "ever closer union" has been in the relevant treaties since 1957, so was there when we first joined (source (https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/)) and Cameron negotiated a statement that recognised that the UK was not committed to "further political integration into the European Union" and a commitment to revise the treaties accordingly (source (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105)).
And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave.
-
I'm sure the first referendum was about the EEC? I voted against that as well as voting leave at the recent referendum.
As it happens the EEC had it been stuck to was quite benign compared to the ever closer union with the EU that we had imposed on us without a choice.
It's not personal to you as an individual but we're never likely to agree with each other as long as you're on the remain side.
Regards, ippy.
Agreed. The history of the EU is filled with going against the will of the people. Federalism by stealth. Or not even steath. Just blatant going against the people. The Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland all voted against EU treaties.
-
ippy
The referendum occurred for Tory-party management purposes: at that time there was no pressing public demand to exit the UK.
As regards 'the UK will be far better off in the long run' I'm afraid that the facts contradict you, and if Brexit does happen it may well be the end of the UK anyway. I think that if MPs manage to spike the 31st October trap the electorate will subsequently take the opportunity to bin Brexit (be it via a referendum or a GE).
I've never wanted to be any part of a EU federation of states or however you might wish to describe this EU link so whatever the reason for having a vote to leave was the equivalent of manner from heaven to me, the reason we Why Why we were given the choice of leave or remain is of no interest to me, we got the choice and I like the majority of the UK population want to leave and the sooner the better.
Pull that lot into as many pieces you like I can't see I'l be changing my mind about Brexit in the same way I suspect you won't be either.
Regards, ippy.
-
Surely you can agree that the most important political decision in generations should be based on a clear mandate from the people on the basis of the actual implementation deal at the time it is implemented. Would you really be happy with leaving in Oct 2019 in a manner that does not have the support of the people in Oct 2019?
I do agree with you and that's what you have already.
Regards, ippy.
-
Nothing, it's just beside the point - it appears to be your excuse for not engaging in a rational defence of your position. When you post challenges to the theists here, do you expect to be able to agree?
Since pretty much all the relevant experts disagree, what makes you think they are all wrong? The is doubly the case for a no deal, which most experts think will be catastrophic. Even Boris the Liar is spending billions of pounds bribing the public to mitigate the effects.
Even Brexit's most enthusiastic cheerleaders are tacitly admitting that we face a serious economic problem.
So what would you say to one of the people your stance is going to put out of work, as to why being in the EU was so utterly dreadful as to make the price worth paying?
I'm not making excuses and it's as plain as a pikestaff we'll never agree on this one and it's not as though I was the only person in the whole of the UK that voted out.
Regards, ippy.
-
The people we elected to government had a choice - that's how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.
In any case, the "ever closer union" has been in the relevant treaties since 1957, so was there when we first joined (source (https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/)) and Cameron negotiated a statement that recognised that the UK was not committed to "further political integration into the European Union" and a commitment to revise the treaties accordingly (source (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105)).
And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave.
'And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave'.
Yes you're right about that and again for the umpteenth time we're never going to agree it wouldn't matter whatever I was to write here, it's an impasse, that's why imv there was a need for a referendum, (we won't even agree on that I'm sure), I just hope leave gets through on Halloween in just the same way I'm sure you wish for the opposite.
Regards, ippy.
-
So Ippy
Simple question.
Are you happy to leave with a no deal Brexit?
By that I mean no agreement is reached on the terms of any arrangement with the EU, in the way that BOJO is proposing.
-
So Ippy
Simple question.
Are you happy to leave with a no deal Brexit?
By that I mean no agreement is reached on the terms of any arrangement with the EU, in the way that BOJO is proposing.
I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels, but at the same time I've no problem with a good business deal with our close neighbours, a deal that doesn't include that backstop, I can't think of any particular justifiable reason when after we have left why we shouldn't be a good independent country and cooperate in a friendly independent manner with the rest of Europe.
Regards, ippy.
-
I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels
I've always thought that Brexit was, primarily, an English disease - this seems to confirm it.
-
I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels, but at the same time I've no problem with a good business deal with our close neighbours, a deal that doesn't include that backstop, I can't think of any particular justifiable reason when after we have left why we shouldn't be a good independent country and cooperate in a friendly independent manner with the rest of Europe.
Regards, ippy.
So you would love the consequent negative effects on our people and our economy, particularly the effects on the delicate N Ireland situation.
Just what sort of patriot are you?
-
Next stop fascism.
-
'And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave'.
Yes you're right about that and again for the umpteenth time we're never going to agree it wouldn't matter whatever I was to write here...
This seems to be no more than a religious mantra that you use to hide your inability to defend your view rationally. Why would you not give a practical negative impact if you could think of one - even if it's just to get people to stop asking?
...I just hope leave gets through on Halloween in just the same way I'm sure you wish for the opposite.
I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels...
So it's all about blind faith and tribalism. Ho hum.
-
It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron) decided he could paint the lunatic Eurosceptic fringe of his own party into a corner: he failed, and never planned for the possibility that some sections of the electorate would be hoodwinked by a bunch of self-serving liars. There was no pressing public demand for Brexit prior to the 2015 GE.
In fact only the year before that GE, in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, this same Tory PM told us Scots that to stay in the EU we needed to stay in the UK - Brexit wasn't supposed to happen you see, and the electorate were supposed to tell the ERG nutters to go away and stop annoying everybody.
Now we seen what is, in effect, a political coup by right-wing politicians who seem, according to some reports, determined to get their way by fair means or foul: hopefully they can yet be stopped.
Hi Gordon. Just out of interest, do you know what the EU's position was at the time of the 2014 Indyref on whether an independent Scotland could have joined the EU? Was this discussed? If actually Scotland could have rejoined, and I can't think why it could not have, doesn't that mean the vote against independence was for different reasons than staying in the EU?
-
So you would love the consequent negative effects on our people and our economy, particularly the effects on the delicate N Ireland situation.
Just what sort of patriot are you?
Yes, I'm sure that's the way you see it Trent, we obviously are unlikely to ever agree on this one.
Regards, ippy.
-
I'm not making excuses and it's as plain as a pikestaff we'll never agree on this one and it's not as though I was the only person in the whole of the UK that voted out.
Regards, ippy.
No, you're not - but neither dd a majority of the UK population, or even of the electorate, vote out, as you said in a previous post. It was slightly more than a quarter of the total population, and well under half of the electorate.
-
I've always thought that Brexit was, primarily, an English disease - this seems to confirm it.
It does seem to be that way Gordon, where I see remain as a disease as much as you see leave as a disease, that's not likely to alter.
Regards, ippy.
-
This seems to be no more than a religious mantra that you use to hide your inability to defend your view rationally. Why would you not give a practical negative impact if you could think of one - even if it's just to get people to stop asking?
So it's all about blind faith and tribalism. Ho hum.
Indeed - "We'll have to agree to disagree" or words to that effect are the weasel words used by people who've lost the argument but won't admit it.
-
Hi Gordon. Just out of interest, do you know what the EU's position was at the time of the 2014 Indyref on whether an independent Scotland could have joined the EU? Was this discussed? If actually Scotland could have rejoined, and I can't think why it could not have, doesn't that mean the vote against independence was for different reasons than staying in the EU?
'It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron)'
Couldn't care less all I wanted was the opportunity to have a vote on leave/remain in the EU, leave won.
Regards, ippy.
-
Indeed - "We'll have to agree to disagree" or words to that effect are the weasel words used by people who've lost the argument but won't admit it.
Suit yourself Steve.
Regards, ippy.
-
Ipster,
'It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron)'
Couldn't care less all I wanted was the opportunity to have a vote on leave/remain in the EU, leave won.
Regards, ippy.
Which "leave" do you think it was that won: the leave promised by the leave campaign (a comprehensive trade deal with the EU before Art 50 invoked, no questions of leaving the single market and/or the customs union, £350m per week for the NHS, technological solution to the Irish border problem, easiest deal in history, the German car industry will tell Merkel what to do etc) the people were actually asked to vote on, or Johnson's hard exit that no-one was asked to vote on?
-
Couldn't care less all I wanted was the opportunity to have a vote on leave/remain in the EU, leave won.
And you don't give a damn if people lose their jobs, it costs us countless billions of pounds, the economy crashes, it causes problems in NI again, or the UK itself breaks up. You don't care whether the people really want what's on offer now or about the fact we have a lying, self-serving, incompetent as PM - just so long as you get something that you can't even explain why you want in any practical or rational way.
-
And you don't give a damn if people lose their jobs, it costs us countless billions of pounds, the economy crashes, it causes problems in NI again, or the UK itself breaks up. You don't care whether the people really want what's on offer now or about the fact we have a lying, self-serving, incompetent as PM - just so long as you get something that you can't even explain why you want in any practical or rational way.
I choose not to have an exchange on this impasse, what would be the point it's not like my words will make any difference to remainers whatever I was to say, try to provoke someone else I have no intention to bite on any remark.
My reasons for voting leave are OK for me I obviously don't see leave has the problems as you think it has otherwise I wouldn't have voted leave.
Obviously with any alteration on the scale of brexit it won't be entirely problem free but obviously some, in this case the majority think leave is the best choice of the two, you don't, that's fine by me but I won't be changing my mind any time soon nor I guess will you.
Where did I say there was anything else I don't care about other than not caring how the leave/remain vote was obtained?
Regards, ippy.
-
Something I find deeply dispiriting about the whole corrupt scam is that so many of the people who voted leave will be the people who are most hurt by it. Me, I'm lucky enough to have enough to be able to buy quality food, not to have to worry about my factory closing down, (reasonably) secure that g'teed pensions will pay out in a bit etc. While I despise the con men and ignoramuses who lied and misrepresented their way to the referendum result especially for stealing so many opportunities in Europe my children would have had, by and large best guess is that myself and Mrs B will have our life experiences diminished but we'll be ok.
I'm by no means sure though that those who aren't as lucky as we have been but who were conned into voting leave will be anywhere near as ok. With investment decisions postponed or cancelled and businesses closing or being opened elsewhere, a tanking £ raising the prices of food in particular, the US licking its lips at the shit we're going to have to accept in a trade deal once we're going to them cap in hand post Brexit, the irrelevance we'll become when Scotland and possibly other parts of the Union go their own way, god knows what damage done to the Good Friday agreement, and the nasty, intolerant little backwater we're walking blindly toward etc it's those people who will be damaged most of all.
One would think that now anyone can look into the abyss of a hard exit they'd shift to a remain position if there was to be a second referendum, yet the needle seems to have moved very little. Still (albeit with some notable and noble exceptions) the media seems to be asleep at the wheel regarding challenging those who would still say, "that's what the people voted for so we have to deliver it". Like **** that's what people voted for.
And another thing...
-
And you don't give a damn if people lose their jobs, it costs us countless billions of pounds, the economy crashes, it causes problems in NI again, or the UK itself breaks up. You don't care whether the people really want what's on offer now or about the fact we have a lying, self-serving, incompetent as PM - just so long as you get something that you can't even explain why you want in any practical or rational way.
Nah, cos we get back control, innit?
-
The cockerel on the dungheap feels in control; to everybody else it's a pile of shit.
-
Something I find deeply dispiriting about the whole corrupt scam is that so many of the people who voted leave will be the people who are most hurt by it. Me, I'm lucky enough to have enough to be able to buy quality food, not to have to worry about my factory closing down, (reasonably) secure that g'teed pensions will pay out in a bit etc. While I despise the con men and ignoramuses who lied and misrepresented their way to the referendum result especially for stealing so many opportunities in Europe my children would have had, by and large best guess is that myself and Mrs B will have our life experiences diminished but we'll be ok.
I'm by no means sure though that those who aren't as lucky as we have been but who were conned into voting leave will be anywhere near as ok. With investment decisions postponed or cancelled and businesses closing or being opened elsewhere, a tanking £ raising the prices of food in particular, the US licking its lips at the shit we're going to have to accept in a trade deal once we're going to them cap in hand post Brexit, the irrelevance we'll become when Scotland and possibly other parts of the Union go their own way, god knows what damage done to the Good Friday agreement, and the nasty, intolerant little backwater we're walking blindly toward etc it's those people who will be damaged most of all.
One would think that now anyone can look into the abyss of a hard exit they'd shift to a remain position if there was to be a second referendum, yet the needle seems to have moved very little. Still (albeit with some notable and noble exceptions) the media seems to be asleep at the wheel regarding challenging those who would still say, "that's what the people voted for so we have to deliver it". Like **** that's what people voted for.
And another thing...
Don't think there was a need for this post of your's Blue virtually the whole of the news media that might just as well be a bunch of clones with their clone like statements they keep on banging out and they're using as near as dam it the same wording as this post of yours more or less on a daily basis.
The only answer to this impasse I think was the referendum.
We'll never agree on this one.
Regards, ippy.
-
The only answer to this impasse I think was the referendum.
For crying out loud, ippy, there never was an impasse in 2015/16 - Brexit then was the hope of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party, whom a useless PM thoughtlessly indulged, and you guys have been misled ever since by their baseless lies. I'd have thought that the current political mess, with the now all-to-clear disastrous consequences of 'no-deal' and in terms of social divisiveness Brexit has caused, would be confirmation enough that Brexit as it has emerged is madness.
So it beats me how anyone still support it - but of course they've contracted a bad dose of mindless faith that renders them immune to the facts and they've become highly credulous when they are told what they want to hear (so not too dissimilar to that which you berate theists for).
-
Ipster,
Don't think there was a need for this post of your's Blue virtually the whole of the news media that might just as well be a bunch of clones with their clone like statements they keep on banging out and they're using as near as dam it the same wording as this post of yours more or less on a daily basis.
You've got to be kidding right? Time and again idiots (Francois, Raab et al) or outright liars (Johnson and half his hard right-leaning cabinet) say the most preposterous things on TV and radio and rarely if ever do they get a, "but hang on - that's clearly wrong isn't it because..." in reply. Only this morning I heard John Redwood on radio 4 telling us we should be concentrating on how we're going to spend all that money we won't have to pay any more to the EU. Yet if I said you should stop going to the car boot sale on a Sunday because you'd save the £20 entrance fee even the most dimwitted would say, "yes but what about the £200 you won't make any more because you won't be at the market?", yet challenge came there none.
There are some good journalists asking why the emperor has no clothes (Carole Cadwalladr at the Guardian, James O'Brien at LBC) but they're few and far between. It's precisely because so much of the press has been asleep at the wheel that the con men and incompetents have got away with so much.
The only answer to this impasse I think was the referendum.
There wasn't an impasse to be answered before the referendum. It was called because Cameron was running scared of UKIP's success and wanted to stem the loss of votes to them in the next GE. The referendum we did have though was so corrupt - false prospectus, illegal funding, meaningless question - that had it been for the local parish council it would have been voided and re-run, let alone not allowed to stand for a hugely important decision like Brexit.
We'll never agree on this one.
Yes we will, but only when it's too late to do anything about it. When you survey the wreckage of the country we once had and finally concede that Brexit was a disaster then, but only then, will you concede that you made a terrible mistake. Problem is, by then it'll all be too late to do much about it. Then the options would be to continue driving the beaten-up banger down the road, or to apply to rejoin on much, much worse terms than we have now.
And who will the Johnsons, Raabs, Ree-Moggs, Farages, Davies's, Javid's and the rest blame when these options arise? Themselves? Oh no, not at all - it'll all be the fault of the "remoaners" who didn't have enough "faith in the project", who "talked the country down", who "lost but didn't get over it" etc. Never mind that the unicorns were never real - just blame the people who told you they weren't real.
Project fear eh? Project understatement more like.
-
When you survey the wreckage of the country we once had and finally concede that Brexit was a disaster then, but only then, will you concede that you made a terrible mistake.
I wouldn't bet on it. Never underestimate human pride and the need to save face. There will be no shortage of lies and scapegoats to cover up the 'mistake'. It would all have been fine if the EU and the remoaners hadn't betrayed us. Remember, Brexit was supposed to be a 'howl of rage' against the elite. Don't imagine the angry howlers are ever going to give that elite any satisfaction. They'll also want to maintain their nasty habit of mainlining grievance and self-pity. The traitors, quislings and enemies of the people will continue to serve that need very nicely. It's they who will have made the mistake.
-
Ipster,
You've got to be kidding right? Time and again idiots (Francois, Raab et al) or outright liars (Johnson and half his hard right-leaning cabinet) say the most preposterous things on TV and radio and rarely if ever do they get a, "but hang on - that's clearly wrong isn't it because..." in reply. Only this morning I heard John Redwood on radio 4 telling us we should be concentrating on how we're going to spend all that money we won't have to pay any more to the EU. Yet if I said you should stop going to the car boot sale on a Sunday because you'd save the £20 entrance fee even the most dimwitted would say, "yes but what about the £200 you won't make any more because you won't be at the market?", yet challenge came there none.
There are some good journalists asking why the emperor has no clothes (Carole Cadwalladr at the Guardian, James O'Brien at LBC) but they're few and far between. It's precisely because so much of the press has been asleep at the wheel that the con men and incompetents have got away with so much.
There wasn't an impasse to be answered before the referendum. It was called because Cameron was running scared of UKIP's success and wanted to stem the loss of votes to them in the next GE. The referendum we did have though was so corrupt - false prospectus, illegal funding, meaningless question - that had it been for the local parish council it would have been voided and re-run, let alone not allowed to stand for a hugely important decision like Brexit.
Yes we will, but only when it's too late to do anything about it. When you survey the wreckage of the country we once had and finally concede that Brexit was a disaster then, but only then, will you concede that you made a terrible mistake. Problem is, by then it'll all be too late to do much about it. Then the options would be to continue driving the beaten-up banger down the road, or to apply to rejoin on much, much worse terms than we have now.
And who will the Johnsons, Raabs, Ree-Moggs, Farages, Davies's, Javid's and the rest blame when these options arise? Themselves? Oh no, not at all - it'll all be the fault of the "remoaners" who didn't have enough "faith in the project", who "talked the country down", who "lost but didn't get over it" etc. Never mind that the unicorns were never real - just blame the people who told you they weren't real.
Project fear eh? Project understatement more like.
Like I said, I don't think there's any need to elaborate.
Regards, ippy.
-
For crying out loud, ippy, there never was an impasse in 2015/16 - Brexit then was the hope of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party, whom a useless PM thoughtlessly indulged, and you guys have been misled ever since by their baseless lies. I'd have thought that the current political mess, with the now all-to-clear disastrous consequences of 'no-deal' and in terms of social divisiveness Brexit has caused, would be confirmation enough that Brexit as it has emerged is madness.
So it beats me how anyone still support it - but of course they've contracted a bad dose of mindless faith that renders them immune to the facts and they've become highly credulous when they are told what they want to hear (so not too dissimilar to that which you berate theists for).
I'm and never have been a fan of Cameron he just happened to be the person that offered a choice.
It is an impasse at the mo if you like, I won't be arguing with you about that as to the rest well ditto visa versa, more or less.
Regards, ippy.
-
Excellent post Bramble, I could 'feel' every word.
-
Excellent post Bramble, I could 'feel' every word.
I second that emotion.
-
True passion. I copied her post to 'best bits'.
-
No, you're not - but neither dd a majority of the UK population, or even of the electorate, vote out, as you said in a previous post. It was slightly more than a quarter of the total population, and well under half of the electorate.
So what? Only votes cast count.
-
So what? Only votes cast count.
Nothing really counted - it was only advisory.
-
Interesting summary, from earlier this evening, regarding how no-deal might be stopped - even though how best to thwart no-deal is still uncertain there does seem to be enough MPs willing to do so, probably by passing something that requires an A50 extension to be requested if no alternative to no-deal has been agreed by 31st October, rather than see Corbyn become an interim PM.
It will be messy and divisive of course, but then again Brexit wasn't thought through or handled well-enough over the last 3 years for it to be anything other than a shambolic mess.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/17/labour-tory-mps-unite-plot-radical-law-stop-no-deal-brexit
-
Nothing really counted - it was only advisory.
Then why have the vote at all? That's EU all over: never listen to the people. Ask the Dutch, Danish and Irish. Federalism whether the people want it or not. That's what the UK voted to reject.
-
Then why have the vote at all?
As has been explained countless times - it was an internal Conservative Party device dreamed up by a foolish party leader and PM to silence the lunatic right wing of his party. Its conception had nothing to do with EU membership and all to do with party discipline. When the "referendum" failed in its intended purpose, Cameron took the cowards way out.
That's EU all over: never listen to the people. Ask the Dutch, Danish and Irish. Federalism whether the people want it or not. That's what the UK voted to reject.
The "Referendum" had nothing to do with the EU. Your observation is pointless. The current situation is the product of an incompetent party leader whose only qualification for that post was that his name was not Kenneth Clarke.
NB
Kenneth Clarke is yet another candidate for the role of The Best Prime Minister We Never Had. He was the (probably) best qualified candidate for leader of the Conservative Party after John Major stepped down but his candidature was sabotaged by the Tory right which ensured the elections of William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard and David Cameron. Kenneth Clarke has always been an avowed supporter of the EU.
-
Then why have the vote at all?
Indeed - it was a stupid thing to put to a referendum - doubly stupid to make in a one-off in/out when nobody had worked out what 'out' would really mean (including those who were campaigning for it).
That's EU all over: never listen to the people. Ask the Dutch, Danish and Irish. Federalism whether the people want it or not. That's what the UK voted to reject.
- The EU is a democracy. It isn't perfect but then neither is the UK (by a long way).
- Two of the countries you mentioned (Ireland and the Netherlands) have over 90% support for the EU (source (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-survey-italy-ireland-portugal-eurosceptic-poll-a8888126.html)).
- As I mentioned above - Cameron secured a deal that recognised that the UK was not committed to "further political integration into the European Union" and a commitment to amend the treaties accordingly.
- What's so wrong with federalism anyway?
- Can you point to any way in which the EU has negatively affected your life?
-
Then why have the vote at all? That's EU all over: never listen to the people. Ask the Dutch, Danish and Irish. Federalism whether the people want it or not. That's what the UK voted to reject.
They rejected ratification of a treaty, the treaty was ammended and clarified then they voted again ... that is how it is supposed to work.
That the UK does not vote on new treaties is nothing to do with the EU but due to decisions by UK governments.
-
A government paper mentions the risks associated with a no-deal Brexit. Looking at these, and even though the government say they are part of planning, one wonders on why a rational government would even consider taking these risks: of course we don't have a rational government any more, which is why a means to stop no-deal must be found.
The dossier reported by the Sunday Times says leaving the EU without a deal could lead to:
Fresh food becoming less available and prices rising
A hard Irish border after plans to avoid checks fail, sparking protests
Fuel becoming less available and 2,000 jobs could be lost if the government sets petrol import tariffs to 0%, potentially causing two oil refineries to close
UK patients having to wait longer for medicines, including insulin and flu vaccines
A rise in public disorder and community tensions resulting from a shortage of food and drugs
Passengers delayed at EU airports, Eurotunnel and Dover
Freight disruption at ports lasting up to three months, caused by customs checks, before traffic flow improves to 50-70% of the current rate
The government said the document was not what it expected to happen, but outlined scenarios being looked at as part of its no-deal preparations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49385263
-
Harrowby Hall, I thought the referendum was partly called in response to the high number of ukip votes in 2015?
-
I'm not sure that there is any evidence to support this being any other than an additional factor.
What is clear is that Theresa May's slogan, "Bexit means Brexit" was a clear call to UKIP voters telling them it was safe to rejoin the Tory party. It was an attempt to ensure that her party would be returned with a large majority in any future general election. However, she then managed to shoot herself in both feet.
-
I see today when I was catching up on some of the news stories and I see Poland's not too keen on the EU interfering with it's internal affairs laws, immigration etc, I'm sure I've heard of something similar going on elsewhere in Europe.
Funny thing about the the poles, so the news outlet says, seem to be worried about Germany acquiring so much power at the centre of the EU in Brussels, I wonder why?
ippy
-
As Basil Fawlty said 'Don't mention the war. We are all friends now.' ;)
-
As Basil Fawlty said 'Don't mention the war. We are all friends now.' ;)
Try this interview on YouTube:
Poland Challenges the European identity - George Friedman.
You can hear it for yourself without any of my input.
Regards ippy
-
Try this interview on YouTube:
Poland Challenges the European identity - George Friedman.
You can hear it for yourself without any of my input.
Regards ippy
So, in what way is this guy's views relevant to the carnage a no-deal Brexit will bring on us poor saps in the UK, as reported today.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49385263
-
I see today when I was catching up on some of the news stories and I see Poland's not too keen on the EU interfering with it's internal affairs laws, immigration etc, I'm sure I've heard of something similar going on elsewhere in Europe.
Funny thing about the the poles, so the news outlet says, seem to be worried about Germany acquiring so much power at the centre of the EU in Brussels, I wonder why?
ippy
That's about it.
-
Try this interview on YouTube:
Poland Challenges the European identity - George Friedman.
You can hear it for yourself without any of my input.
Regards ippy
And yet the Poles can still see the benefits of the EU:
https://poland.pl/social-issues/social/most-poles-support-polish-membership-eu/
-
... and I like the majority of the UK population want to leave ...
Really?!? And there was me thinking that the UK population was 63 million and the leave vote in the referendum was 17.4 million. You must be using a different definition of 'majority of the UK population'.
-
ippy,
Really?!? And there was me thinking that the UK population was 63 million and the leave vote in the referendum was 17.4 million. You must be using a different definition of 'majority of the UK population'.
And just to add that, if you do leave somewhere, then necessarily you have to go somewhere else. The leave campaign told you that that somewhere else would be a lovely garden with free pizza, unicorns playing in the fountains and Felicity Kendall being all coquettish. Now you know that the somewhere else is actually a rickety rope bridge across a lake full of crocodiles do you not think that it wise to weigh your antipathy against the EU against that reality?
-
ippy,
And just to add that, if you do leave somewhere, then necessarily you have to go somewhere else. The leave campaign told you that that somewhere else would be a lovely garden with free pizza, unicorns playing in the fountains and Felicity Kendall being all coquettish. Now you know that the somewhere else is actually a rickety rope bridge across a lake full of crocodiles do you not think that it wise to weigh your antipathy against the EU against that reality?
It seems that a number of remain people, including virtually all of the media, there's some sort of collective blind spot in the eyes a sort of gap in the memory, the choice was leave or remain now I'm sure leave won the day.
Regards ippy
-
It seems that a number of remain people, including virtually all of the media, there's some sort of collective blind spot in the eyes a sort of gap in the memory, the choice was leave or remain now I'm sure leave won the day.
There also seems to be a failure of memory on the part of some Leave voters who don't seem to recall how 'Leave' was described at the time and what 'Leave' is being painted as now, notwithstanding the rose-tinted paintbrush that was used to create the Leave pictures in the first place.
O.
-
Really?!? And there was me thinking that the UK population was 63 million and the leave vote in the referendum was 17.4 million. You must be using a different definition of 'majority of the UK population'.
That looks like desperate hair splitting to me.
Hard cheese to those that didn't get up off of their backsides to vote.
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
It seems that a number of remain people, including virtually all of the media, there's some sort of collective blind spot in the eyes a sort of gap in the memory, the choice was leave or remain now I'm sure leave won the day.
In that case can I interest you in buying my brand new Aston Martin DB7 for £500? When it arrives and you realise it's actually a 30-year old Austin Metro barely held together with rust and powered with a rubber band naturally you'll be cool with that - after all, you made your decision on the basis of the promises I made so you'll want to stick with the deal right?
-
There also seems to be a failure of memory on the part of some Leave voters who don't seem to recall how 'Leave' was described at the time and what 'Leave' is being painted as now, notwithstanding the rose-tinted paintbrush that was used to create the Leave pictures in the first place.
O.
So sorry Outlander I keep on forgetting all of us leavers're all as thick as.
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
So sorry Outlander I keep on forgetting all of us leavers're all as thick as.
Being duped by convincing liars doesn't make you thick. Sticking with your decision when the facts are revealed though certainly makes you obdurate.
Now about that Aston Martin - where should I deliver it?
-
ippy,
In that case can I interest you in buying my brand new Aston Martin DB7 for £500? When it arrives and you realise it's actually a 30-year old Austin Metro barely held together with rust and powered with a rubber band naturally you'll be cool with that - after all, you made your decision on the basis of the promises I made so you'll want to stick with the deal right?
My post 4191, substitute Outlander with Blue.
Regards, ippy.
-
So sorry Outlander I keep on forgetting all of us leavers're all as thick as.
Regards, ippy.
So you pointing out what you believe are the foibles of some remainers is 'fair comment', presumably, but my similar summary of the limitations of some leavers is an accusation of stupidity?
No deal was not part of the suggestions when Leave was campaigning, there were any number of Michael Gove-ish 'easiest trade deal in the world' commentaries even whilst Farage and Johnson and the others pretended that Leave was a single position and not a morass of contrasting and contradictory possibilities.
I don't doubt there are any number of Leave voters for whom the short- and mid-term financial and cultural impacts are a price worth paying for some sense of political freedom (I happen to married to someone who thinks like that), and that's a valid position, even if it's one that I don't share. That doesn't change the fact that the 'Leave' that was campaigned for is a very different 'Leave' to the one we appear to be careening towards.
O.
-
If the leave-at-any-cost camp are so sure that they are fulfilling the wishes of a majority of the UK people, why aren't they happy to put the reality to them in another vote? It can't be a matter of principle, surely, when they are unconcerned about corruption and dishonesty in the original campaign?
Leave campaigners had around 40 years to come up with a workable exit strategy and develop a blueprint for thriving outside the EU. Where are they?
-
ippy,
And just to add that, if you do leave somewhere, then necessarily you have to go somewhere else. The leave campaign told you that that somewhere else would be a lovely garden with free pizza, unicorns playing in the fountains and Felicity Kendall being all coquettish. Now you know that the somewhere else is actually a rickety rope bridge across a lake full of crocodiles do you not think that it wise to weigh your antipathy against the EU against that reality?
Your analogy is missing a final, vital, feature:
... a lovely garden with free pizza, unicorns playing in the fountains and Felicity Kendall being all coquettish.
... a rickety rope bridge across a lake full of crocodiles ... and Ann Widdecombe breathing fire and brimstone
-
That looks like desperate hair splitting to me.
Hard cheese to those that didn't get up off of their backsides to vote.
Regards, ippy.
Not hair splitting at all.
Now I'm not so bothered about people who couldn't be bothered to vote, although it is common for such a major change to require a 'super-majority', e.g. 60% of those that vote or 50% of the electorate etc.
However I am more concerned about people who weren't allowed to vote. So for example all those people who are now 18 before brexit is enacted but have not been allowed any democratic say as they weren't 18 over 3 years ago (including my 2 sons). Also EU nations who are long term/permanent UK residents but also not allowed to vote. And of course, arguably those 2 groups are the groups who will be most affected by brexit, but have not been allowed a say.
-
Not hair splitting at all.
Now I'm not so bothered about people who couldn't be bothered to vote, although it is common for such a major change to require a 'super-majority', e.g. 60% of those that vote or 50% of the electorate etc.
However I am more concerned about people who weren't allowed to vote. So for example all those people who are now 18 before brexit is enacted but have not been allowed any democratic say as they weren't 18 over 3 years ago (including my 2 sons). Also EU nations who are long term/permanent UK residents but also not allowed to vote. And of course, arguably those 2 groups are the groups who will be most affected by brexit, but have not been allowed a say.
I've read your post Proff, I don't remember being asked anything about the best of three or say best of five or anything else like that, leave won the day remain didn't, as far as I'm concerned that's it.
I can appreciate how bitter this pill is for remainers but there, it was plainly stated, presented, or however you wish to put it, as a vote to leave or remain your side well, you know the rest.
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
Being duped by convincing liars doesn't make you thick. Sticking with your decision when the facts are revealed though certainly makes you obdurate.
Now about that Aston Martin - where should I deliver it?
Just an aside your mention of that iffy Aston, I was in my little town today and thought I'd have a quick look around our local cheepie bookshop and spotted a Haynes workshop manual for a JU 87 Stuka dive bomber and I just wondered if you'd like me to reserve a copy for you to perhaps go with your rubber band Aston M.
I really did see that book I'm not making it up, I could hardly believe what I was seeing but it has settled the decision of what to buy my wife for christmas this year.
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
I've read your post Proff, I don't remember being asked anything about the best of three or say best of five or anything else like that, leave won the day remain didn't, as far as I'm concerned that's it.
I can appreciate how bitter this pill is for remainers but there, it was plainly stated, presented, or however you wish to put it, as a vote to leave or remain your side well, you know the rest.
You're missing the point still. No matter how bitter the pill, if the referendum had been legitimate - not one won the basis of a prospectus full of untruths, not illegally funded, not pivoted round a question so vague that any version of the outcome is said to be "what the people voted for" - then that pill would indeed have to be swallowed regardless of how catastrophic the results.
The actual problem though is that the referendum wasn't legitimately held at all. It's not a question of being asked to vote multiple times; it's a question of being asked to vote just once but on a legitimate process rather than a corrupted one.
-
ippy,
You're missing the point still. No matter how bitter the pill, if the referendum had been legitimate - not one won the basis of a prospectus full of untruths, not illegally funded, not pivoted round a question so vague that any version of the outcome is said to be "what the people voted for" - then that pill would indeed have to be swallowed regardless of how catastrophic the results.
The actual problem though is that the referendum wasn't legitimately held at all. It's not a question of being asked to vote multiple times; it's a question of being asked to vote just once but on a legitimate process rather than a corrupted one.
There again we don't or are ever likely to agree I see asking to remain or leave easy to understand you don't agree and it just seems to me you're side is doing more and more wriggling because your side didn't get its own way in as I see it a legitimately constructed choice, A or B if you like.
All of this you didn't do this, they should have done that or whatever is irrelevant to me, a pointless argument and any kind of reversal would be going against fundamental democratic principles as far as I'm concerned, leave won, I doubt we'll even agree on that.
We're all hard liners on this when it comes to it yours or my arguments are at an impasse and were at an impasse back in 16 therefore referendum.
All of the information I wanted about whether I wanted to be in or out of the EU was there many years ago and I never have wanted to be a part of the EU especially ever closer union just one, a big one, amongst loads of other reasons, leavers weren't sleepwalking over your cliff the BBC keeps on shouting out for you, we just take a view that differs from yours, none of us are idiots we're not going to be convinced by anything you say and visa versa the other way.
So I'll take it you don't want a Stuka Manual then.
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
There again we don't or are ever likely to agree I see asking to remain or leave easy to understand you don't agree and it just seems to me you're side is doing more and more wriggling because your side didn't get its own way in as I see it a legitimately constructed choice, A or B if you like.
All of this you didn't do this, they should have done that or whatever is irrelevant to me, a pointless argument and any kind of reversal would be going against fundamental democratic principles as far as I'm concerned, leave won, I doubt we'll even agree on that.
We're all hard liners on this when it comes to it yours or my arguments are at an impasse and were at an impasse back in 16 therefore referendum.
All of the information I wanted about whether I wanted to be in or out of the EU was there many years ago and I never have wanted to be a part of the EU especially ever closer union just one, a big one, amongst loads of other reasons, leavers weren't sleepwalking over your cliff the BBC keeps on shouting out for you, we just take a view that differs from yours, none of us are idiots we're not going to be convinced by anything you say and visa versa the other way.
But still you're not addressing the point. If when the rusty old Austin Metro arrived you rang me to complain it wasn't the Aston as promised, and I replied to you as you just did you wouldn't (presumably) accept that your decision was legitimately made. It's precisely because democracy matters that its processes have to be legitimate - the result cannot be won with lies, the funding cannot be unlawful, the options have to be meaningful etc. We can disagree about the wisdom or otherwise of leaving the EU as much as you like, but the corruption of the process is unquestionable. When Russia announces that, say, 90% voted for Putin do you think, "well good - that's democracy at work then" or do you smell a rat and conclude that there's nothing democratic about that at all?
So I'll take it you don't want a Stuka Manual then.
No thanks - I'm a Messerschmitt 109 man myself ;)
-
There again we don't or are ever likely to agree I see asking to remain or leave easy to understand you don't agree and it just seems to me you're side is doing more and more wriggling because your side didn't get its own way in as I see it a legitimately constructed choice, A or B if you like.
All of this you didn't do this, they should have done that or whatever is irrelevant to me, a pointless argument and any kind of reversal would be going against fundamental democratic principles as far as I'm concerned, leave won, I doubt we'll even agree on that.
Once again - you're are just repeating your dogmas and not actually arguing your point of view in any rational way. You haven't justified what you think is wrong with membership of the EU (except you don't like it) and you haven't even attempted to justify blindly following the referendum result despite the very different situation we find ourselves in now, compared to what was presented to the voters at the time.
All of the information I wanted about whether I wanted to be in or out of the EU was there many years ago and I never have wanted to be a part of the EU especially ever closer union just one, a big one, amongst loads of other reasons...
Why won't you even give us one reason (you never wanting to be in it, isn't a reason, it's your conclusion)?
...leavers weren't sleepwalking over your cliff the BBC keeps on shouting out for you...
Back to blind faith and misinformation. It's not the BBC that has made up a cliff, it's pretty much all the experts who should know about these things. Even the government's own assessment has spoken of food and medicine shortages and other potential consequences that no sane, rational government would risk exposing its citizens to by choice. Even a government committed to leaving doesn't have to risk a no-deal.
-
You have to laugh at the irony of Tory politicians saying they would never support the interim government approach of preventing no-deal if it meant installed Corbyn as PM for a limited period - when the Tory party have just inflicted upon us a PM who is a lying, incompetent, self-serving fuckwit.
-
Gordon,
You have to laugh at the irony of Tory politicians saying they would never support the interim government approach of preventing no-deal if it meant installed Corbyn as PM for a limited period - when the Tory party have just inflicted upon us a PM who is a lying, incompetent, self-serving fuckwit.
It's being referred to as the Meatloaf position apparently: "I would do anything for (no no deal), but I won't do that".
-
ippy,
But still you're not addressing the point. If when the rusty old Austin Metro arrived you rang me to complain it wasn't the Aston as promised, and I replied to you as you just did you wouldn't (presumably) accept that your decision was legitimately made. It's precisely because democracy matters that its processes have to be legitimate - the result cannot be won with lies, the funding cannot be unlawful, the options have to be meaningful etc. We can disagree about the wisdom or otherwise of leaving the EU as much as you like, but the corruption of the process is unquestionable. When Russia announces that, say, 90% voted for Putin do you think, "well good - that's democracy at work then" or do you smell a rat and conclude that there's nothing democratic about that at all?
No thanks - I'm a Messerschmitt 109 man myself ;)
I've no intention to be drawn into any kind of endless equivalent of a musical rondo, we wont either of us of any side find a meeting point.
I feel I'm looking beyond the rather obvious rough and tumble inevitably involved when we do leave the EU.
I also dread to think how we would be treated all over the world if we were seen to wimpishly have allowed ourselves to be cheated out of the leave decision, please sir Mr EU can we come back we didn't really mean it; no thanks.
There are so many reasons other than ever closer union that leaving the EU will resolve not much that there, if anything we'd agree about.
The referendum was democratic in my estimation something else we're never going to agree about.
Overall warts and all I'm really pleased with the ref result and again I don't see any significant numbers that even give a hint of corruption the result was app 48 52 not anywhere near 90% of which if it were that sort of 90 percentage of course questions would have had to be asked, something else where we're never going to agree.
Regards, ippy
-
Once again - you're are just repeating your dogmas and not actually arguing your point of view in any rational way. You haven't justified what you think is wrong with membership of the EU (except you don't like it) and you haven't even attempted to justify blindly following the referendum result despite the very different situation we find ourselves in now, compared to what was presented to the voters at the time.
Why won't you even give us one reason (you never wanting to be in it, isn't a reason, it's your conclusion)?
Back to blind faith and misinformation. It's not the BBC that has made up a cliff, it's pretty much all the experts who should know about these things. Even the government's own assessment has spoken of food and medicine shortages and other potential consequences that no sane, rational government would risk exposing its citizens to by choice. Even a government committed to leaving doesn't have to risk a no-deal.
What is it about me saying I don't think remain and leave supporters will ever agree on this one that's so difficult to understand, I'm not likely to change my mind about brexit neither are the remainers, I'm sorry but I remain delighted by the result. something we're never going to see eye to eye on.
Let's all start to make a success of leaving.
Regards, ippy.
-
Let's all start to make a success of leaving.
Regards, ippy.
Nope: let's hope the politicians, such as they are, have enough sense to stop this no-deal madness, and then let the electorate have the final say.
-
I've no intention to be drawn into any kind of endless equivalent of a musical rondo, we wont either of us side find a meeting point.
So long as you just repeat your dogma, I don't see it being anything else - why don't you try actually posting some of your reasoning?
I also dread to think how we would be treated all over the world if we were seen to wimpishly have allowed ourselves to be cheated out of the leave decision, please sir Mr EU can we come back we didn't really mean it; no thanks.
Since the younger generations are pro-EU by a large majority, that's pretty much inevitable eventually. And you do understand that we're already a laughing stock, yes?
There are so many reasons other than ever closer union that leaving the EU will resolve not much that there, if anything we'd agree about.
But you haven't even said why you think that is a reason - nor have you addressed the fact that Cameron got us an opt-out.
The referendum was democratic in my estimation something else we're never going to agree about.
And you won't say on what grounds you dismiss the problems with it. Even if some people just wanted to leave on blind faith (like you, as far as I can tell from all you've said), rather than any details about the what it would be like - do you really imagine nobody who voted leave did so because of the picture painted by the leave campaign? All that money for the NHS - the easiest free trade deal in human history. None of them?
-
Let's all start to make a success of leaving.
Try telling that to the people who'll lose their jobs.
One of the little mentioned parts of the leaked government paper was that it would disproportionately affect low-income groups. There's a rude awakening coming if we do leave with no deal.
-
Let's all start to make a success of leaving.
Your government doesn't have to spend billions mitigating the negative effects of something if will be a success.
-
There again we don't or are ever likely to agree I see asking to remain or leave easy to understand you don't agree and it just seems to me you're side is doing more and more wriggling because your side didn't get its own way in as I see it a legitimately constructed choice, A or B if you like.
All of this you didn't do this, they should have done that or whatever is irrelevant to me, a pointless argument and any kind of reversal would be going against fundamental democratic principles as far as I'm concerned, leave won, I doubt we'll even agree on that.
We're all hard liners on this when it comes to it yours or my arguments are at an impasse and were at an impasse back in 16 therefore referendum.
All of the information I wanted about whether I wanted to be in or out of the EU was there many years ago and I never have wanted to be a part of the EU especially ever closer union just one, a big one, amongst loads of other reasons, leavers weren't sleepwalking over your cliff the BBC keeps on shouting out for you, we just take a view that differs from yours, none of us are idiots we're not going to be convinced by anything you say and visa versa the other way.
So I'll take it you don't want a Stuka Manual then.
Regards, ippy.
Will you please shut up about not agreeing. Of course we don’t agree with you. But I still want to know why you think you personally are disadvantaged by being in the EU or how you think not being in the EU is going to make your life better. I can think of several reasons why I am better off as an EU citizen.
Your refusal to enumerate the practical benefits of leaving the EU just makes you look like a cultist. You really aren’t doing yourself any favours.
-
ippy,
The referendum was democratic in my estimation something else we're never going to agree about.
But it’s not a question of opinion – it’s an issue of facts. The Electoral Commission did find that the leave campaign broke funding law, many of the promises made by the leave campaign are now demonstrably not true (which is why incidentally people like Leadsom have shifted ground, bizarrely, to, “well even though none of it was true the people knew it wasn’t true because that’s that the remain campaign told them, so they must have known they were voting to be poorer so we’ll carry that out anyway”), the question was framed such that no matter what version of Brexit emerges the liars and ignoramuses will claim, “and that’s what 17.2m people voted for” when that necessarily cannot be the case.
In other words, the only way we can not agree about this is if you persist in ignoring the evidence to hand.
Let's all start to make a success of leaving.
There is no success from leaving. The irony of “you lost, get over it” is that we all lost – and the biggest losers of all will be the poor and vulnerable who most voted for it. The only winners are the fund managers betting on the UK economy tanking (having taken care to relocate their funds outside the UK so they don’t come down with it) and (quite possibly) the Russian interests who paid for it.
Just walking away from some 160 trade deals we benefit from as part of the EU, high quality food and drugs standards, decent workers' rights, economic and diplomatic influence as part of one of the Big three trading blocs, quite possibly the continuance of the UK & NI, the freedom to work and settle anywhere in the EU etc, in exchange for – well, what exactly? – is an epic act of self harm.
In short: becoming an isolated, irrelevant, intolerant, impoverished little backwater isn’t my idea of “success” I’m afraid.
-
A Cartesian view (red for me).
https://www.facebook.com/commerce/products/1644935758883651/
-
So long as you just repeat your dogma, I don't see it being anything else - why don't you try actually posting some of your reasoning?
Since the younger generations are pro-EU by a large majority, that's pretty much inevitable eventually. And you do understand that we're already a laughing stock, yes?
But you haven't even said why you think that is a reason - nor have you addressed the fact that Cameron got us an opt-out.
And you won't say on what grounds you dismiss the problems with it. Even if some people just wanted to leave on blind faith (like you, as far as I can tell from all you've said), rather than any details about the what it would be like - do you really imagine nobody who voted leave did so because of the picture painted by the leave campaign? All that money for the NHS - the easiest free trade deal in human history. None of them?
I thought I had made it plain why I'll not be drawn into an endless argument, I didn't think I was being that complicated.
Regards, ippy.
-
Nope: let's hope the politicians, such as they are, have enough sense to stop this no-deal madness, and then let the electorate have the final say.
Like I said.
Regards, ippy.
-
I thought I had made it plain why I'll not be drawn into an endless argument, I didn't think I was being that complicated.
Regards, ippy.
You are right. You are not that complicated.
-
ippy,
But it’s not a question of opinion – it’s an issue of facts. The Electoral Commission did find that the leave campaign broke funding law, many of the promises made by the leave campaign are now demonstrably not true (which is why incidentally people like Leadsom have shifted ground, bizarrely, to, “well even though none of it was true the people knew it wasn’t true because that’s that the remain campaign told them, so they must have known they were voting to be poorer so we’ll carry that out anyway”), the question was framed such that no matter what version of Brexit emerges the liars and ignoramuses will claim, “and that’s what 17.2m people voted for” when that necessarily cannot be the case.
In other words, the only way we can not agree about this is if you persist in ignoring the evidence to hand.
There is no success from leaving. The irony of “you lost, get over it” is that we all lost – and the biggest losers of all will be the poor and vulnerable who most voted for it. The only winners are the fund managers betting on the UK economy tanking (having taken care to relocate their funds outside the UK so they don’t come down with it) and (quite possibly) the Russian interests who paid for it.
Just walking away from some 160 trade deals we benefit from as part of the EU, high quality food and drugs standards, decent workers' rights, economic and diplomatic influence as part of one of the Big three trading blocs, quite possibly the continuance of the UK & NI, the freedom to work and settle anywhere in the EU etc, in exchange for – well, what exactly? – is an epic act of self harm.
In short: becoming an isolated, irrelevant, intolerant, impoverished little backwater isn’t my idea of “success” I’m afraid.
Well there you are I read the facts in an other way to you I can't see any way we'd ever agree.
Regards, ippy.
-
You are right. You are not that complicated.
Fair enough if that's what you wish to think it's all yours Trent.
Regards, ippy.
-
A Cartesian view (red for me).
https://www.facebook.com/commerce/products/1644935758883651/
Putting Descartes before the horse.
-
ippy,
Well there you are I read the facts in an other way to you I can't see any way we'd ever agree.
Doesn't work. You can't (to take just one example) "read the fact" of the breaking of electoral funding law "in other ways". It's just a fact. You might not think it a significant fact, you might not think it a fact that you like, you might not anything. It's still though a fact - and a fact moreover that ordinarily would have a significant effect on the legitimacy of the result only for some reason in this case we're just supposed to ignore it.
-
Fair enough if that's what you wish to think it's all yours Trent.
Regards, ippy.
Just agreeing with you for the first time in awhile ;)
-
I thought I had made it plain why I'll not be drawn into an endless argument, I didn't think I was being that complicated.
So why keep posting about it?
You seem to want to post your views without having them challenged and without having to justify them in any way. You appear to be doing an Alan, you want to keep preaching but you won't engage with the rational arguments...
-
ippy,
Doesn't work. You can't (to take just one example) "read the fact" of the breaking of electoral funding law "in other ways". It's just a fact. You might not think it a significant fact, you might not think it a fact that you like, you might not anything. It's still though a fact - and a fact moreover that ordinarily would have a significant effect on the legitimacy of the result only for some reason in this case we're just supposed to ignore it.
As I've said before many times the decision to leave or remain is mainly achieved by doing your own sum of overall judgement of all of the facts as as each individual sees them and I dare say your ideas about facts are entirely real to you, you're entitled to hold those views but there are some things that are so no go for me they easily in my judgement trump your facts, we're never going to see eye to eye on this brexit issue.
Their's no point in going into yours or my ideas about brexit I totally detest the remain view as I dare say it's equally the same for remainers probably worse because you lost the vote, so again for the umpteenth time we're never going to agree on this one.
I wish you well even though I think your views on brexit stink.
Regards, ippy.
-
Stranger,
So why keep posting about it?
You seem to want to post your views without having them challenged and without having to justify them in any way. You appear to be doing an Alan, you want to keep preaching but you won't engage with the rational arguments...
Ippy's position seems to me to be common among leavers. Essentially it's "EU bad...boo...hiss" etc but when you ask why or what better alternative they think there is there's never an answer. I think it's borne of decades of being lied to by the Mail/Telegraph/Express ("NOW THE EU WANTS STRAIGHT BANANAS SHOCK!") such that there's a non-specific but firm conviction that they're right to hate the EU but no actual explanation for why. That Johnson himself was one of the journalists making this stuff up doesn't help because he's so heavily implicated in the illusion he helped create that he won't back away from it. Perhaps the grown up press or the EU itself should have been much more active about rebutting the nonsense as it appeared, but the tragedy is that's we're now where we are: "Bloody EU - sovereign nation - control immigration - blue passports - make Britain great again" drivel.
-
ippy,
...and I dare say your ideas about facts are entirely real to you...
You're still not getting it. The facts about Brexit are no more real just to me than the facts of gravity are real just to me. That electoral funding law was broken is a fact to you and to me equally. That a comprehensive trade deal wasn't done before Art 50 was invoked is a fact to you and to me equally. That "there's no question of leaving the single market or the customs union" was a lie to you and to me equally. That....
Need I go on?
-
Their's no point in going into yours or my ideas about brexit I totally detest the remain view as I dare say it's equally the same for remainers probably worse because you lost the vote...
I don't detest the leave view - what a silly attitude!
I think the leave view is misguided and, in many cases, based on misunderstanding and misinformation, and I also think it has now become incredibly tribalistic.
I think a no-deal Brexit has no democratic mandate (for reasons already given) and that it would be extremely foolish and do enormous damage to the country, its economy, and its citizens - especially the less well-off. This is a view that is shared by most experts, by the government's own advisers, and also by many leavers.
I'm perfectly happy to tell people why I think these things and to defend them rationally.
You seem to have nothing but emotion and an "us and them" attitude - which is good evidence for one of the negative consequences of having the referendum in the first place. As many people have pointed out, this wasn't an important issue to most voters prior to 2016 - now it divides the country - and we have people like you saying you "detest" the other view but being unable to even say why...
-
ippy,
You're still not getting it. The facts about Brexit are no more real just to me than the facts of gravity are real just to me. That electoral funding law was broken is a fact to you and to me equally. That a comprehensive trade deal wasn't done before Art 50 was invoked is a fact to you and to me equally. That "there's no question of leaving the single market or the customs union" was a lie to you and to me equally. That....
Need I go on?
Like I said and I feel just the same as you only from the opposite point of view.
I have no intention of going into any kind of tit for tat never ending argument with anyone about in or out because neither party will be giving way I certainly won't be changing my mind as I dare say you feel much the same only pro-EU.
Regards ippy
-
I don't detest the leave view - what a silly attitude!
I think the leave view is misguided and, in many cases, based on misunderstanding and misinformation, and I also think it has now become incredibly tribalistic.
I think a no-deal Brexit has no democratic mandate (for reasons already given) and that it would be extremely foolish and do enormous damage to the country, its economy, and its citizens - especially the less well-off. This is a view that is shared by most experts, by the government's own advisers, and also by many leavers.
I'm perfectly happy to tell people why I think these things and to defend them rationally.
You seem to have nothing but emotion and an "us and them" attitude - which is good evidence for one of the negative consequences of having the referendum in the first place. As many people have pointed out, this wasn't an important issue to most voters prior to 2016 - now it divides the country - and we have people like you saying you "detest" the other view but being unable to even say why...
An anti-EU ditto to you Stranger!
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
Like I said and I feel just the same as you only from the opposite point of view.
I have no intention of going into any kind of tit for tat never ending argument with anyone about in or out because neither party will be giving way I certainly won't be changing my mind as I dare say you feel much the same only pro-EU.
You're still not getting it. You can have any point of view you like, What you can't have though is your own facts. As just one example, it is a fact that the leave campaign broke electoral funding law (twice). You may say that you don't care, that you you don't think it made much difference to the outcome, that anything - what you can't say though is that it's not a fact.
And if that weren't bad enough, there are lots more facts too - that the leave campaigners made a series of statements and promises that we now demonstrably know were not true. On Youtube for example you can see Farage, Hannan, Johnson, Leadsom, Davies, Raab and others saying things that were categorically wrong. Again, this is a fact - whether or not you think it's a fact that matters we can discuss, but you cannot just hand wave away that it is a fact.
Here's another one - no-one was ever asked whether they'd prefer to remain in the EU or to have instead the no deal exit we seem to be heading toward. That's another fact, and yet somehow we're told that we should honour the "will of the people" when "the people" were never asked that question.
And that's a fact too.
-
An anti-EU ditto to you Stranger!
Which kind of proves my point. I'm happy to discuss my reasoning and the facts of the matter and you're not.
Ho hum.
-
As I've said before many times the decision to leave or remain is mainly achieved by doing your own sum of overall judgement of all of the facts as as each individual sees them
OK, so tell us some facts that justify this train wreck.
-
OK, so tell us some facts that justify this train wreck.
Take back control - bent bananas - blue passports - World War Two - cheese-eating surrender monkeys...
-
Steve H,
Take back control - bent bananas - blue passports - World War Two - cheese-eating surrender monkeys...
A German soldier nicked my Grandad's bike...
-
Like I said and I feel just the same as you only from the opposite point of view.
I have no intention of going into any kind of tit for tat never ending argument with anyone about in or out because neither party will be giving way I certainly won't be changing my mind as I dare say you feel much the same only pro-EU.
Regards ippy
But you are pro Brexit, you should be happily telling us all the ways we are going to be better off. But I see nothing from you except "I'm not getting into any arguments". I'm beginning to suspect that you actually don't know any ways in which we will all be better off.
OK to tell the truth, I am not beginning to suspect: I've known for sure ever since I asked you to tell me one way in which you will be better off about twenty pages back and you did nothing but deflect.
From where I stand we are heading for disaster, so please, for the love of dog, tell me what there is for me or you personally to be optimistic about.
-
Take back control - bent bananas - blue passports - World War Two - cheese-eating surrender monkeys...
I know the bent banana story is a lie told by our current prime minister, but nobody ever really answered the question about what is so bad about straight bananas.
-
I know the bent banana story is a lie told by our current prime minister, but nobody ever really answered the question about what is so bad about straight bananas.
[
Most bananas came out years ago.
-
jeremy,
I know the bent banana story is a lie told by our current prime minister, but nobody ever really answered the question about what is so bad about straight bananas.
They don't come back when you throw them?
-
jeremy,
They don't come back when you throw them?
To quote Queen Elizabeth
Well, that's no good, is it; because when I throw things away, I don't want them to come back!
-
Take back control - bent bananas - blue passports - World War Two - cheese-eating surrender monkeys...
Don't forget the "great war against the British prawn cocktail flavour crisp"!
[This was actually another blatant lie (https://infacts.org/mythbusts/brussels-didnt-ban-prawn-cocktail-crisps/) by our PM, which he repeated (https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/i-am-a-european-i-lived-many-years-in-brussels-i-rather-love-the-old-place-and-s/10153498932666317/) in 2016.]
-
ippy,
You're still not getting it. You can have any point of view you like, What you can't have though is your own facts. As just one example, it is a fact that the leave campaign broke electoral funding law (twice). You may say that you don't care, that you you don't think it made much difference to the outcome, that anything - what you can't say though is that it's not a fact.
And if that weren't bad enough, there are lots more facts too - that the leave campaigners made a series of statements and promises that we now demonstrably know were not true. On Youtube for example you can see Farage, Hannan, Johnson, Leadsom, Davies, Raab and others saying things that were categorically wrong. Again, this is a fact - whether or not you think it's a fact that matters we can discuss, but you cannot just hand wave away that it is a fact.
Here's another one - no-one was ever asked whether they'd prefer to remain in the EU or to have instead the no deal exit we seem to be heading toward. That's another fact, and yet somehow we're told that we should honour the "will of the people" when "the people" were never asked that question.
And that's a fact too.
The Ref was in or out and remain has somewhere in the late nineties percentage wise of the whole of the media on side which should more than compensate for most of the perceived grievances you've referred to. (there is a valid counter to this particular point about funding you have mentioned but I'ts still not my intention to launch any clay pidgins this day or any other).
With all of that media on the side of remain and the remain side still hasn't managed to achieve a runaway certainty of numbers on side.
Regards, ippy.
-
The Ref was in or out and remain has somewhere in the late nineties percentage wise of the whole of the media on side which should more than compensate for most of the perceived grievances you've referred to.
No they didn't.
Broadcast media are required by law to be unbiased.
And the print media were disproportionately pro-leave both in terms of numbers of newspapers, but even more so in terms of circulation.
So the pro leave papers were
Daily Mail
Daily Express
Daily Star
The Sun
Daily Telegraph
Pro remain were
Daily Mirror
The Guardian
Financial Times
The Times was effectively balanced in its coverage
See http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-05-23-uk-newspapers-positions-brexit
And then of course there is the whole on-line minefield in which the involvement of Cambridge Analytica and other shady organisations provided a huge boost to the leave side.
-
With all of that media on the side of remain and the remain side still hasn't managed to achieve a runaway certainty of numbers on side.
More evidence of the non-sense of your claims, from:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/UK_Press_Coverage_of_the_%20EU_Referendum.pdf
'• Of the articles focused on the referendum 41% were pro Leave as against 27% pro Remain, marking a dominant pro Brexit bias.
• Six out of nine newspapers had this dominance of pro Leave articles, with the strongest positions in the Daily Express, followed by the Daily Mail and the Sun. The Daily Mirror had the highest share of Remain articles, followed by the Guardian and the Financial Times. All newspapers, whether predominantly pro Leave or pro Remain, included some articles from a different point of view but this proportion was smallest in the pro Leave Daily Express.
• After factoring in the reach of different newspapers the pro Brexit bias is further accentuated, with 48% of all referendum focused articles pro Leave and just 22% Remain.'
Yup you are correct there was media bias - massively in favour of leave.
-
Prof,
More evidence of the non-sense of your claims, from:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/UK_Press_Coverage_of_the_%20EU_Referendum.pdf
'• Of the articles focused on the referendum 41% were pro Leave as against 27% pro Remain, marking a dominant pro Brexit bias.
• Six out of nine newspapers had this dominance of pro Leave articles, with the strongest positions in the Daily Express, followed by the Daily Mail and the Sun. The Daily Mirror had the highest share of Remain articles, followed by the Guardian and the Financial Times. All newspapers, whether predominantly pro Leave or pro Remain, included some articles from a different point of view but this proportion was smallest in the pro Leave Daily Express.
• After factoring in the reach of different newspapers the pro Brexit bias is further accentuated, with 48% of all referendum focused articles pro Leave and just 22% Remain.'
Yup you are correct there was media bias - massively in favour of leave.
Yeah, but you can prove anything with facts. What ippy has though is belief so, you know...
-
Give this 'Apha News' a go they're taking a poll:
The question is:
Would you consider it to be a good or bad outcome if Britain left the EU without any deal?
There's a choice of options to vote for.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
Give this 'Apha News' a go they're taking a poll:
The question is:
Would you consider it to be a good or bad outcome if Britain left the EU without any deal?
There's a choice of options to vote for.
Regards to all, ippy.
Do you have a link?
I do hope there is an option of 'likely catastrofuck'.
-
I'ts still not my intention to launch any clay pidgins this day or any other).
Why are you still bothering to post here? You’re explicitly not engaging with our arguments. You’re refusing to make any arguments of your own. It seems your entire MO is just to say “we won, you lost”. Why are you posting?
-
Give this 'Apha News' a go they're taking a poll:
The question is:
Would you consider it to be a good or bad outcome if Britain left the EU without any deal?
There's a choice of options to vote for.
Regards to all, ippy.
No response to my actual evidence that demonstrates that the media was massively biased in favour of leave - wonder why that would be.
To reiterate, when you factor in number of articles and the reach of the article (physical and on-line), then 48% of all referendum focused articles were pro Leave and just 22% Remain. So that is over two to one in favour of leave.
-
Do you have a link?
I do hope there is an option of 'likely catastrofuck'.
Beg your pud I should have indicated that this poll was on YouTube.
Regards, ippy.
-
Beg your pud I should have indicated that this poll was on YouTube.
Regards, ippy.
Note you are still ignoring my actual evidence that demonstrates a huge bias in favour of leave from the print media.
-
An LBC caller said that the main reason for people voting to leave was that as an EU member the UK's population is increasing too fast and that public services are too stretched. He said the country doesn't have enough space for this increasing population and that to cope, more and more infrastructure has to be built, which is damaging to the environment.
-
An LBC caller said that the main reason for people voting to leave was that as an EU member the UK's population is increasing too fast and that public services are too stretched. He said the country doesn't have enough space for this increasing population and that to cope, more and more infrastructure has to be built, which is damaging to the environment.
Yes that would be a part of the whole sum total of reasons most want to leave for.
Regards, ippy.
-
An LBC caller said that the main reason for people voting to leave was that as an EU member the UK's population is increasing too fast and that public services are too stretched. He said the country doesn't have enough space for this increasing population and that to cope, more and more infrastructure has to be built, which is damaging to the environment.
As far as I know, Spud, there is plenty of room here in Scotland so perhaps looking at Brexit via LBC is too narrow a view.
-
ippy,
Yes that would be a part of the whole sum total of reasons most want to leave for.
Again, you don't know that "most" want to leave. What you mean there is that most of the people who voted in a referendum on a specific day three years ago (but who were told that the options actually on the table now would never happen) wanted to leave then. Just.
And if that is a reason, then it's a very bad one. Healthcare and similar services are stretched because of a deliberate government policy of austerity (essentially forcing the poorest and most vulnerable in society to pick up the tab run up by some of the wealthiest in society who drove the economy off a cliff back in 2008). We could readily choose to train more people and to build more facilities using some of the considerable excess tax contribution that immigrants make compared with the relatively modest cost they add to basic services.
-
Yes that would be a part of the whole sum total of reasons most want to leave for.
Yes - believing xenophobic propaganda probably was a factor for many.
Any chance of any real reasons why the EU is so terrible - or do we just get more of your evidence-free assertions and refusal to engage in reason?
-
An LBC caller said that the main reason for people voting to leave was that as an EU member the UK's population is increasing too fast and that public services are too stretched. He said the country doesn't have enough space for this increasing population and that to cope, more and more infrastructure has to be built, which is damaging to the environment.
Some leave voters may have thought that, but it doesn't bear up. The main reason for population increase is that people are living longer. At the same time fertility rates have crashed to well below replacement level - this creates demand for immigrants. Without immigration public services would be cut further.
After brexit European immigration will likely fall, but be replaced by non-EU immigration.
-
An LBC caller said that the main reason for people voting to leave was that as an EU member the UK's population is increasing too fast
Why is being in the EU making our population increase too fast?
How fast is it increasing and what evidence is there that that is too fast?
and that public services are too stretched.
I agree with that, but the reason why they are so stretched is because the British government does not put enough money into them.
He said the country doesn't have enough space for this increasing population and that to cope, more and more infrastructure has to be built, which is damaging to the environment.
Did he think that these people stop having an environmental impact if they don't live in Britain? Britain is a rich country. We can afford to expand our infrastructure in environmentally friendly ways. Other countries cannot. For example, we can increase power generation to cope with more people with wind farms and solar. In China, they'd just build another coal fired station.
-
Another point about immigration. People want to live in Britain because it is relatively rich. That's why we have immigration. There are two ways to stop immigration.
You can try to make the countries from which they come more attractive. This is part of the aim of the EU although, the Euro is really not helping there.
The other way is to make your own country relatively poorer. Obviously you don't want to do that deliberately, but it did happen in the 80's. In that decade, people who couldn't get jobs here could emigrate to other EU countries (see Auf Weiderzehn Pet). This option will not be open to us in the economic downturn following Brexit.
-
looking at Brexit via LBC is too narrow a view.
Actually I think LBC's editorial policy is pro EU. If you look on youtube you can find many examples of pro Brexit callers to James O'Brian's show on LBC being eviscerated by its host.
-
Actually I think LBC's editorial policy is pro EU. If you look on youtube you can find many examples of pro Brexit callers to James O'Brian's show on LBC being eviscerated by its host.
No doubt, and I concede that LBC isn't on my regular listening list (for obvious reasons).
-
"build more facilities"
I'm aware of that, blue, I'm just saying some people might not like the idea of more and more building. This was my view but in hindsight I feel that the EU probably won't expand much more in the future, so that immigration will level out. The sudden inclusion of Eastern Europe has been a shock which has led to anti-EU feeling. Once the shock subsides there may be more positive ness.
-
jeremy,
Actually I think LBC's editorial policy is pro EU. If you look on youtube you can find many examples of pro Brexit callers to James O'Brian's show on LBC being eviscerated by its host.
Actually it isn't - their presenters (who include Farage by the way) are allowed to express their views in a partisan way. James O'Brien is superb by the way - well worth a listen.
-
How can Johnson do something like that....?! ??? :D
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uks-boris-johnson-puts-his-feet-up-in-french-president-emmanuel-macrons-palace-2089073?pfrom=home-featured
-
How can Johnson do something like that....?! ??? :D
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uks-boris-johnson-puts-his-feet-up-in-french-president-emmanuel-macrons-palace-2089073?pfrom=home-featured
Seems it may not be as bad as it appeared
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49440952
-
Still bloody stupid of him, with an army of photographers yards away (you can see them in the mirror here (https://newsfounded.com/greeceeng/boris-johnson-puts-his-foot-on-the-table-in-meeting-macron/), after you've got rid of all the fucking adverts). He should've known it'd be photogrphed and used to make him look bad.
-
But the people who will react to it are the people who don't like him anyway. He doesn't care about your vote because he isn't going to get it. And latest polling indicates a Tory victory if there were to be an election.
-
ippy,
Again, you don't know that "most" want to leave. What you mean there is that most of the people who voted in a referendum on a specific day three years ago (but who were told that the options actually on the table now would never happen) wanted to leave then. Just.
And if that is a reason, then it's a very bad one. Healthcare and similar services are stretched because of a deliberate government policy of austerity (essentially forcing the poorest and most vulnerable in society to pick up the tab run up by some of the wealthiest in society who drove the economy off a cliff back in 2008). We could readily choose to train more people and to build more facilities using some of the considerable excess tax contribution that immigrants make compared with the relatively modest cost they add to basic services.
Yes Blue I have to agree with your reasoning that if that one particular reason on its own was the only reason to vote leave it wouldn't be enough of a good reason, but taken as one of many reasons, well.
I can see why anyone that wanted to remain it wouldn't matter what, seemingly reasonable to a leaver, reason put forward appears to be just the opposite.
We'll always remain at opposite polls on this one; there you go that's life.
Regards ippy
-
Hi ippy,
Yes Blue I have to agree with your reasoning that if that one particular reason on its own was the only reason to vote leave it wouldn't be enough of a good reason, but taken as one of many reasons, well.
That wasn’t my reasoning though. My reasoning is that the “reason on its own” is in fact false. Shortages of school places, of doctors’ appointments etc aren’t a function of immigration at all – they’re a function of austerity, and in particular of not spending enough of the taxes that immigrants pay on the services they require. You can’t therefore take it as one of many reasons when it’s a bad reason to start with.
I can see why anyone that wanted to remain it wouldn't matter what, seemingly reasonable to a leaver, reason put forward appears to be just the opposite.
It’s got nothing to do with whether someone is a leaver or a remainer – rather it’s to do with the facts, regardless of what people would like a referendum decision to be.
We'll always remain at opposite polls on this one; there you go that's life.
Probably, but what’s disappointing is that you’ve effectively styled yourself in respect of Brexit as AB has in respect of his god. When asked why you think something is true (ie, that leaving is a good idea) you tell us that it’s a belief you hold irrevocably, but you can’t tell us why. And when you do try to suggest why and the reason is falsified (see above), rather than concede the point and try to find a different argument to support you you just tell me that we won’t ever agree.
I’m pretty sure that I know the reason you voted as you did, though you won’t like it: after decades of most of the press lying to you about the awfulness of the EU you have an entrenched position that it must therefore be awful, but because there are no facts to support that you can only rely on “it just is and we’ll never agree” for your rationale.
-
Hi ippy,
That wasn’t my reasoning though. My reasoning is that the “reason on its own” is in fact false. Shortages of school places, of doctors’ appointments etc aren’t a function of immigration at all – they’re a function of austerity, and in particular of not spending enough of the taxes that immigrants pay on the services they require. You can’t therefore take it as one of many reasons when it’s a bad reason to start with.
It’s got nothing to do with whether someone is a leaver or a remainer – rather it’s to do with the facts, regardless of what people would like a referendum decision to be.
Probably, but what’s disappointing is that you’ve effectively styled yourself in respect of Brexit as AB has in respect of his god. When asked why you think something is true (ie, that leaving is a good idea) you tell us that it’s a belief you hold irrevocably, but you can’t tell us why. And when you do try to suggest why and the reason is falsified (see above), rather than concede the point and try to find a different argument to support you you just tell me that we won’t ever agree.
I’m pretty sure that I know the reason you voted as you did, though you won’t like it: after decades of most of the press lying to you about the awfulness of the EU you have an entrenched position that it must therefore be awful, but because there are no facts to support that you can only rely on “it just is and we’ll never agree” for your rationale.
Yes your post underlines the fact we'll never see eye to eye on this one and yes austerity would obviously be a part of the problem just as the excessive numbers involved in the UK's recent history of immigration doesn't exactly help when the two inextricable influences are added together which, surprisingly, I wouldn't have thought I would have needed to explain in any way involving more clarity to such as yourself.
I don't mind being accused of anything in particular to do with this subject because I've been reading the posts and it's obvious any leave posts are seen a clay pidgins for the remain side of brexit and the results only end up as endless roundabout sessions that I'm not that keen to take part in.
I feel that my reasons for voting leave make remain seem irrational in I dare say the same way you feel about voting leave both sides from my pov look well reasoned out generally but my version of the two column exercise for and against there's no question as I see it; leave.
I'm sure you've maybe done some sort of similar sum where it ends up we don't agree I don't see this decision as some sort of deep intellectual exercise, where the well educated have some sort of extra knowledge beyond the reach of the less academic, it's definitely outside of that sort of area for me.
There has been that, 'leavers didn't really know what they're voting for', saying and I didn't find that offensive either I did feel and still do feel more sorry for those who say such things.
Regards, ippy.
-
Yes your post underlines the fact we'll never see eye to eye on this one and yes austerity would obviously be a part of the problem just as the excessive numbers involved in the UK's recent history of immigration doesn't exactly help when the two inextricable influences are added together which, surprisingly, I wouldn't have thought I would have needed to explain in any way involving more clarity to such as yourself.
Except immigration doesn't add to the problem, it actually improves the situation:
The average EEA migrant arriving in 2016 will contribute a discounted total of around £78,000 to the UK public finances over his or her lifetime. Overall, the future net contribution of 2016 arrivals alone to the UK public finances is estimated at £25bn. Had there been no immigration at all in 2016, the rest of us would have had, over time, to find £25bn, through higher taxes, public service cuts, or higher borrowing.
Immigration has made the UK more productive and prosperous - and will again in the future (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/immigration-migration-advisory-committee-productivity-skill-gdp-brexit-a8542841.html)
I feel that my reasons for voting leave make remain seem irrational in I dare say the same way you feel about voting leave both sides from my pov look well reasoned out generally but my version of the two column exercise for and against there's no question as I see it; leave.
So why can't you give us any actual reasons that were in your leave column?
So far, we've had the EU court - but you won't say why that's a bad thing, the "federal Europe" and "ever closer union" - which you also can't say why it's bad, and you've ignored the opt-out, and now immigration - which seems to be based on falsehoods....
-
Except immigration doesn't add to the problem, it actually improves the situation:
The average EEA migrant arriving in 2016 will contribute a discounted total of around £78,000 to the UK public finances over his or her lifetime. Overall, the future net contribution of 2016 arrivals alone to the UK public finances is estimated at £25bn. Had there been no immigration at all in 2016, the rest of us would have had, over time, to find £25bn, through higher taxes, public service cuts, or higher borrowing.
Immigration has made the UK more productive and prosperous - and will again in the future (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/immigration-migration-advisory-committee-productivity-skill-gdp-brexit-a8542841.html)
So why can't you give us any actual reasons that were in your leave column?
So far, we've had the EU court - but you won't say why that's a bad thing, the "federal Europe" and "ever closer union" - which you also can't say why it's bad, and you've ignored the opt-out, and now immigration - which seems to be based on falsehoods....
Now that's where we do agree on when or if we were referring to reasonable amounts of immigration but then eventually with the passing of time guess what? (Ever heard of the pyramid system?) Anyway as I keep on reiterating do you really think either of us will be changing our minds on Brexit? I very much doubt it.
In post 4269 on this thread please find my reference to clay pidgins.
Anyway best wishes to you, ippy.
-
Yes your post underlines the fact we'll never see eye to eye on this one and yes austerity would obviously be a part of the problem just as the excessive numbers involved in the UK's recent history of immigration doesn't exactly help when the two inextricable influences are added together which, surprisingly, I wouldn't have thought I would have needed to explain in any way involving more clarity to such as yourself.
I don't mind being accused of anything in particular to do with this subject because I've been reading the posts and it's obvious any leave posts are seen a clay pidgins for the remain side of brexit and the results only end up as endless roundabout sessions that I'm not that keen to take part in.
I feel that my reasons for voting leave make remain seem irrational in I dare say the same way you feel about voting leave both sides from my pov look well reasoned out generally but my version of the two column exercise for and against there's no question as I see it; leave.
I'm sure you've maybe done some sort of similar sum where it ends up we don't agree I don't see this decision as some sort of deep intellectual exercise, where the well educated have some sort of extra knowledge beyond the reach of the less academic, it's definitely outside of that sort of area for me.
There has been that, 'leavers didn't really know what they're voting for', saying and I didn't find that offensive either I did feel and still do feel more sorry for those who say such things.
Regards, ippy.
Austerity isn’t part of the problem, it’s the whole problem. Immigrants to the UK pay more taxes than locally born citizens. They tend to come here as adults fully educated. If they can’t find work, some of them go home. When they retire, some of them go home.
The NHS would actually be worse of without immigrants because they pay more and use it less.
Incidentally, governments have long known this and it’s one reason why they fail to control immigration - they want more immigrants.
-
Now that's where we do agree on when or if we were referring to reasonable amounts of immigration...
It was an analysis of the actual immigration in 2016 - there is no "if" involved.
...but then eventually with the passing of time guess what?
I give up - what?
Anyway as I keep on reiterating do you really think either of us will be changing our minds on Brexit? I very much doubt it.
Back to your avoidance tactic. I remind you that you still haven't come up with any actual reason why the EU is bad or why leaving would be good....
-
So, you might need your passport to cross the Channel? Bloomin' Brexit. But, hey, them Egyptian chappies beat you to it...... Combining a moan about Brexit with Egyptology...there's a first! https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/mummy-passport-0010944
-
Bullshit Boris is currently sounding off about not paying monies to the EU should Brexit go ahead, which isn't going down well as regards any post-Brexit UK/EU trade agreement. Also interesting to note the comments about fishing negotiations, since one the reasons that some fishing communities are pro-Brexit (such as those in Scotland who returned Tory MPs last time) was that they would have UK waters all to themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/eu-would-block-trade-deal-if-britain-reneged-on-brexit-bill
-
Looks like Bullshit Boris is telling porkies again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49470831
-
Looks like Bullshit Boris is telling porkies again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49470831
What is it with Boris the Liar and foodstuff? We've had prawn cocktail crisps, kippers, and now pork pies....
-
Mebbes aye, mebbes no
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnsons-pork-pie-claims-defended-by-uk-officials/
-
This could get very interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/26/brexit-shutting-down-parliament-gravest-abuse-of-power-in-living-memory-legal-advice
-
According to the front page of the I, our wonderful new prime minister is planning to "re-balance" the House of Lords by appointing a swathe of anti-Brexit peers, thereby neutralising a potential source of defeat for his grand plan.
Is this how coups are performed in the United Kingdom? Should the army be sent in to intervene?
-
According to the front page of the I, our wonderful new prime minister is planning to "re-balance" the House of Lords by appointing a swathe of anti-Brexit peers, thereby neutralising a potential source of defeat for his grand plan.
Is this how coups are performed in the United Kingdom? Should the army be sent in to intervene?
A fish stinks from the head down
-
The pork pies are not restricted by high tariffs in Thailand and Iceland, but demand is so low they are no longer exported there. So Boris wasn't completely wrong.
-
One of the strange things about no deal, is that the UK will immediately have to start negotiations with the 27 countries of the EU, in relation to trade, and other stuff. How long will this take? Some people say 7 years, some decades. I'm sure that UK business are well prepared for this (sarcasm).
-
John Crace in good form, as usual, looking at Farage's part in the current omnishambles.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/27/brexit-party-nigel-farage-non-aggression-pact-boris-johnson-no-deal
-
And here we go - suspension of parliament
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49493632
-
Looking at the detail - it looks more like a tactical move to try and force people to react. There are a few more days lost than would have been in normal circumstances given the party conferences and a new queens speech but the symbolism is what will matter. Those wanting Remain have to be careful of being seen to over reacting but if their session yesterday was sensible they would have covered this option.
-
Hard to work out how this can help Johnson since there is presumably still time next week for MPs to try to use legislation, assuming Bercow doesn't stop them, and if not perhaps the outrage already being expressed will aid a no confidence motion succeeding.
Maybe, amongst all this, Johnson sees that as a route to a new GE that he doesn't call and will claim is being foisted on him by uncooperative others. Maybe Frodo will get to Mount Doom in time.
-
...if their session yesterday was sensible they would have covered this option.
I'm not sure I have much faith that the opposition are being very sensible... :(
-
Hard to work out how this can help Johnson since there is presumably still time next week for MPs to try to use legislation, assuming Bercow doesn't stop them, and if not perhaps the outrage already being expressed will aid a no confidence motion succeeding.
I think this is why the spending review has been brought forward to next week - on the basis that parliamentary time will be required for the review announcement and debates, thereby using up the time that could have been used to stop the no-deal brexit.
-
FWIW Do not prorogue Parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157) petition has reached 100,000 already...
-
FWIW Do not prorogue Parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157) petition has reached 100,000 already...
Now past 225,000 but it's a mere sop of action. As I feared there has been a set of reactions which portray this as some form of coup, and yet, and yet it's backed by precedent - it's just that our constitution has its oddities. I think that portraying Johnson as a dictator simply solidifies that part of his supporters who see this as a principled act. Meanwhile the 'opposition' to him looks both overwrought and divided.
-
Things are fairly frenzied right now, with some Labour MPs threatening to occupy the HofC. Hopefully the frenzy will die down and those intent on stopping no deal and/or Brexit will use this upping of the ante to find ways to intervene. A problem for them all is that in all the angst, urgency, defensiveness and general thrashing about things might yet take unexpected turns.
Manna from heaven for the SNP though, since I'd imagine the Scottish Tories will be wriggling given Ruth Davidson's previous stance on no-deal and whether or not the Scottish Tory MPs in Westminster support prorogation.
-
I wonder if this will force a VONC, which Boris will hope to lose, then an election, people versus parliament, which Boris should win, unless there is outrage at prorogation. I expect Boris to win, the other parties are flat-footed.
-
It has its own problems for the SNP in that their more radical supporters are calling for immediate action - see Craig Murray's blog below
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/08/boris-johnson-crosses-the-rubicon-we-must-react-now/?fbclid=IwAR2YVh4H1Ji8MpjT1xEOodsU6ud9Ft3z6UgafB4nfLPupbqnas0dsCwdhxg
And while he is one of the radicals he is not alone and has some support in the MPs. Add to that the spectre of Salmond's court case next year in all likelihood and they live in interesting times.
Davidson is apparently not giving interviews today - how typical.
-
I wonder if this will force a VONC, which Boris will hope to lose, then an election, people versus parliament, which Boris should win, unless there is outrage at prorogation. I expect Boris to win, the other parties are flat-footed.
Certainly getting the spending review in will help. Then we have party conference season and if the VONC is after that you have to suspect he could win easily. There isn't really much any of the other parties other than Labour can do here. And it isn't clear that Labour can do anything.
-
And looks like Ruth Davidson is going as leader of the Scottish Tories. Where to?
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1440328-ruth-davidson-set-to-quit-as-scottish-conservative-leader/?fbclid=IwAR3eLJNaHH9Q6cA0DyMxrHtXwP0iaWo5k9SHjwahDXkg04Y3ie-KkCcG6wE
-
This. The whole hyperbole over the proroguing just makes this more likely.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/28/boris-johnson-election-prorogue-parliament-populist-majority?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
-
And looks like Ruth Davidson is going as leader of the Scottish Tories. Where to?
https://stv.tv/news/politics/1440328-ruth-davidson-set-to-quit-as-scottish-conservative-leader/?fbclid=IwAR3eLJNaHH9Q6cA0DyMxrHtXwP0iaWo5k9SHjwahDXkg04Y3ie-KkCcG6wE
Who cares?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ruth-davidson-set-to-resign-as-scottish-tory-leader-1-4993182
-
Who cares?
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ruth-davidson-set-to-resign-as-scottish-tory-leader-1-4993182
Well either it will herald a time where Scotland has its finances reduced or it becomes independent. Either way, I would suggest this shows precisely how much of a Minister of the Union Johnson is.
-
Hey.....if Davidson DOES resign, does that make Boris a Ruthless dictator?
-
Hey.....if Davidson DOES resign, does that make Boris a Ruthless dictator?
It certainly does, Stanley.
Rape-clause Ruth, who is no great loss, was probably the brightest spark in the Scottish Tory cesspit, so the Scottish Tories are now fucked (which is good news).
-
It certainly does, Stanley.
Rape-clause Ruth, who is no great loss, was probably the brightest spark in the Scottish Tory cesspit, so the Scottish Tories are now fucked (which is good news).
Not if Boris wins an election.
-
Not if Boris wins an election.
Hopefully not, but I'd be surprised if the Tories hung on to all or most of their current seats here.
-
Hopefully not, but I'd be surprised if the Tories hung on to all or most of their current seats here.
They have calculated losing them. They don't care.
-
It certainly does, Stanley.
Rape-clause Ruth, who is no great loss, was probably the brightest spark in the Scottish Tory cesspit, so the Scottish Tories are now fucked (which is good news).
Yep. It probably means Jackso Carlaw....I know it's hard to feel sorry for the Tories, but.....
-
They have calculated losing them. They don't care.
So much then for the 'precious union' that was regularly bleated by the previous Tory PM.
-
Yep. It probably means Jackso Carlaw....I know it's hard to feel sorry for the Tories, but.....
surely Murdo Fraser or Ross Thomson will be riding in on their big white horse?
-
surely Murdo Fraser or Ross Thomson will be riding in on their big white horse?
Either would fill me with confidence for the future......
-
Talking of Ross Thomson, The Wee Ginger Dug makes a nice passing mention of the aforesaid 'gentleman' in this sparlkling farewell to Ruthie. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/the-end-game/
-
Talking of Ross Thomson, The Wee Ginger Dug makes a nice passing mention of the aforesaid 'gentleman' in this sparlkling farewell to Ruthie. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/the-end-game/
Thought this para was on-the-button:
This is the last bastion of One Nation Conservatism giving up the struggle, and the Tories in London giving up on Scotland as a lost cause as they transform themselves into an openly English nationalist party. When even the face of opposition to Scottish independence can’t support her own party leader in Westminster, we are in the end game for this so-called union.
-
Saw this twitter comment aimed at Boris and his acolytes from a 'Hugh Grant' (no idea if it is the actor) - I'd have to agree with him.
You will not fuck with my children’s future. You will not destroy the freedoms my grandfather fought two world wars to defend. Fuck off you over-promoted rubber bath toy. Britain is revolted by you and you little gang of masturbatory prefects.
-
Saw this twitter comment aimed at Boris and his acolytes from a 'Hugh Grant' (no idea if it is the actor) - I'd have to agree with him.
Saw it to and wondered if it was real. According to Huffpost it is.
https://tinyurl.com/grantbrexit
-
Mickey Mouse wears a Boris Johnson wristwatch.
-
The more I think about it, the more I conclude that Nicola Sturgeon's best hope for independence is to call an election asap with a manifesto commitment to independence. It would show a form of leadership that is lacking elsewhere and would happen before the Salmond court case which I think will damage the SNP no matter what the outcome. I think it has a good chance of ending Nicola's career.
-
Looking at the odds, Murdo Fraser is current favourite to succeed Ruth Davidson. Last time he floated the idea of making the Scottish Tories independent - I wonder if it will be the same pitch?
-
Hey.....if Davidson DOES resign, does that make Boris a Ruthless dictator?
A Swallows and Amazons joke. Excellent.
-
In Davidson's statement she said she felt her political involvement had made her a "poor daughter, sister, partner and friend". It is a very odd life being a politician.
-
Interesting article on Dominic Cummings
https://unherd.com/2019/08/dominic-cummings-is-no-chicken/
-
And a quite creepy paean to Ruth Davidson
https://stephendaisley.com/2019/08/29/a-tory-of-gut-and-grit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And a quite creepy paean to Ruth Davidson
https://stephendaisley.com/2019/08/29/a-tory-of-gut-and-grit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
That piece makes my skin-crawl - after her despicable attitude involving the rape-clause policy I'm glad to see the back of her.
-
Whether there has been an over reaction to the PM's latest antics or not, this should serve as a reminder as to what a bunch of lying liars we have supposedly governing us:
https://tinyurl.com/liarsrule
-
Good article
https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/08/29/this-isnt-a-coup-we-should-still-be-concerned-and-angry/
-
Marina Hyde still on top form today:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/30/sajid-javid-dominic-cummings-prorogation-government
-
Well, at least we know he's got a mind.... 'Cos he can change it PDQ. https://www.indy100.com/article/sajid-javid-deleted-tweet-brexit-parliament-suspended-9084941?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2Rc8A2TwMBhYeD2jzC24Zu2oyFNI9SR2hLjAw3vMvivP0vSjbNHKlQnqI#Echobox=1567182428
-
Clearly Javid is being set up as a patsy.
-
Michael Gove on Andrew Marr unable to commit govt to obeying the law.
-
This 'ere prorogation malarkey: the Brexiters keep saying that it's only for three or four extra days on top of the normal parliamentary recess, so not worth worrying about, but the prorogation covers the whole of the recess as well, up to mid-October, AND prorogation and recess are not the same thing: prorogation is considerably more of a shut-down than a recess. During recess, scrutiny, select committees, and some other things continue; under a prorogation, they don't. It is thus rather more serious than a few extra days.
How is prorogation different from adjournment, recess and dissolution?
Prorogation signals the end of the parliamentary session and brings to an end nearly all parliamentary business – including most bills and all motions and parliamentary questions – to a close. Parliament reconvenes when a new session starts – marked by a Queen’s Speech, which outlines a new programme of legislation.
Adjournments are routine breaks in parliamentary activity. Parliament usually adjourns every night and over weekends. They do not affect the usual business of Parliament.
Recesses are breaks during the year when a House of Parliament does not meet. These are are technically a form of adjournment. In the Commons, MPs must vote to approve recess dates. While MPs and peers will not meet in the main chambers during recesses, other parliamentary business, such as select committee work and parliamentary questions, continue.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/proroguing-parliament
-
We need rid of these Tory fuckers running the Home Office.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/01/home-office-planning-to-end-family-reunion-for-children-after-brexit
-
I'd really like the Brexiteers on this forum to read this story:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-immigration-insight/where-do-i-go-eu-citizens-face-legal-limbo-after-decades-in-britain-idUKKCN1VK0CV
Do any ofd the benefits they think they are going to get justify wrecking this woman's life?
-
I'd really like the Brexiteers on this forum to read this story:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-immigration-insight/where-do-i-go-eu-citizens-face-legal-limbo-after-decades-in-britain-idUKKCN1VK0CV
Do any ofd the benefits they think they are going to get justify wrecking this woman's life?
Must do, surely else why vote for wrecking her life.
-
I'd really like the Brexiteers on this forum to read this story:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-immigration-insight/where-do-i-go-eu-citizens-face-legal-limbo-after-decades-in-britain-idUKKCN1VK0CV
Do any ofd the benefits they think they are going to get justify wrecking this woman's life?
I'm sure you'll find most people who voted leave will have sympathy for her. I didn't vote because I don't live in England anymore but my main opposition to the EU has always been is centralisation. I had no prolem with a trade union. Political union went too far though and I think that is most people's gripe with thd EU. It takes decision making further away from the people.
-
I'm sure you'll find most people who voted leave will have sympathy for her. I didn't vote because I don't live in England anymore but my main opposition to the EU has always been is centralisation. I had no prolem with a trade union. Political union went too far though and I think that is most people's gripe with thd EU. It takes decision making further away from the people.
and yet the choice you would have made lead to it
So it's your choice for it to happen.
-
Must do, surely else why vote for wrecking her life.
They didn't vote specificsally to wreck the life of someone they'd never heard of.
-
They didn't vote specificsally to wreck the life of someone they'd never heard of.
True, but the result of their actions means that someone they've never heard of has had their life wrecked.
-
They didn't vote specificsally to wreck the life of someone they'd never heard of.
And yet that is the result of their vote.
-
Looks like the situation in the Tory party is becoming more heated - hard to work out what is likely to happen in the next 48 hours, except that it will be increasingly chaotic. Should be fun!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/01/boris-johnson-brexit-sacrifice-majority-by-withdrawing-whip-from-rebel-mps
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49543430
-
It's odd that in these days of 24 hour news, and the obviously febrile atmosphere in Westminster, it still somehow seems like a very slow car crash that has been happening for 3 years. Even though we are close to hitting the wall, the pace still seems deathly.
-
It's odd that in these days of 24 hour news, and the obviously febrile atmosphere in Westminster, it still somehow seems like a very slow car crash that has been happening for 3 years. Even though we are close to hitting the wall, the pace still seems deathly.
I thought that everyone is actually afraid of a denouement. I mean that assuming we leave the EU on 31 October, no doubt the Brexiters will celebrate, but many people will have a feeling of dread. It's like an unconscious delaying of Brexit, as nobody really knows what will happen. Maybe there will be a land flowing with milk and honey, but maybe medicines and food will be restricted, there will be an Irish catastrophe, and so on. Do you feel lucky?
-
I thought that everyone is actually afraid of a denouement. I mean that assuming we leave the EU on 31 October, no doubt the Brexiters will celebrate, but many people will have a feeling of dread. It's like an unconscious delaying of Brexit, as nobody really knows what will happen. Maybe there will be a land flowing with milk and honey, but maybe medicines and food will be restricted, there will be an Irish catastrophe, and so on. Do you feel lucky?
I saw elsewhere it described as the plot of Lord of the Flies ' An island run by British schoolboys who turn on each other, run short of food, kill the vulnerable, and have to be rescued' - I just wonder if the conch has been prorogued.
-
Looks like the situation in the Tory party is becoming more heated - hard to work out what is likely to happen in the next 48 hours, except that it will be increasingly chaotic. Should be fun!
Not sure about fun - I think Boris the Liar wants an election, after a no-deal Brexit and before the consequences become obvious (within days), so the Brexit party will become irrelevant and Brexiteers won't have had chance to become disillusioned. He then gets to be PM for the next five years - presumably hoping to be able to repair enough of the damage in that time to fight the next election.
Unfortunately I think he'll probably succeed in the short term. Whether his leadership, the Tory party, or the UK in its present form survives the next five years seems far less certain. I don't suppose Boris the Liar gives a fuck, so long as he maximises (as he sees it) his chances of being PM for as long as possible.
-
Not sure about fun - I think Boris the Liar wants an election, after a no-deal Brexit and before the consequences become obvious (within days), so the Brexit party will become irrelevant and Brexiteers won't have had chance to become disillusioned. He then gets to be PM for the next five years - presumably hoping to be able to repair enough of the damage in that time to fight the next election.
Unfortunately I think he'll probably succeed in the short term. Whether his leadership, the Tory party, or the UK in its present form survives the next five years seems far less certain. I don't suppose Boris the Liar gives a fuck, so long as he maximises (as he sees it) his chances of being PM for as long as possible.
I'd hope that if legislation is passed to stop no-deal that Labour and the other parties won't be tempted to agree to a GE until we get past the 31st October, assuming the EU agree to extend A50, and that they wait to see how the Tory party would handle having no-deal prevented but not having the GE option, which they think they can win, handed to them on a plate.
-
"MPs who vote to block no deal would "destroy" the government's Brexit negotiating position."
Since it is obvious the EU won't agree to a deal without the backstop, it's deceitful of Boris and his mates to claim that they can still do a deal without the backstop, and even worse to say that ruling out 'no deal' weakens our position. Our position would be much stronger if Boris were honest about the situation. For goodness sake, just stay in the customs union and single market.
-
I'm sure you'll find most people who voted leave will have sympathy for her. I didn't vote because I don't live in England anymore but my main opposition to the EU has always been is centralisation. I had no prolem with a trade union. Political union went too far though and I think that is most people's gripe with thd EU. It takes decision making further away from the people.
So, had you voted, you would have voted to wreck people's real lives for some nebulous dream of decentralisation?
-
"MPs who vote to block no deal would "destroy" the government's Brexit negotiating position."
Since it is obvious the EU won't agree to a deal without the backstop, it's deceitful of Boris and his mates to claim that they can still do a deal without the backstop, and even worse to say that ruling out 'no deal' weakens our position. Our position would be much stronger if Boris were honest about the situation. For goodness sake, just stay in the customs union and single market.
The EU has already said that the deal that is on the table is the best deal available. The government doesn't have a negotiating position and they know it, they are just pretending they do so that they can blame the evil EU when it all goes tits up on November 1st.
-
Another Brexit dividend.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49549149
-
So, had you voted, you would have voted to wreck people's real lives for some nebulous dream of decentralisation?
Stupid claim. Would be like saying all those who voted for Labour under Tony Blair voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Equally stupid.
-
Not sure about fun - I think Boris the Liar wants an election, after a no-deal Brexit and before the consequences become obvious (within days), so the Brexit party will become irrelevant and Brexiteers won't have had chance to become disillusioned.
Brexit: No 10 'considering' election amid no-deal battle with MPs (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49549960)
"Should this happen, the prime minister would be able to recommend the date of the poll - likely to be a hugely contentious issue - to the Queen."
-
Brexit: No 10 'considering' election amid no-deal battle with MPs (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49549960)
"Should this happen, the prime minister would be able to recommend the date of the poll - likely to be a hugely contentious issue - to the Queen."
Would there be a 2/3 majority for an election without a postponement of the 31st October date?
-
NS,
Would there be a 2/3 majority for an election without a postponement of the 31st October date?
Even if there was, Laura Kuenssberg was saying on Radio 4 earlier that they wouldn't then need further Parliamentary approval if they wanted to postpone the original date. That could be the plan - seek a GE for before 31 Oct, then unilaterally push the date back.
-
NS,
Even if there was, Laura Kuenssberg was saying on Radio 4 earlier that they wouldn't then need further Parliamentary approval if they wanted to postpone the original date. That could be the plan - seek a GE for before 31 Oct, then unilaterally push the date back.
Sorry, whose plan is this? I Don't think the Tories can go for an election with the date pushed back - Farage won't do an electoral deal on that basis, several Tories won't vote for that.
-
NS,
Sorry, whose plan is this? I Don't think the Tories can go for an election with the date pushed back - Farage won't do an electoral deal on that basis, several Tories won't vote for that.
I assumed her to mean that if the combined opposition could be duped into accepting a promise of a GE before 31 Oct instead of legislating to prohibit no deal (the idea being that the first act after winning the GE would be to take no deal off the table and/or to agree with the EU an extension to Art 50) they could be conned if the GE date is then extended as an admin matter. That's the elephant trap Blair was talking about earlier - if it came about there'd be insufficient time left to come back and legislate to take no deal off the table.
-
Which is why surely no one should accept it without getting a postponement of the 31st October date?
-
Sam Coates from Sky just tweeted this
Cabinet ministers to be told draft legal text on Northern Ireland plan has been drawn up and ready to be introduced BUT
A source says draft legal text is just the existing protocol with the relevant articles on the backstop crossed out - not exactly a worked up plan
-
NS,
Which is why surely no one should accept it without getting a postponement of the 31st October date?
Exactly so, but Corbyn's cleft stick is that if he backs away from a GE Johnson will point and say, "but that's exactly what you've been demanding for the last three years". If he does go for it though, Johnson will bank on the opposition vote being so split that it'll leave him enough room to carry the day (having been enough of a Poundland dictator to win back lots of the Brexit party votes they lost last time out).
-
Reports that Boris Johnson is to make a statement outside Downing Street at 6pm - according to the Guardian live politics blog it isn't a GE announcement.
-
Everybody bear in mind that he was right about who planted the Novichok.
-
Wankmaster General
-
So that was a damp squib:
1. Make election stump speech
2. Blame potential no to no deal-voting MPs for risking cutting the legs from under a negotiating position that would never work in any case
3. Say you don't want an GE (while planning to announce one on Thurs)
-
He's a waste of space, and that was a waste of time.
-
The Brexit debacle is going from very bad to catastrophic, Britain appears to be going to hell in a handcart. :o
-
He's a waste of space, and that was a waste of time.
Cumming's poodle being himself.
-
"'Let's stick together', says Prime minister who is about to sling out 20 MPs from his own party for doing exactly what he did just a few months ago"
John Crace on twitter (https://twitter.com/JohnJCrace/status/1168572604338364416)
-
So that was a damp squib:
1. Make election stump speech
2. Blame potential no to no deal-voting MPs for risking cutting the legs from under a negotiating position that would never work in any case
3. Say you don't want an GE (while planning to announce one on Thurs)
Well apart from the PM saying he is happy to break the law but then we know that to be true.
-
John Crace in good form, as usual.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/boris-takes-a-leaf-out-of-cummings-game-theory-for-dommies
-
Boris says he doesn't want an election, but he does. Corbyn says he wants one, but he doesn't. The usual clarity.
-
Boris says he doesn't want an election, but he does. Corbyn says he wants one, but he doesn't. The usual clarity.
It's a bit like the logic puzzle where one guard always tells the truth, and the other always lies except everyone always lies.
-
Apparently Labour have said they won't vote for a GE unless certain conditions are met, two of them being that a no-deal exit is off the agenda and the Government agree to abide by the law. I can't find a link, I heard it from a colleague who cited The Guardian.
Re Johnson pointing at Corbyn and saying "you've been asking for an election for years, hypocrite" I think Johnson would be ill-advised to raise any issues of honesty or hypocrisy given his track record. Why on earth would anyone take his word for anything?
The Metro had lovely pictures of the new puppy on 3 pages this morning, including the front. I hope most people aren't as stupid as Cummings appears to think they are.
-
Stupid claim. Would be like saying all those who voted for Labour under Tony Blair voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Equally stupid.
I don't know if you are aware but Tony Blair is pretty much a political pariah for exactly that reason.
-
Apparently Labour have said they won't vote for a GE unless certain conditions are met, two of them being that a no-deal exit is off the agenda and the Government agree to abide by the law. I can't find a link, I heard it from a colleague who cited The Guardian.
Re Johnson pointing at Corbyn and saying "you've been asking for an election for years, hypocrite" I think Johnson would be ill-advised to raise any issues of honesty or hypocrisy given his track record. Why on earth would anyone take his word for anything?
The Metro had lovely pictures of the new puppy on 3 pages this morning, including the front. I hope most people aren't as stupid as Cummings appears to think they are.
It seems only sensible to have those conditions though I'm not sure how they can be met completely particularly the 2nd.
-
Would there be a 2/3 majority for an election without a postponement of the 31st October date?
I'm looking forward to this. The Conservatives will be voting to end a Conservative government and everybody else will be voting to keep them in power.
Then, I assume there will be a no confidence vote to try to form an interim government. If this wasn't my country, it would be hilarious.
-
I'm looking forward to this. The Conservatives will be voting to end a Conservative government and everybody else will be voting to keep them in power.
Then, I assume there will be a no confidence vote to try to form an interim government. If this wasn't my country, it would be hilarious.
I think they, everybody else, don't need to vote against it, rather just abstain.
-
I think they, everybody else, don't need to vote against it, rather just abstain.
I stand corrected, you are right, it's not a 2/3 majority, it's 2/3 of the House including vacant seats. If all the Labour members failed to show up to vote, the motion would fail.
-
I've heard Boris Johnson has become very disappointed with his new rescue dog when he discovered it can't fly a helicopter !
😤
-
I don't know if you are aware but Tony Blair is pretty much a political pariah for exactly that reason.
Indeed and rightly so, but would you claim that those who voted Labour when he was leader voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
-
Boris has lost his working majority as a Tory MP has defected to the Lib Dems.
-
Boris has lost his working majority as a Tory MP has defected to the Lib Dems.
Weirdly other than the symbolism, that isn't really that significant at the moment. Strange times.
-
Strange times indeed.
-
Indeed and rightly so, but would you claim that those who voted Labour when he was leader voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
Let's be clear because it isn't clear from my original question. I'm asking the you that exists now how you would have voted in the 2016 election with the knowledge you have now.
-
Boris has lost his working majority as a Tory MP has defected to the Lib Dems.
Defected seems such a negative way of describing this courageous and positive action.
-
First PM to lose their first vote since Pitt the Younger apparently.
-
From BBC latest
Brexit dominates the papers - with some headlines more catchy than others. Can you work out which newspapers have the following headlines?
"Now the MPs take control""Johnson loses control""Johnson demands election""Boris loses control""Now you decide, Britain""Humilation for Johnson as Tory rebels turn against him""Over to you, Britain""Johnson's Brexit strategy in ruins as anti-no deal MPs inflict defeat""Parliament surrenders to the EU""PM loses historic vote"And finally (unrelated to Brexit....) "WOR
-
Defected seems such a negative way of describing this courageous and positive action.
I didn't mean it that way, GOOD FOR THEM!
-
The 21 rebels have had the whip removed, and just to add to the chaos, nobody has explained what having the whip removed actually means!
-
This is good
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00082dd
-
Defected seems such a negative way of describing this courageous and positive action.
Almost the best bit was he literally crossed the floor and he did it while BoJo was speaking at the dispatch box
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/sep/03/tory-mp-phillip-lee-defects-to-lib-dems-midway-through-johnson-speech-video
-
The 21 rebels have had the whip removed, and just to add to the chaos, nobody has explained what having the whip removed actually means!
It means that they are no longer considered to be Conservative MPs. It also means they will be (have been?) expelled from the party and will not be allowed to stand as official Conservative MPs at the next general election. Their careers are over and the leadership no longer has any influence over them. I don't think BoJo has thought through what that means in terms of the current parliament.
-
It means that they are no longer considered to be Conservative MPs. It also means they will be (have been?) expelled from the party and will not be allowed to stand as official Conservative MPs at the next general election. Their careers are over and the leadership no longer has any influence over them. I don't think BoJo has thought through what that means in terms of the current parliament.
I don't think that the withdrawal of the whip leads to automatic suspension from the party, just the parliamentary one, and you can be readmitted to it - see Charlie Elphicke who had it withdrawn, re-in instated and is currently withdrawn again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Elphicke
-
I had visions of Boris flogging a dead horse and thought maybe it was him that should have the whip withdrawn.
As I don't understand the phrase properly I'll have to Google it.
-
I had visions of Boris flogging a dead horse and thought maybe it was him that should have the whip withdrawn.
As I don't understand the phrase properly I'll have to Google it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-49578000
-
Apparently Michael Forsyth has started speaking in the Lords and intends to filibuster by speaking toll 10:01 tomorrow night.
-
He's likely to be out of luck - the debate in the Lords this afternoon is to establish clear limits on the discussion on each amendment that's brought before the house. At last count I think there were about 90, so it could well be a marathon couple of sessions, but they should still be able to clear it before democracy is cancelled next week.
That, of course, is if the Bill passes it's two readings in the Commons this evening...
O.
-
Worth noting too that some of the tory MPs who have had the whip removed are considering standing as independent candidates in the coming GE. Some of them command considerable loyalty in their constituencies whereas the place men and women Bozo will parachute in will have none, so even if the independents didn't win they could well split the tory votes and allow others in.
Of course when they realise this and the constituencies concerned have tory MPs with small majorities, the whip could well mysteriously be restored to them.
-
Apparently Michael Forsyth has started speaking in the Lords and intends to filibuster by speaking toll 10:01 tomorrow night.
He was on the World at One ... a first class prat. (Name calling seems to have come back in with Boris)
-
The Purge! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Vha59srSks) (NSFW)
-
Apparently Michael Forsyth has started speaking in the Lords and intends to filibuster by speaking toll 10:01 tomorrow night.
So much for democracy.
It strikes me as somewhat ironic that it is the Brexiteers doing everything in their power to subvert the parliamentary democracy they think claim they are defending.
-
Well the only positive thing I've learned from this evenings shenanigans is that I think I am a little bit in love with Jess Phillips.
-
Some discussion that the SNP might vote for an election in October after the no no deal law is passed. I do hope that is not the case.
Other possibilities, revoking the Fixed Term Parliament Act, or the govt holding a vote of no confidence in itself.
-
It seems the HoL will now play ball and that the bill requiring an A50 is extended past Oct 31st if there is no new deal will pass, which would meet what Corbyn said was needed for Labour to support a GE - presumably this is what Johnson now wants, since if he wins a GE her can repeal and still achieve a no deal exit 'do or die' on Oct 31st.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/05/brexit-lords-agree-to-push-through-bill-preventing-no-deal-by-end-of-friday
Hopefully, and I know the SNP are keen for a GE asap, the opposition parties will tell Johnson to come back from the EU in mid-October first with his mythical new deal first, or not, and if he can't then they'll agree to a GE, which means Johnson misses his target date - that is what I would do - the Tories sudden desperation for a GE by mid-October needs to be denied, since doing so denies them their only remaining way of having a no-deal exit on 31st October.
Since MPs didn't support Johnson's motion for a GE under the FTPA last night I'd imagine they'd resist repealing the FTPA, but of course Johnson could ensure the Tories lose a confidence vote - but that comes with the risk that in the current climate he could open the door to an alternative government without a GE happening, since that too would deny Johnson his 31st Oct no-deal exit.
-
Since MPs didn't support Johnson's motion for a GE under the FTPA last night I'd imagine they'd resist repealing the FTPA, but of course Johnson could ensure the Tories lose a confidence vote - but that comes with the risk that in the current climate he could open the door to an alternative government without a GE happening, since that too would deny Johnson his 31st Oct no-deal exit.
The difference with revoking the FTPA is that it only needs a simple majority, not the 2/3s of the seats majority that is in the FTPA.
The issue for Johnson with the VoNC is that it then gives the possibility of PM Corbyn if that could be agreed in 14 days, it also means that th election will be tight against the 31st October deadline.
-
And today from the BBC's running updates on the great soap opera
Match the headline with the national newspaper
• "He just can't win"
• "Britain's worst PM (since the last one)"
• "'Hypocrite' Corbyn rejects election to break deadlock"
• "Cornered Johnson suffers triple Commons defeat"
• "PM cornered after day of defeats in the Commons"
• "Johnson backed into corner as Commons delivers double blow"
• "Corbyn chickens out of an election"
• "Is this the most dangerous chicken in Britain?"
• "Johnson blocked as MPs refuse early election call"
• "Boris urges 'people power' to force election"
And finally...
• "My giant boobs nearly killed my baby"
Answers here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49588171
-
And then there were 288
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793
Thew PM's own brother has jumped ship.
-
Johnson is criticising Corby for not wanting to be elected after shutting the government down so that he doesn't have to govern... tool!
O.
-
And then there were 288
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793
Thew PM's own brother has jumped ship.
Talk about stabbing someone in the front?
Good aim, though.
-
Brilliant!
https://newsthump.com/2019/09/05/jo-johnson-resigns-as-tory-mp-to-spend-less-time-with-his-family/?fbclid=IwAR2Bzw0dfFrcPRblUpjNddOPK1T66diDDFtoBTz9QA4P4hUey9mtUoDhhZg
-
Oh dear! ;D
-
This is good
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00082dd
James Goldsmith today ... obviously the current shambles results from many independent earlier events.
-
Heard a comment on the radio along the lines that since the bill requiring an A50 extension if no deal is reached by Oct 19th (I think) looks like getting assent, then Johnson may well have shot himself in the foot by proroguing parliament, in that if he fails to get support for a GE he desperately wants before 31st Oct that is tabled for this coming Monday there will be no more time to pass something else before parliament shuts until mid-October.
I'd imagine that he might have to call a no-confidence vote on himself.
-
What stops Boris Johnson requesting and getting an extension and then just declaring that the UK has left without a deal at any time that suits him?
-
Does this new bill not say that no-deal would only be an option if parliament specifically voted for it?
-
What stops Boris Johnson requesting and getting an extension and then just declaring that the UK has left without a deal at any time that suits him?
Pride.
He's stated umpteen times that we leave on Oct 31.
If we extended, he'd have to resign.
(Not that I'm bothered if he DOES resign)
-
Does this new bill not say that no-deal would only be an option if parliament specifically voted for it?
Yes - I think that must be it - and hopefully doesn't just apply up to Jan 31st.
-
Pride.
He's stated umpteen times that we leave on Oct 31.
If we extended, he'd have to resign.
(Not that I'm bothered if he DOES resign)
Hope so - but let's see...
-
What stops Boris Johnson requesting and getting an extension and then just declaring that the UK has left without a deal at any time that suits him?
That would be illegal with this new bill.
-
What stops Boris Johnson requesting and getting an extension and then just declaring that the UK has left without a deal at any time that suits him?
Would be bound by the date agreed with the EU, and the no no deal law
-
Boris says he would rather be dead in a ditch than ask for an extension to Brexit. A wish which might come true, if some nutter takes umbrage! :o
-
Rees Mogg is a disgrace. And if he doesn't repeat thisp outside the House a lying coward.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49598999
-
Johnson's speech was bizarre. And his lack of concern for the police person who had to sit down indicative of his lack of empathy.
-
Johnson's speech was bizarre. And his lack of concern for the police person who had to sit down indicative of his lack of empathy.
If this was supposed to be a precursor to an election campaign, it was pathetic in the extreme.
-
A sparkling blog from Paul Kavanagh , the "Wee Ginger Dud", entitled "Dead in a ditch". IIncidentally, 'LBJ' stands for Lying Bastard Johnson Catchy, isn't it? https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/05/dead-in-a-ditch/
-
The way this country's "unwritten constitution" is being destroyed by the right-wing of the Conservative party (shouldn't they be required to change their name under advertising standards or something?) we'll be lucky if the EU doesn't chuck us out whatever, because we no longer meet their membership criteria.
Johnson makes Corbyn look like a statesman. Corbyn holding the opposition together and avoiding all the pathetically obvious traps being set is our only hope and so far it looks like he might do it. Perhaps, if he succeeds, he could step down before the next election. That could deliver the final blow to the Tories and he'd go down in history as a good politician rather than a good campaigner who ultimately contributed to keeping the Tories in office.
It's crossed my mind that Dominic Cummings is actually a deeply embedded RCP agent. He certainly seems to be doing more damage to the Tories than Labour have managed over the last 9 painful years.
-
A sparkling blog from Paul Kavanagh , the "Wee Ginger Dud", entitled "Dead in a ditch". IIncidentally, 'LBJ' stands for Lying Bastard Johnson Catchy, isn't it? https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/05/dead-in-a-ditch/
Thank you, I enjoyed that.
A couple of years ago, I had an argument with my Dad about whether David Cameron or Theresa May would go down in history as the worst ever prime minister. Turns out we were both wrong.
-
He still has opportunity ... but needs to act for the good of the nation he wants to lead rather than fetch and carry for a bunch of tax dodgers.
ETA: .. beginning, assuming it is within his abilities, by not lying every time he speaks!
-
A sparkling blog from Paul Kavanagh , the "Wee Ginger Dud", entitled "Dead in a ditch". IIncidentally, 'LBJ' stands for Lying Bastard Johnson Catchy, isn't it? https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/05/dead-in-a-ditch/
Excellent piece.
I loved the Winston Churchill/Captain Mainwearing characterisation.
-
Now that the opposition parties seem determined to not support a second FTPA motion to allow Johnson an October GE in case he used his authority to vary the date so that it is after 31st October, and presumably they could cooperate to also prevent any one-off GE 'notwithstanding' motion succeeding, it would seem that the only other GE route would be if Johnson called a VoNC in his own government.
Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.
-
... it would seem that the only other GE route would be if Johnson called a VoNC in his own government.
Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.
I'm not sure this would be allowed.
The ability to call a VONC is, by convention, reserved to the official opposition. So if (let's say) the SNP were to call for such a vote the speaker would reject that call. Given that the Government calling a VONC in itself would clearly be a contrived approach to try and get around the way a Government can call an election - via the FTPA (which they've tried and failed) I suspect that Bercow would refuse to allow it, as would be his right.
-
I thought that everyone is actually afraid of a denouement. I mean that assuming we leave the EU on 31 October, no doubt the Brexiters will celebrate, but many people will have a feeling of dread. It's like an unconscious delaying of Brexit, as nobody really knows what will happen. Maybe there will be a land flowing with milk and honey, but maybe medicines and food will be restricted, there will be an Irish catastrophe, and so on. Do you feel lucky?
wiggi
Regarding a possible Irish catastrophe, it does seem that Boris and his cronies are committed to minimising the problems which are already arising. I was surprised to come across some disturbing comments on the Good Friday Agreement made by Gove back in 2000, quoted in the Irish Times, July 5th 2016:
Mr Gove, a former journalist, wrote a pamphlet in 2000 called Northern Ireland: the Price of Peace in which he compared the agreement to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s and the condoning of the desires of paedophiles.
The Scottish-born Brexit campaigner said the agreement was a “rigged referendum”, a “mortal stain” and “a humiliation of our army, police and parliament”.
Mr Gove’s views are “a fanatical unionist protest against the agreement”, said Brendan O’Leary, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and an adviser to the UK Labour Party and the Irish government in the years running up to the signing of the agreement in 1998.
-
I'm not sure this would be allowed.
The ability to call a VONC is, by convention, reserved to the official opposition. So if (let's say) the SNP were to call for such a vote the speaker would reject that call. Given that the Government calling a VONC in itself would clearly be a contrived approach to try and get around the way a Government can call an election - via the FTPA (which they've tried and failed) I suspect that Bercow would refuse to allow it, as would be his right.
According to this the government can initiate a VoNC in itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom
If Johnson did this it would indeed be contrived, as you say, though I doubt that would bother him.
-
If a VoNC found that there was no confidence in the Johnson government, is it it beyond the opposition to put in place a government with a sensible plan for brexit or another referendum without an election until brexit was settled?
-
If a VoNC found that there was no confidence in the Johnson government, is it it beyond the opposition to put in place a government with a sensible plan for brexit or another referendum without an election until brexit was settled?
They could - but the issue is Corbyn would wand to be interim PM and the 20 or so Tory (now ex-Tory) rebels would baulk at that: not unless the cooperation over the recent bill and FTPA vote has produced enough trust for Corbyn to be acceptable for a limited period, or he would stand aside in the spirit of cooperation to make Johnson's position untenable. If the VoNC was, say, next week and they couldn't agree an interim government arrangement that would result in a GE sooner than end October, which is what the opposition parties are trying to avoid.
It all sounds a bit soap-opera-ish.
-
Marina Hyde in devastating form, again.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-twilight-zone-police-escort-conservatives
-
Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.
But Johnson is leading a minority government established by Theresa May. I may have this wrong, but isn't a consequence of the fixed-term Parliament legislation that, in situations like this, if the opportunity to form another government exists then there is no need for an election?
-
But Johnson is leading a minority government established by Theresa May. I may have this wrong, but isn't a consequence of the fixed-term Parliament legislation that, in situations like this, if the opportunity to form another government exists then there is no need for an election?
I think there is a need for a VoNC first, which certainly brings the option of an alternative government. However, that would need an agreement among the opposition parties and the ex-Tories involved in recent events, and if Corbyn insists on being the interim PM that agreement might not be forthcoming, as we saw from recent reactions to the idea from the likes of Jo Swinson, and if no intermin government is forthcoming then as I understand it there would be a GE.
Therefore, as far as I know, and I may be wrong, the risk of a VoNC before mid-October is the risk of a GE if an interim government approach can't be agreed - so if Johnson tries this before parliament is prorogued it might be in the interests of the opposition parties trying to avoid no-deal to, ironically, give Johnson their 'confidence' to as to prevent his government falling until such times as any GE would be after October 31st.
Of course I may be wrong, and things could all change by tomorrow.
-
Looks like Brexit has indeed become quasi-religious for some.
The former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith encouraged Mr Johnson to break the law, saying he would be seen as a Brexit “martyr” if judges opted to put him jail for breaching parliament’s terms.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-short-of-options-as-rebels-vow-to-secure-brexit-delay
-
Looks like Brexit has indeed become quasi-religious for some.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/06/boris-johnson-short-of-options-as-rebels-vow-to-secure-brexit-delay
Did you have to mention IDS?
I've had to reach for the sick bowl.
Now I'm going to have to go get more popcorn, and, what with this brexit omnishambles, theres a shortage.
-
Bearing in mind and remembering the referendum vote was for leave or remain only, I'm no fan of Boris for anything else in particular other than his support for the cause for leaving the EU without a deal which should have remained on the table.
The position he's in now is a position where he'd be breaking the law if he doesn't ask for an extension, the extension that was only introduced by those doing all they can think of, as they see it, intended to thwart the result of referendum.
I'd like to see him break this law so that the protests and demonstrations that will be, I think, sure to follow because if Boris were to be penalised in some way or another any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote where the majority of the country did actually vote to leave the EU; I'll make sure I'll be there to be counted with any protest that may well be involved with supporting the principle of the winning side in the referendum.
Who knows he, 'Boris' might even end up being Brexit's first martyr?
ippy
-
Bearing in mind and remembering the referendum vote was for leave or remain only, I'm no fan of Boris for anything else in particular other than his support for the cause for leaving the EU without a deal which should have remained on the table.
This is what Michael Gove said about no-deal back in March:
"But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.
Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment." [my emphasis] source (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6793255/MICHAEL-GOVE-backing-Prime-Ministers-deal-EU-ensure-Brexit-happens.html)
He was right.
I'd like to see him break this law so that the protests and demonstrations that will be, I think, sure to follow because if Boris were to be penalised in some way or another any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote where the majority of the country did actually vote to leave the EU; I'll make sure I'll be there to be counted with any protest that may well be involved with supporting the principle of the winning side in the referendum.
The vote was not about anything that is now on offer, it was not free and fair (the law was broken), and the majority of the country didn't vote to leave.
The irony is off the scale - the referendum campaign talked about taking back control of our laws and giving our Parliament sovereignty and now you are prepared to go against the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament to push through something that the people have never been given a chance to vote on. Something that risks real people's jobs, health, and even lives, serious damage to the economy, the peace in NI, and the integrity of the UK itself.
For what? You still can't or won't give any down-to-earth, practical reasons for all this risk.
Who knows he, 'Boris' might even end up being Brexit's first martyr?
Which just underlines the religious cult-like nature of Brexit. You have still provided nothing resembling a rational or reasonable argument for Brexit - and neither has anybody else that I've seen. It appears to be based just as much on blind faith as any religious cult.
-
ippy,
…any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote…
Would that be the advisory only vote that was campaigned for on a false prospectus, illegally funded, and so meaninglessly worded that no matter what version someone now argues for they will claim “and that’s what 17.4m people voted for” – something that clearly cannot be the case?
You do realise I hope that it was only the advisory status that caused it not to be re-run because it was so corrupt?
Oh and speaking of strength of feeling, what do you think that strength of feeling is among those of us who feel so many opportunities have been stolen from our children’s futures by the liars, chancers and neo-fascists who lied their way to the result?
Now that people know the alternative to membership is closer to a lake full of crocodiles than it is to the Eden that was promised to them, why would you not want there to be a referendum on some facts rather than rely on the one that promised fantasy?
-
Surely all the opposition parties need then do is decide they did have 'confidence' in the government, so that Johnson 'wins', as a means of preventing a GE after 14 days - so Johnson has no route to getting a GE in October.
But they wouldn't do that. They would support the motion and then create a coalition government within the 14 day time limit and Johnson would be completely out of control.
-
Bearing in mind and remembering the referendum vote was for leave or remain only, I'm no fan of Boris for anything else in particular other than his support for the cause for leaving the EU without a deal which should have remained on the table.
No-deal wasn't always on the table though - remember at the outset we were told by the lead Brexidiots that it would be 'the easiest trade deal in history'.
The position he's in now is a position where he'd be breaking the law if he doesn't ask for an extension, the extension that was only introduced by those doing all they can think of, as they see it, intended to thwart the result of referendum.
Because as events have shown, the result of the referendum was ill-informed and will damage everyone in the UK, so it needs to be stopped.
I'd like to see him break this law so that the protests and demonstrations that will be, I think, sure to follow because if Boris were to be penalised in some way or another any following demonstration would be sure to underline the strength of feeling for all to see that we leavers have about the persistent remoaner attempts to go against the result of the free and fair vote where the majority of the country did actually vote to leave the EU; I'll make sure I'll be there to be counted with any protest that may well be involved with supporting the principle of the winning side in the referendum.
That may well be the case where you are, ippy: protest away, but remember you'll be supporting a decline in circumstances for the rest of us. I suspect that here in Scotland there will simply be relief if Brexit is binned (and perhaps the odd outbreak of dancing in the streets), since it does seem that enthusiasm for Brexit occurs mainly in England. If it happens the UK really will be fucked, and given the circumstances not an altogether bad thing from some perspectives, like mine. That Brexit has caused so much acrimony might indicate that it probably wasn't a good idea in the first place or has been badly handled, or both.
Who knows he, 'Boris' might even end up being Brexit's first martyr?
Brexit's first idiot more like, though he is that already.
-
But they wouldn't do that. They would support the motion and then create a coalition government within the 14 day time limit and Johnson would be completely out of control.
They might not support a VoNC if Corbyn insisted on being interim PM, since the Lib-Dems and ex-Tories seem reluctant to see that happen - of course that could change if PM Corbyn would be the only (albeit temporary) way to get past 31st October without a GE.
-
I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?
I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?
The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?
I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?
ippy
-
I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?
In an advisory referendum over 3 years ago in which no deal wasn't on the ballot and wasn't remotely implied as an option by the leave campaign.
There is no mandate for a no deal brexit. Indeed it is likely that there is no mandate for any form of brexit in Sept 2019 even if there might have been years ago.
-
I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?
I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?
The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?
I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?
ippy
Sometimes 'winning' isn't everything, ippy, and especially so when what you've 'won' turns out the be the booby prize.
-
I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?
I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?
The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?
I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?
ippy
Leave wouldn't have been so bitter if it had lost. As for intellect, you only have to look at the state of the remainers protesting outside parliament to know leave was superior.
-
I thought it was the EU leavers that were supposed to be the ones that are a bit on the dim side?
You certainly seem to be trying to reinforce that view by the way you ignore all the actual points and just repeat your mantras.
I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?
The majority of UK citizens didn't vote to leave the EU. What's so difficult to understand what even Gove, one of the leaders of the campaign admitted, that the vote wasn't about no-deal? The electorate were promised an easy deal.
The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?
It wasn't "free and fair" either - the law was broken.
-
The majority of UK citizens didn't vote to leave the EU. What's so difficult to understand what even Gove, one of the leaders of the campaign admitted, that the vote wasn't about no-deal? The electorate were promised an easy deal
The electorate were asked if they wanted to leave the EU. A simple question. Not difficult. Those who didn't vote are irrelevant.
-
The electorate were asked if they wanted to leave the EU. A simple question. Not difficult. Those who didn't vote are irrelevant.
Except that it wasn't a simple question at all. It was a totally stupid question to put to a simple, one-off, in/out referendum. I very much doubt that more than a tiny fraction of the population had all three of the time, inclination, and aptitude to learn enough to cast a truly informed vote. I did my best but there were still aspects I missed.
Subsequent events have shown that the picture painted by the leave campaign is not something that can be achieved, even approximately, and no-deal is nothing at all like it. As Gove himself admitted in March, the vote was not about a no-deal; the electorate were promised a deal.
This isn't difficult. If you bought something from Amazon and the product description was as inaccurate as the Leave campaign was, you would have the right to return it. To deny the same right to the electorate is undemocratic in the extreme.
Anyway - perhaps you can give us any actual, real life reasons why the EU is so terrible we should risk severe economic damage, real people's jobs and health, the peace in NI, and the break up of the UK, in order to get rid of it?
-
The electorate were asked if they wanted to leave the EU. A simple question. Not difficult. Those who didn't vote are irrelevant.
I think 'simplistic' question would be a better description: we now see the complexities, such as the Northern Ireland situation, which wasn't highlighted by the Brexit enthusiasts in 2016 and yet turns out to be a major obstacle - of course 'leave' wasn't meant to be result.
-
The EU is damaging because it takes decision making further away from the people, and which is why I have sympathy with independence movements such as the Scottish and Catalan. Rule should be as close to the people as possible. A deal would be preferable but the question was a simple one, do you want to leave the EU. That needs to be implemented.
-
In an advisory referendum over 3 years ago in which no deal wasn't on the ballot and wasn't remotely implied as an option by the leave campaign.
There is no mandate for a no deal brexit. Indeed it is likely that there is no mandate for any form of brexit in Sept 2019 even if there might have been years ago.
Their was no motion put forward in the referendum for granting special rights to leprechauns either as far as I can remember?
ippy
-
Sometimes 'winning' isn't everything, ippy, and especially so when what you've 'won' turns out the be the booby prize.
So it'd be in order to reverse the result of the referendum because some don't like it?
ippy
-
Leave wouldn't have been so bitter if it had lost. As for intellect, you only have to look at the state of the remainers protesting outside parliament to know leave was superior.
I wouldn't say leave was superior in my view I never did want this kind of involvement with the EU and using my own criteria with the two columns assessment, for & against, leave has more for it in my opinion, even so I can see the other sides various points of view but I just don't agree with them, it wouldn't be right to toss a coin on this particular disagreement so from my perspective having a vote was the only way to go, luckily from my point of view.
Regards ippy
-
The EU is damaging because it takes decision making further away from the people...
Such as? I mean in practice, what specific decisions do you think the EU has taken that should have been done more locally? More to the point why have they made life so terrible it's worth the risks to jobs, the economy, and even people's lives to "rectify"?
I'm not trying to pretend the EU is perfect, but it has to be pretty damn terrible to risk the consequences of a no-deal to be rid of.
Rule should be as close to the people as possible.
So what - we make each county an independent state? Each town, city, or village? Where would you stop? What's wrong with devolving power as appropriate?
A deal would be preferable but the question was a simple one, do you want to leave the EU. That needs to be implemented.
As I said - the description was inaccurate - the buyer should have the right to reconsider. Why should the UK electorate, in one of the most important choice in recent history, have less rights to change their mind than somebody who buys a shirt from Amazon?
That's before we get to the fact that there is almost certainly no majority for leave now anyway, even if nobody changed their mind (source (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html)) and that the younger generations (who will have to live with this) voted to remain.
-
You certainly seem to be trying to reinforce that view by the way you ignore all the actual points and just repeat your mantras.
The majority of UK citizens didn't vote to leave the EU. What's so difficult to understand what even Gove, one of the leaders of the campaign admitted, that the vote wasn't about no-deal? The electorate were promised an easy deal.
It wasn't "free and fair" either - the law was broken.
The only reason you refer to my posts as mantra it seems to me is that you know that we're never going to agree surly that's why the only answer was a referendum.
I think your arguments for remain are a load of rubbish and I dare say you think the same about leave arguments, can you see that altering, ever, no well there you are, it wouldn't matter what I said in favour of leave or visa versa.
More than likely the Idea of remaining in the EU that makes me shudder is just the opposite to you, therefore referendum.
Regards ippy
-
So it'd be in order to reverse the result of the referendum because some don't like it?
ippy
Yes - quite clearly those voting in 2016 had inadequate information, and there is now more information. Brexit hasn't happened yet and all those who have attained their 18th birthday since the 2016 referendum have had no opportunity to express their views, and in the interim the views of those who voted in 2016 but have died since are no longer relevant (they aren't aware of recent developments, for obvious reasons), and we now have a duplicitous lying incompetent as PM and an impasse in Westminster.
So lots of reasons to re-check the views of the electorate, where the 'the public want this done' is no more than an assertion since what the public currently thinks is untested. Given the stramash surrounding the next GE it might make sense, once the immediate risk of no-deal is removed, to have a second referendum before the next GE so that political parties and the general public are all clear on the what the current views of the electorate are, as opposed to clinging to position in 2016.
-
The "younger generation" is as irrelevant as those who didn't vote for whatever reason, or should all votes consider how the younger generation might vote? Nonsense! Leave is a matter of principle, the same reason the Scotts don't want to be ruled by the English.
-
The only reason you refer to my posts as mantra it seems to me is that you know that we're never going to agree surly that's why the only answer was a referendum.
I refer to them as a mantra because you keep repeating them and ignoring the actual points being made. Much the same reason I refer to (for example) AB's statements of faith in that way.
I think your arguments for remain are a load of rubbish and I dare say you think the same about leave arguments...
I've no idea because you won't tell me what your arguments are and you won't actually address mine.
More than likely the Idea of remaining in the EU that makes me shudder is just the opposite to you, therefore referendum.
Shuddering is rather irrelevant - what about actual, down to earth, practical reasons that you could tell somebody who faces losing their job or shortages of vital medicines, to convince them that it's worth it?
-
Yes - quite clearly those voting in 2016 had inadequate information, and there is now more information. Brexit hasn't happened yet and all those who have attained their 18th birthday since the 2016 referendum have had no opportunity to express their views, and in the interim the views of those who voted in 2016 but have died since are no longer relevant (they aren't aware of recent developments, for obvious reasons), and we now have a duplicitous lying incompetent as PM and an impasse in Westminster.
So lots of reasons to re-check the views of the electorate, where the 'the public want this done' is no more than an assertion since what the public currently thinks is untested. Given the stramash surrounding the next GE it might make sense, once the immediate risk of no-deal is removed, to have a second referendum before the next GE so that political parties and the general public are all clear on the what the current views of the electorate are, as opposed to clinging to position in 2016.
Bollocks! All those who voted leave were a bunch of dimwits who didn't understand the question, except those silly mares and sixties remnants outside parliament who are throwing a wobbly because they lost.
-
;D well said ad_orientem.
-
Bollocks! All those who voted leave were a bunch of dimwits who didn't understand the question, except those silly mares and sixties remnants outside parliament who are throwing a wobbly because they lost.
Hum - lots of bluster and no answers to the actual points. Seems to be a pattern here.
-
Hum - lots of bluster and no answers to the actual points. Seems to be a pattern here.
No. I answered your question and the referendum asked a simple question. Remain is simply bitter it lost. If Brexit isn't implements I'm quite sure there'll be civil unrest, and rightly so. The final proof we do not live in a democracy.
-
The "younger generation" is as irrelevant as those who didn't vote for whatever reason, or should all votes consider how the younger generation might vote?
Had the referendum been enacted fairly soon after the vote then any subsequent action could reasonably be said to reflect the views of the electorate - but over 3 years later the electorate has changed and there is now better information available, so sanity checking the 2016 result remains the view of the electorate seems sensible to me.
Nonsense! Leave is a matter of principle, the same reason the Scotts don't want to be ruled by the English.
I didn't realise we were being 'ruled' in a so-called United Kingdom, though it does feel like that when a substantial proportion of the electorate in England continue to act like lemmings heading for the cliff edge, and they insist on dragging us with them - if they get there in the end I think the UK is finished.
-
Bollocks! All those who voted leave were a bunch of dimwits who didn't understand the question, except those silly mares and sixties remnants outside parliament who are throwing a wobbly because they lost.
Nobody understood anything about leave in 2016, and especially those promoting it, since if they had they might have spotted from the outset that Northern Ireland was a major potential problem - and they didn't.
To paraphrase Mencken - you don't get collective wisdom from aggregating individual ignorance, and in 2016 everyone without exception was ignorant about Brexit since nobody had bothered to do any due diligence.
-
Had the referendum been enacted fairly soon after the vote then any subsequent action could reasonably be said to reflect the views of the electorate - but over 3 years later the electorate has changed and there is now better information available, so sanity checking the 2016 result remains the view of the electorate seems sensible to me.
I didn't realise we were being 'ruled' in a so-called United Kingdom, though it does feel like that when a substantial proportion of the electorate in England continue to act like lemmings heading for the cliff edge, and they insist on dragging us with them - if they get there in the end I think the UK is finished.
Patronising shite. That's all remain has.
-
No. I answered your question and the referendum asked a simple question. Remain is simply bitter it lost. If Brexit isn't implements I'm quite sure there'll be civil unrest, and rightly so. The final proof we do not live in a democracy.
If people start rioting because policy was decided, or amended in response to circumstances and new information, via democratic processes then it would be they who were acting undemocratically.
-
Presumably Amber Rudd's conscience has eventually come to bear: I suppose she deserves some credit for getting there in the end - wonder if others will follow her. Hopefully this is another nail in the coffin of this government.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/amber-rudd-resigns-from-cabinet-and-surrenders-conservative-whip
-
And then there were 288
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793
Thew PM's own brother has jumped ship.
Oh no! JoJo's "no-go" to BoJo!
-
They might not support a VoNC if Corbyn insisted on being interim PM, since the Lib-Dems and ex-Tories seem reluctant to see that happen - of course that could change if PM Corbyn would be the only (albeit temporary) way to get past 31st October without a GE.
Personally, I think he is utterly incompetent and unsuited to lead a piss up in a brewery, but he is the only choice to lead the interim government considering he controls the largest group of opposition MPs. I hope the other opposition parties can put their egos aside long enough to cooperate and stop, or at least delay, Brexit.
-
I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?
What is so difficult about understanding that it is a false statement? 52% of the people who voted on 23/6/2016 voted to leave. That's not 52% of all voters and it certainly isn't 52% of citizens. It was actually only a little over a quarter of UK citizens.
The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?
The Leave campaign has been judged to have cheated. It wasn't a fair result.
It's also no longer democratic since it was three years ago and the situation and the voting population has changed since then.
I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?
You can't even tell us what the EU has done to make your life worse. It's clear that Brexit really is a cult. You're even using the language of cults with your talk of martyrs.
-
The EU is damaging because it takes decision making further away from the people,
Can you list some decisions made by the EU that have harmed you?
-
The "younger generation" is as irrelevant as those who didn't vote for whatever reason, or should all votes consider how the younger generation might vote? Nonsense! Leave is a matter of principle, the same reason the Scotts don't want to be ruled by the English.
It's the younger generation that will eventually have to clear up the mess. Of course they are relevant.
-
I do wish some posters would stop saying that remainers are bitter. I am not bitter. I am petrified. It is likely in my opinion that we are going to be, sooner or later, forced into a no-deal by the new Brexit Tories and a future government is going to be led by Boris Johnson and his sidekicks ReesMogg and Javid amongst others.
No deal is undesirable for all sorts of reasons. But it's fucking terrifying with these clowns in charge.
-
It's the younger generation that will eventually have to clear up the mess. Of course they are relevant.
And I'sd point out that, in the 2014 referebndum, only the over 65 age ranfe voted a majority NO. The 16-30 voted overwhelmingly YES to an independent Scotland.
-
Seems, from what Javid is saying as reported by the Guardian's live politics blog, the Tories will obey the law (the preventing no deal bill) and that Johnson won't ask for an extension. One wonders if this is just bluster for the benefit of Tory voters or if they have some as yet unknown alternative that somehow negates this new bill.
Q: Will the government obey the law and seek an extension?
Of course the government will obey the law, Javid said. The prime minister will seek a deal but he absolutely not seek an extension, Javid said. We will not change our policy, Javid insists. We will be consistent with our policy and not breaking the law, but you’ll have to wait and see how we do that, Javid said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/08/brexit-boris-johnson-amber-rudd-resignation-live-news
-
I do wish some posters would stop saying that remainers are bitter. I am not bitter. I am petrified. It is likely in my opinion that we are going to be, sooner or later, forced into a no-deal by the new Brexit Tories and a future government is going to be led by Boris Johnson and his sidekicks ReesMogg and Javid amongst others.
No deal is undesirable for all sorts of reasons. But it's fucking terrifying with these clowns in charge.
Yes, it's the prospect of a hard right English nationalism, that is scary. Presumably, it will advocate low tax, deregulation, and cuddles with Trump. I don't know how we have got here, but then how did the Reichstag fire happen?
-
Yes, it's the prospect of a hard right English nationalism, that is scary. Presumably, it will advocate low tax, deregulation, and cuddles with Trump. I don't know how we have got here, but then how did the Reichstag fire happen?
I agree. The idea of nationalistic little englanders in control is more than scary.
-
Seems, from what Javid is saying as reported by the Guardian's live politics blog, the Tories will obey the law (the preventing no deal bill) and that Johnson won't ask for an extension. One wonders if this is just bluster for the benefit of Tory voters or if they have some as yet unknown alternative that somehow negates this new bill.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/08/brexit-boris-johnson-amber-rudd-resignation-live-news
It could be that the passing of the no no-deal bill has finally given the brexiters an incentive to actually look for a "deal"?
Why is it that, with the main parties having policies of implementing the referendum result, over three years later a second referendum is needed?
- Because those with an objective of no-deal have "thwarted" leaving on a reasonable basis.
-
An interesting article ..... https://tinyurl.com/yyaqo8wx
-
The best thing to do now is to legislate so that we can't leave the EU unless a deal is agreed. Stop throwing money into preparing for no deal.
-
The best thing to do now is to legislate so that we can't leave the EU unless a deal is agreed. Stop throwing money into preparing for no deal.
Agreed.
-
Another sparkling comment from the Wee Ginger Dug, discussing "To obey or not to obey" the law, but mainly the increasing divergance of the elements in a disunited kingdom. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/the-widening-chasms/
-
I refer to them as a mantra because you keep repeating them and ignoring the actual points being made. Much the same reason I refer to (for example) AB's statements of faith in that way.
I've no idea because you won't tell me what your arguments are and you won't actually address mine.
Shuddering is rather irrelevant - what about actual, down to earth, practical reasons that you could tell somebody who faces losing their job or shortages of vital medicines, to convince them that it's worth it?
The referendum was for leave or remain, surly we should be leaving whilst at the same time you are perfectly free to discuss the various arguments you think should have won the day.
We should now be dealing with the details of any necessary arrangements that need to be dealt with on having left? But no the remainers are doing their very best to turn over the referendum result.
Why should I be having a pointless argument with anyone on line or anywhere else, I accept in your terms you think you have the argument, we don't agree on that leave won we should be leaving while you continue with your, irrelevant to me, arguments, neither of us are ever likely to see eye to eye on this one.
There are bound to be winners and losers with something as large scale as leaving the EU, but there again we're unlikely to agree there on the long term results of leaving the EU.
Regards, ippy.
-
Yes - quite clearly those voting in 2016 had inadequate information, and there is now more information. Brexit hasn't happened yet and all those who have attained their 18th birthday since the 2016 referendum have had no opportunity to express their views, and in the interim the views of those who voted in 2016 but have died since are no longer relevant (they aren't aware of recent developments, for obvious reasons), and we now have a duplicitous lying incompetent as PM and an impasse in Westminster.
So lots of reasons to re-check the views of the electorate, where the 'the public want this done' is no more than an assertion since what the public currently thinks is untested. Given the stramash surrounding the next GE it might make sense, once the immediate risk of no-deal is removed, to have a second referendum before the next GE so that political parties and the general public are all clear on the what the current views of the electorate are, as opposed to clinging to position in 2016.
As you know leave won the referendum and that should have made any of your arguments irrelevant.
Regards, ippy.
-
Ispter,
The referendum was for leave or remain, surly we should be leaving whilst at the same time you are perfectly free to discuss the various arguments you think should have won the day.
If you leave somewhere then necessarily you have to go somewhere else. The somewhere else promised by the leave campaign is now shown starkly to be bollocks, and the somewhere else described by the remain campaign (and dismissed by leave as “project fear”) is, if anything, project understatement.
If I offered to sell you my brand new, £250k super car for £5k and you bought it, but when it arrived it was in fact a rusty old banger would you be content for me to keep the money because you had made your decision on the basis of the information I gave you? Why not?
We should now be dealing with the details of any necessary arrangements that need to be dealt with on having left? But no the remainers are doing their very best to turn over the referendum result.
Yes – for the same reason you'd want to turn over your car buying decision.
Why should I be having a pointless argument with anyone on line or anywhere else, I accept in your terms you think you have the argument, we don't agree on that leave won we should be leaving while you continue with your, irrelevant to me, arguments, neither of us are ever likely to see eye to eye on this one.
There are bound to be winners and losers with something as large scale as leaving the EU, but there again we're unlikely to agree there on the long term results of leaving the EU.
Yes the winners are the Russians who paid for it and the fund managers who’ve bet on the British economy tanking, and the losers are the rest of us who will suffer the consequences.
-
As you know leave won the referendum and that should have made any of your arguments irrelevant.
Regards, ippy.
Turn off the BBC and just assume we have left already. Would you notice any difference?
-
As you know leave won the referendum and that should have made any of your arguments irrelevant.
It's like a family having a vote on whether to move house or not. Dad and sister Ray said they should move house and they won the majority. The family is set to move out on October 31 but it transpires that nobody has found a new house to live in. Not only that, but Dad and sister Ray cannot agree on what kind of house to move to. So the choice is delay the move or become homeless.
I guess the answer is they have to become homeless because DEMOCRATIC VOTE.
You Brexiteers are absolutely barmy. Please stop this, it's destroying us.
-
Turn off the BBC and just assume we have left already. Would you notice any difference?
Of course he wouldn't. He's been repeatedly asked how his life will improve after Brexit and how the EU made it worse for him and he has come up with nothing.
-
As you know leave won the referendum and that should have made any of your arguments irrelevant.
Regards, ippy.
Let's put it this way: I do hope you leave merchants end up disappointed. If not, then at least Scottish independence will be that little bit closer.
-
The referendum was for leave or remain, surly we should be leaving whilst at the same time you are perfectly free to discuss the various arguments you think should have won the day.
Which leave? The one were lied to about prior to the referendum, funded on multiple fronts with illegal campaign finances that unbalanced the field, or the one that's being posited now?
We should now be dealing with the details of any necessary arrangements that need to be dealt with on having left? But no the remainers are doing their very best to turn over the referendum result.
Why crash out and do untold damage when you can put the arrangements in place AND STILL LEAVE?
Why should I be having a pointless argument with anyone on line or anywhere else, I accept in your terms you think you have the argument, we don't agree on that leave won we should be leaving while you continue with your, irrelevant to me, arguments, neither of us are ever likely to see eye to eye on this one.
Perhaps because, deep down, there isn't actually a logical argument in favour of leave, it's all wishful thinking about halcyon days when our blue passports were enough to catch fish where we damned well pleased!
There are bound to be winners and losers with something as large scale as leaving the EU, but there again we're unlikely to agree there on the long term results of leaving the EU.
Well, no, either we're all winners or we're all losers, because we don't get to choose individual, we're in this together. If, collectively, we accept that the result of the vote was for financial and cultural vandalism to go ahead, well then we all lose together.
O.
-
Let's put it this way: I do hope you leave merchants end up disappointed. If not, then at least Scottish independence will be that little bit closer.
As a pro Scot Englishman, (my maternal Grandfather was a Scot), I would rather the Scots stayed in the UK but if you must leave if that's what the majority of Scots want, now I've heard of something else very similar to that somewhere?
Wasn't it the 'Scotties', an Irish tribe that emigrated to the northern part of this shared island of ours somewhere in the distant past? I'm sure I read that somewhere?
Regards, ippy.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49639828
Bercow is to stand down as speaker at the next election or October 31st, whichever is sooner.
-
As a pro Scot Englishman, (my maternal Grandfather was a Scot), I would rather the Scots stayed in the UK but if you must leave if that's what the majority of Scots want, now I've heard of something else very similar to that somewhere?
To paraphrase the Scottish actor Brian Cox, on Question Time a while back, separation from England (and England is the problem as regards Brexit) isn't the same thing as separation from the EU.
It seems to me, from a Scottish perspective, that you guys in England are listening to a different political drum these days - and if you can't drum out the Tories and their Brexit madness then I see no future in the UK.
-
It seems to me, from a Scottish perspective, that you guys in England are listening to a different political drum these days - and if you can't drum out the Tories and their Brexit madness then I see no future in the UK.
Don't generalise.
Only some of us have fallen for this flim flam.
-
Gordon,
To paraphrase the Scottish actor Brian Cox, on Question Time a while back, separation from England (and England is the problem as regards Brexit) isn't the same thing as separation from the EU.
It seems to me, from a Scottish perspective, that you guys in England are listening to a different political drum these days - and if you can't drum out the Tories and their Brexit madness then I see no future in the UK.
Just to say that "you guys" was about a third of the electorate, and an unknowably smaller number than that would not have voted leave if they'd thought a no deal exit would be the outcome. I for one resolutely am not one of "you guys"!
-
Don't generalise.
Only some of us have fallen for this flim flam.
True - I stand corrected, and perhaps current events involving a duplicitous lying bastard PM (and his associated hangers-on) will cause the penny to drop among more and more Brexit enthusiasts.
-
Gordon,
Just to say that "you guys" was about a third of the electorate, and an unknowably smaller number than that would not have voted leave if they'd thought a no deal exit would be the outcome. I for one resolutely am not one of "you guys"!
As I said to Trent, I stand corrected and do realise that not all elsewhere in the UK are pro-Brexit.
It does get frustrating though, from a Scottish perspective, when it is said that 'the public want this done' and 'the country needs to come together', when here in Scotland Brexit has always been unpopular, and that hasn't changed since 2016.
-
Gordon,
As I said to Trent, I stand corrected and do realise that not all elsewhere in the UK are pro-Brexit.
It does get frustrating though, from a Scottish perspective, when it is said that 'the public want this done' and 'the country needs to come together', when here in Scotland Brexit has always been unpopular, and that hasn't changed since 2016.
Indeed - whenever a no deal politician opens with, "what the people want..." I reach for my blunderbuss.
-
Just noticed something Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said to BS Boris earlier that seems quite pointed to me. He (Varadkar) said something like, “a no deal Brexit would have serious consequences for the UK and for Ireland…” and here’s the apparently throwaway line, “…but not so much for Europe”.
The whopping lie the headbanger Brexiters try is that by ruling out a no deal departure Parliament has taken away a key negotiating advantage for the UK because the rest of the EU would be so scared of the prospect that it would make further concessions. That was never the case – the Commission has been clear all along on the inviolability of the four freedoms – but Varadkar’s “Europe not so much” is basically saying, “actually they might not like it but it’s not important enough to sell the farm for”.
Well played Mr Taoiseach.
-
To paraphrase the Scottish actor Brian Cox, on Question Time a while back, separation from England (and England is the problem as regards Brexit) isn't the same thing as separation from the EU.
It seems to me, from a Scottish perspective, that you guys in England are listening to a different political drum these days - and if you can't drum out the Tories and their Brexit madness then I see no future in the UK.
No. Don’t lump all us English together.
England isn’t the problem. Brexiteers are the problem. And even most of them are only a problem because they have been taken in by the liars that led the campaign.
Also it’s not as if the Scots are unanimous on the subject. Stop making this a conflict between England and Scotland. You’re just making it more divisive.
-
This is quite funny:
Why did Varadkar say he wanted to be Athena to Johnson's Hercules? (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/09/leo-varadkar-athena-hercules-boris-johnson-why)
-
The SNP leader shook the Speaker's hand as he departed.
And because they were so hot and sweaty from such a long session, they all went for a late night swim in the river Thames.
Every year after that, they would have a vote on Brexit, but it never happened.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The end.
-
The SNP leader shook the Speaker's hand as he departed.
And because they were so hot and sweaty from such a long session, they all went for a late night swim in the river Thames.
Every year after that, they would have a vote on Brexit, but it never happened.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The end.
"They all lived happily ever after"?
Not if we can help it.
The beginning.
-
Heard a rumour yesterday that in the coming GE BS Boris will be parachuted into my (solid tory seat) constituency of Uttlesford (North-West Essex, centred on the pretty market town of Saffron Walden).
Remember, you read it here first.
Or not.
-
Heard a rumour yesterday that in the coming GE BS Boris will be parachuted into my (solid tory seat) constituency of Uttlesford (North-West Essex, centred on the pretty market town of Saffron Walden).
Remember, you read it here first.
Or not.
Safron Walden ?
Does he wear a straw fedora ? I think I know him 😎
-
To paraphrase the Scottish actor Brian Cox, on Question Time a while back, separation from England (and England is the problem as regards Brexit) isn't the same thing as separation from the EU.
It seems to me, from a Scottish perspective, that you guys in England are listening to a different political drum these days - and if you can't drum out the Tories and their Brexit madness then I see no future in the UK.
I have virtually no time for the Tories for much the same reasons, as far as I can tell, as you, but on this occasion I'll do a deal with the devil and vote whichever way is the most likely to disconnect the UK from the EU's political structures, even if it involves voting Tory.
Regards, ippy.
-
Gordon,
Indeed - whenever a no deal politician opens with, "what the people want..." I reach for my blunderbuss.
Likewise for me when any thinly disguised attempt to suggest we have another referendum, such as a peoples vote, that has already been taken in 2016.
That was very difficult for me to write, when you take into consideration I'm someone that's supposed to not know what they were voting for back in 2016.
If they end up trying to lock up Boris, that is, if he were to ignore the law about asking for an extension, that could be a trigger for a modern day version of storming the Bastille, if that did happen I'll make certain to be there!
Regards, ippy.
-
Ippy,
I have virtually no time for the Tories for much the same reasons, as far as I can tell, as you, but on this occasion I'll do a deal with the devil and vote whichever way is the most likely to disconnect the UK from the EU's political structures, even if it involves voting Tory.
Sadly, I believe you. Leaving aside for now though whether a “disconnect the UK from the EU's political structures” is a good thing or a bad thing (damn them with their safety standards and workers’ rights, sharing of security information, huge bargaining power to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world that we could never hope to emulate, billions of £££s of benefit from trading in a single market etc) what price for this disconnect would be too high even for you?
How about increases in food prices? Shortages of medicines? The dissolution of the Union as Scotland and maybe others go their own way? How about the US carving out chunks of the NHS, or perhaps demanding that their lower safety standard foods must be part of any trade deal?
Is any price too high, or would you still feel vindicated as you stood in the smoking ruins clutching your blue passport (that we could have had in any case) and shouting “fish”?
-
Ippy,
Sadly, I believe you. Leaving aside for now though whether a “disconnect the UK from the EU's political structures” is a good thing or a bad thing (damn them with their safety standards and workers’ rights, sharing of security information, huge bargaining power to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world that we could never hope to emulate, billions of £££s of benefit from trading in a single market etc) what price for this disconnect would be too high even for you?
How about increases in food prices? Shortages of medicines? The dissolution of the Union as Scotland and maybe others go their own way? How about the US carving out chunks of the NHS, or perhaps demanding that their lower safety standard foods must be part of any trade deal?
Is any price too high, or would you still feel vindicated as you stood in the smoking ruins clutching your blue passport (that we could have had in any case) and shouting “fish”?
Good post.
-
Good post.
Well LR, it would be a good post to a remainer.
We've both dug our trenches donned our tin hats and won't be changing sides, if remain does get their way for another referendum or we have an election either way I'm sure if you take another look at the result and the amount of UK's brexit reps now sitting at Brussels it'll be giving you a good indication of where either of these two events (election or referendum), are likely to be taking the UK.
Regards, ippy.
-
Likewise for me when any thinly disguised attempt to suggest we have another referendum, such as a peoples vote, that has already been taken in 2016.
So this is basically a tacit admission that you think public opinion is no longer behind Brexit, now that facts have become clear. Which also suggests what has been argued by those supporting another referendum: people voted for the fantasy they were presented with, not "Brexit and any and all costs".
Otherwise, why would you oppose it?
If they end up trying to lock up Boris, that is, if he were to ignore the law about asking for an extension, that could be a trigger for a modern day version of storming the Bastille, if that did happen I'll make certain to be there!
Yet you still can't or won't come up with even a single, solitary, real-world, practical reason - something about the UK being in the EU that has made your life worse, or something about leaving that will make it better.
Not one.
Yet you'll risk real people suffering (possibly dying from medicine shortage or in new troubles in NI), you'd support the PM challenging the rule of law, and now some sort of attempted revolution(?), in order for what? So you can have a warm, fuzzy feeling that the UK is not subject to the ECJ and we won't be part of some "federal Europe"?
I've been asking the same question about practical reasons elsewhere and I've still not found a single Brexiteer who will answer it.
-
Ippy,
Well LR, it would be a good post to a remainer.
We've both dug our trenches donned our tin hats and won't be changing sides, if remain does get their way for another referendum or we have an election either way I'm sure if you take another look at the result and the amount of UK's brexit reps now sitting at Brussels it'll be giving you a good indication of where either of these two events (election or referendum), are likely to be taking the UK.
Why if the evidence changed (or even just became available) wouldn’t you change your mind?
As for a second referendum, what do you so have against democracy that you wouldn’t want people to decide on the facts as they now are rather than on the promises as they were three years ago?
-
Ippy said this on the Searching for God thread
"Sovereignty, is at the top of my list among several other, I think very good solid reasons why we the UK should leaving.
I think for various reasons family and friends etc we're all set with our decisions I won't be altering my wish to leave the EU decision and as I've said from my own experience everybody seems to be wearing their tin hats ready for battle.
I really do think the'll be a lot of unpleasant trouble if remainers get anywhere near to frustrating the referendum winning leave vote I sincerely hope not.
I don't see any point in discussing brexit one way or another, will you be changing your pov, I doubt it well nor will I.
Kind regards ippy"
And also referenced Lord Pearson who thinks the BBC is biased against leaving the EU. He's a former leader of UKIP.
You don't seem able to give an argument to support your view of the EU. How has our sovereignty been compromised by being a member of the EU? I don't think it has, but I can't argue against your position if all you say is "sovereignty".
From my own experience of listening to BBC news (especially Today on R4 (and I know anecdotes aren't evidence)) I would say its bias is towards the Conservative Party. Today is edited by a friend of Johnson's and regularly presented by a committed anti-European (John Humphrys) and a chap who's held a number of official positions within Conservative Party organisations (Nick Robinson). Listen to an interview by Humphrys of David Davis or Mogg, then to an interview of any Labour or remain supporting politician. While I accept that I'm more likely to notice when my existing opinions are being reinforced, the double standards are blatant.
And when you say nobody will change their minds, speak for yourself. I am open to rational, logical arguments and ready to change my mind if I'm convinced. All I'm seeing at the moment is a gang of tin-pot would-be despots, liars and incompetents, with no respect for democracy, hi-jacking our woefully inadequate "constitution" to drive through a policy that they are well aware a majority of the electorate don't want any more (if they ever did). Mogg, Martin, Banks etc want out of the EU before January when anti-tax avoidance laws come into effect and if they can destabilise the EU, which has been an effective counter to economic domination by US into the bargain, that will only make them happier. These charlatans need holding to account, but they appear to be able to lie without challenge on the BBC.
Watching The Rise of the Nazis last night brought two things to mind. In 50 years time, if civilisation survives (not leaving the EU, climate change) how will this episode be seen and will those who've used positions of influence to facilitate people like Farage be proud of their role; and if you're right about "unpleasant trouble" from people who prefer violence to rational argument, I might get to die fighting fascists instead of dribbling my last days away in an underfunded and neglectful care home. That you think threats are a substitute for rational argument is depressing, but I know you're not the only one because I look at Twitter.
-
Likewise for me when any thinly disguised attempt to suggest we have another referendum, such as a peoples vote, that has already been taken in 2016.
We took a referendum in 1975. Why is the 2016 referendum allowed to subvert that democratic decision?
-
Just a couple of links to information about Lord Pearson:
He invited Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to Westminster
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/932318/ukip-lord-pearson-rannoch-tommy-robinson-westminster-baroness-warsi
He invited Geert Wilders to Westminster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Pearson,_Baron_Pearson_of_Rannoch
Draw your own conclusions.
-
Yes, Brexit has been hijacked by the hard right. Some leavers seem to relish that, others say, can't be helped. Trump mk 2.
-
Yes, Brexit has been hijacked by the hard right. Some leavers seem to relish that, others say, can't be helped. Trump mk 2.
Very scary! :o
-
What's bewildering and scary I find is that apparently otherwise decent people like ippy have drunk so much of the Brexit propaganda Kool Aid that they seem not only to be lurching toward a sort of Poundland fascism but to be doing it with full bunting, marching band and 21-gun salute.
"What's that you say? All the evidence we have now falsifies the leave campaign BS? I JUST DON'T CARE! SOVEREIGNTY! BLUE PASSPORTS! FISH DAMMIT!!!"
-
Very much agree with your great post Christine.
Ippy said this on the Searching for God thread
"Sovereignty, is at the top of my list among several other, I think very good solid reasons why we the UK should leaving.
..."
...
You don't seem able to give an argument to support your view of the EU. How has our sovereignty been compromised by being a member of the EU? I don't think it has, but I can't argue against your position if all you say is "sovereignty".
...
We could say that "sovereignty" is always an issue - balancing the power, needs or desires of the individual vs. those of the family or society, those of different clans or tribes against each other, nations in international organisation or even, eventually, of planets in or out of a United Federation of Planets :)
We will always have both competition and cooperation between different groups or identities and there will always be a to and fro about the boundaries between them.
Civilisation could be seen as being defined by how these issues are resolved: Carefully maximising freedom and equity within mutually supporting frameworks vs. tearing down existing structures - that may have become irredeemably corrupt - usually to install a new regime with a much more primitive outlook.
-
Very much agree with your great post Christine.
We could say that "sovereignty" is always an issue - balancing the power, needs or desires of the individual vs. those of the family or society, those of different clans or tribes against each other, nations in international organisation or even, eventually, of planets in or out of a United Federation of Planets :)
We will always have both competition and cooperation between different groups or identities and there will always be a to and fro about the boundaries between them.
Civilisation could be seen as being defined by how these issues are resolved: Carefully maximising freedom and equity within mutually supporting frameworks vs. tearing down existing structures - that may have become irredeemably corrupt - usually to install a new regime with a much more primitive outlook.
Hi Udayana,
I agree about how sovereignty inevitably has to be managed. I think the "pooling" of sovereignty for mutual benefit, at any level, is both the right thing to do and the best way to live together. Personally I would prefer to live in harmony with my neighbours, which isn't always possible, but thanks to the agreed norms and rules of society, when we disagree we have a framework to resolve our differences without us both burning our houses down.
-
Hi Udayana,
I agree about how sovereignty inevitably has to be managed. I think the "pooling" of sovereignty for mutual benefit, at any level, is both the right thing to do and the best way to live together. Personally I would prefer to live in harmony with my neighbours, which isn't always possible, but thanks to the agreed norms and rules of society, when we disagree we have a framework to resolve our differences without us both burning our houses down.
That's correct - there are trade offs that are made between complete ability to do as we wish as an individual (which is the ultimate form of sovereignty) and pooling our sovereignty for collective benefit. And we do this all the time - the UK's membership of NATO or the UN limits our national sovereignty but that is beneficial overall. I strongly think the same to be true of membership of the EU, although of course others differ in that view ;)
But there is a broader issue here - too often when people talk about sovereignty it is in the context of the nation state, as if this is somehow inalienable and unarguably primacy. I simply don't see this - nation states aren't fixed and indeed the whole concept of the nation state as the primary level of governance is a relatively new thing - perhaps a few hundreds of years. Prior to that there was much greater flux with the primacy at a much smaller level.
And of course for those that keep on banging on about the UK as if it is an entity unchanging for millennia worth noting that the current form of the UK is less than 100 years old.
-
Ippy,
Why if the evidence changed (or even just became available) wouldn’t you change your mind?
As for a second referendum, what do you so have against democracy that you wouldn’t want people to decide on the facts as they now are rather than on the promises as they were three years ago?
In my book democracy is and still was the vote taken in 2016, surly you're not still not looking for the best out of three - five, we're supposed to be the dippy ones that didn't know what we were voting for.
More than likely I won't be changing my mind for similar reasons to why you won't be changing your mind because we don't necessarily agree on what we think are the facts and it wouldn't matter how many clay pidgins I launched what would be the point we're at completely opposite ends on this one Blue, shame I usually go along with most of your lines of thought.
Stranger, this could be more or less another attempt by me to convey why I'm not debating have a read I know this post is addressed to Blue but it could equally be to your good self or any other remainer.
Regards, ippy.
-
Ippy said this on the Searching for God thread
"Sovereignty, is at the top of my list among several other, I think very good solid reasons why we the UK should leaving.
I think for various reasons family and friends etc we're all set with our decisions I won't be altering my wish to leave the EU decision and as I've said from my own experience everybody seems to be wearing their tin hats ready for battle.
I really do think the'll be a lot of unpleasant trouble if remainers get anywhere near to frustrating the referendum winning leave vote I sincerely hope not.
I don't see any point in discussing brexit one way or another, will you be changing your pov, I doubt it well nor will I.
Kind regards ippy"
And also referenced Lord Pearson who thinks the BBC is biased against leaving the EU. He's a former leader of UKIP.
You don't seem able to give an argument to support your view of the EU. How has our sovereignty been compromised by being a member of the EU? I don't think it has, but I can't argue against your position if all you say is "sovereignty".
From my own experience of listening to BBC news (especially Today on R4 (and I know anecdotes aren't evidence)) I would say its bias is towards the Conservative Party. Today is edited by a friend of Johnson's and regularly presented by a committed anti-European (John Humphrys) and a chap who's held a number of official positions within Conservative Party organisations (Nick Robinson). Listen to an interview by Humphrys of David Davis or Mogg, then to an interview of any Labour or remain supporting politician. While I accept that I'm more likely to notice when my existing opinions are being reinforced, the double standards are blatant.
And when you say nobody will change their minds, speak for yourself. I am open to rational, logical arguments and ready to change my mind if I'm convinced. All I'm seeing at the moment is a gang of tin-pot would-be despots, liars and incompetents, with no respect for democracy, hi-jacking our woefully inadequate "constitution" to drive through a policy that they are well aware a majority of the electorate don't want any more (if they ever did). Mogg, Martin, Banks etc want out of the EU before January when anti-tax avoidance laws come into effect and if they can destabilise the EU, which has been an effective counter to economic domination by US into the bargain, that will only make them happier. These charlatans need holding to account, but they appear to be able to lie without challenge on the BBC.
Watching The Rise of the Nazis last night brought two things to mind. In 50 years time, if civilisation survives (not leaving the EU, climate change) how will this episode be seen and will those who've used positions of influence to facilitate people like Farage be proud of their role; and if you're right about "unpleasant trouble" from people who prefer violence to rational argument, I might get to die fighting fascists instead of dribbling my last days away in an underfunded and neglectful care home. That you think threats are a substitute for rational argument is depressing, but I know you're not the only one because I look at Twitter.
Treat yourself to the book titled 'The Noble Liar', Robin Aitken and see what you think.
Regards, ippy.
-
Ippy,
In my book democracy is and still was the vote taken in 2016,…
So regardless of a corrupted referendum and regardless of the evidence that’s become available since nonetheless you think that that one vote on that one day should now be binding, even though it was only ever advisory in any case? (Oh, and it was only because it was advisory by the way that it wasn't scrapped and re-run lawfully as it would have been had it been a binding vote.)
And you think that’s democratic? Seriously though?
.. surly you're not still not looking for the best out of three - five, we're supposed to be the dippy ones that didn't know what we were voting for.
That’s a tory BS trope that collapses as soon as you examine it. You’d only have a best of three (or whatever) if the circumstances were the same each time and you were just hoping for a different answer. The circumstances now though are very different from those in 2016 – we actually have a factual basis for knowing what Brexit would look like, and it’s not at all pretty.
My promised supercar I sold you a while back for £1k that turned out to be a rusty old banger instead – I do hope you won’t ask to change tor mind about your decision. After all, it’s not a best of thrree you know.
More than likely I won't be changing my mind for similar reasons to why you won't be changing your mind because we don't necessarily agree on what we think are the facts and it wouldn't matter how many clay pidgins I launched what would be the point we're at completely opposite ends on this one Blue, shame I usually go along with most of your lines of thought.
Doesn’t work. This isn’t evidence of the “marmite tastes nice/no it doesn’t type” – this is evidence from multiple, highly qualified sources that’s already beginning to happen as businesses close, investments are cancelled etc. You can maintain an Alan Burns type faith position – “no logic or evidence will ever change my mind” – if you want to, but it’s not a good look as you know full well from your dealings with him.
Stranger, this could be more or less another attempt by me to convey why I'm not debating have a read I know this post is addressed to Blue but it could equally be to your good self or any other remainer.
Yes we know Ala – er – ippy.
-
In my book democracy is and still was the vote taken in 2016,
Why? We had a vote in 1975. Why ignore that vote?
why I'm not debating
We know why you're not debating. It's because you have nothing to debate with. We've repeatedly asked you to tell us how the EU makes your life worse and how it will be improved by Brexit but you have no answer.
-
Why? We had a vote in 1975. Why ignore that vote?We know why you're not debating. It's because you have nothing to debate with. We've repeatedly asked you to tell us how the EU makes your life worse and how it will be improved by Brexit but you have no answer.
I voted against the EEC as it was then as well, I repeatedly tell you why; it seems you have a need or want a punch bag and are disapointed when you haven't got one, it's as though I haven't answere
Regards, ippy.
-
Ippy,
So regardless of a corrupted referendum and regardless of the evidence that’s become available since nonetheless you think that that one vote on that one day should now be binding, even though it was only ever advisory in any case? (Oh, and it was only because it was advisory by the way that it wasn't scrapped and re-run lawfully as it would have been had it been a binding vote.)
And you think that’s democratic? Seriously though?
That’s a tory BS trope that collapses as soon as you examine it. You’d only have a best of three (or whatever) if the circumstances were the same each time and you were just hoping for a different answer. The circumstances now though are very different from those in 2016 – we actually have a factual basis for knowing what Brexit would look like, and it’s not at all pretty.
My promised supercar I sold you a while back for £1k that turned out to be a rusty old banger instead – I do hope you won’t ask to change tor mind about your decision. After all, it’s not a best of thrree you know.
Doesn’t work. This isn’t evidence of the “marmite tastes nice/no it doesn’t type” – this is evidence from multiple, highly qualified sources that’s already beginning to happen as businesses close, investments are cancelled etc. You can maintain an Alan Burns type faith position – “no logic or evidence will ever change my mind” – if you want to, but it’s not a good look as you know full well from your dealings with him.
Yes we know Ala – er – ippy.
Nice try Blue.
Regards, ippy
-
it's as though I haven't answere
I think we've all told you at one time or another. You haven't.
-
Just seen a newsflash, and no doubt details will follow, that the Court of Session have found that Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful - not doubt this will be appealed but is a further illustration of the chaos that Brexit is causing.
-
Apparently it goes to the UK Supreme Court next week, so no immediate change.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855
Scotland's High Court has just ruled that Johnson's suspension of parliament is unlawful!
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855
Scotland's High Court has just ruled that Johnson's suspension of parliament is unlawful!
Not that that's meaningless as such, but practically is it going to have an impact? I don't imagine Parliament is going to come back and sit? Johnson might well get a reprimand, but he just has to cycle through Justice Secretaries until he appoints one that will commute any punishment that might arise? In the meantime, he still has no oversight on efforts to subvert the will of Parliament and weasel his way around the latest Brexit bill.
It shouldn't make a difference, but it does, that this isn't an 'English' court, but rather a Scottish one - I think he'd be marginally less inclined to ignore it if it were the other way round (and if Gina Miller's similar case hadn't already been found the other way, of course).
O.
-
Not that that's meaningless as such, but practically is it going to have an impact? I don't imagine Parliament is going to come back and sit? Johnson might well get a reprimand, but he just has to cycle through Justice Secretaries until he appoints one that will commute any punishment that might arise? In the meantime, he still has no oversight on efforts to subvert the will of Parliament and weasel his way around the latest Brexit bill.
It shouldn't make a difference, but it does, that this isn't an 'English' court, but rather a Scottish one - I think he'd be marginally less inclined to ignore it if it were the other way round (and if Gina Miller's similar case hadn't already been found the other way, of course).
O.
Not sure how much jurisdiction the English justice secretary will have under Scots Law.
As I understand it, should the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Session judgement, English law cannot supercede Scots law.
If it does, all hell will break loose here.
-
The Scottish decision says in no certain terms that he lied to the Queen. That's huge - if the decision is upheld next week no PM could survive that.
-
I think we've all told you at one time or another. You haven't.
I wouldn't describe any of the posters on this forum as daft, your good self included, just that we quite obviously have differing views about brexit and I've frequently repeated that, 'I won't be putting up any clay pidgins', I wouldn't have thought that could be taken as a cryptic statement.
Regards, ippy.
-
...I've frequently repeated that, 'I won't be putting up any clay pidgins', I wouldn't have thought that could be taken as a cryptic statement.
It just emphasises the fact that you will not actually debate the issues. The fact that you still want to keep posting about it, however, suggests that, rather like AB, you want to preach your faith without any engagement with reasoning and logic.
-
Not sure how much jurisdiction the English justice secretary will have under Scots Law.
As far as I understand it, he's not the English Justice Secretary, he's the UK Justice Secretary and therefore technically is last recourse in the UK, even supplanting the Scottish Court.
As I understand it, should the Supreme Court uphold the Court of Session judgement, English law cannot supercede Scots law.
I confess, I've not kept up with the place of the Supreme Court in all this, I don't recall if it trumps the Justice Secretary, sits below him or replaces him in the scheme of things.
If it does, all hell will break loose here.
That, at the moment, seems to be norm, unfortunately...
O.
-
As far as I understand it, he's not the English Justice Secretary, he's the UK Justice Secretary and therefore technically is last recourse in the UK, even supplanting the Scottish Court.
I confess, I've not kept up with the place of the Supreme Court in all this, I don't recall if it trumps the Justice Secretary, sits below him or replaces him in the scheme of things.
That, at the moment, seems to be norm, unfortunately...
O.
The Scotland Act (1998) gave the jurisdiction of Scots law to the Scottish Parliament, with the understanding that any Supreme Court ruling affecting that law would be observed by Holyrood.
The UK cannot interfere withouth amending the Act, which might require a referendum, since the Act itself was only passed by Westminster after the overwhelming double Yes vote - curiously enough on this day in 1997.
-
It just emphasises the fact that you will not actually debate the issues. The fact that you still want to keep posting about it, however, suggests that, rather like AB, you want to preach your faith without any engagement with reasoning and logic.
I'm sure I conveyed somewhere here that remain and leave are never as I can see it to any extent will be in agreement anywhere near enough to be able to resolve this difference.
It's such a profound difference you're unlikely to get any other match to this disagreement in another lifetime or maybe more, it's a complete standoff this leave or remain.
I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.
All the EU should be by now be seen as just another potential trading block, after all that's what the referendum was all about, a trading block that's very welcome to go its own way in the same way we should be I don't see them as enemies in common with how most leavers view the EU.
Regards, ippy
-
I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.
There was no 'standoff' leading up to the 2016 referendum: you are imagining that, where leaving the EU was not of great public concern in either the 2010 or 2015 GE's.
The referendum was a device to tackle Tory party problems, in that Cameron wanted to silence his own lunatic fringe (Cash et al) and also any future electoral threat from Farage/UKIP - we were supposed to vote 'Remain' you see, which would have silenced both these elements for the foreseeable future, which is why Cameron looked like a frightened rabbit the day after: nobody had planned for the result he got.
-
I'm sure I conveyed somewhere here that remain and leave are never as I can see it to any extent will be in agreement anywhere near enough to be able to resolve this difference.
It's such a profound difference you're unlikely to get any other match to this disagreement in another lifetime or maybe more, it's a complete standoff this leave or remain.
I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.
Yes, you keep on and on with these mantras in order to avoid any actual reasoning. This is not (however much you may want it to be) just a matter of abstract principles, this has the potential to ruin people's lives across this country.
Apparently you can't or won't say, in any practical, down-to-earth way, what you find so terrible about the UK being in the EU, but you're quite prepared to make people suffer for your faith that it is bad. The very fact that you keep calling it an unbridgeable gap that can never be overcome suggests that you didn't arrive at your choice by reasoning or evidence (otherwise, you'd have to be open to changing your mind).
This looks just like blind faith and religious fervour...
-
Ippy,
I'm sure I conveyed somewhere here that remain and leave are never as I can see it to any extent will be in agreement anywhere near enough to be able to resolve this difference.
It's such a profound difference you're unlikely to get any other match to this disagreement in another lifetime or maybe more, it's a complete standoff this leave or remain.
I also conveyed that I thought that the only thing to do with such a diametrically opposed standoff was a referendum, the referendum was for leave or remain and I'm sure I heard correctly that the leave side of this gulf of a difference won the day, leave having won the day all of the rest should be regarded as hot air and we should now after all of these years now be well into getting on with trade with as many countries in the world we can including the EU.
All the EU should be by now be seen as just another potential trading block, after all that's what the referendum was all about, a trading block that's very welcome to go its own way in the same way we should be I don't see them as enemies in common with how most leavers view the EU.
There was no “stand off” – the issue was substantially whipped up by an unholy alliance of political extremists, a callow PM who thought he could fend off leeching votes in a coming election to those extremists, and a right wing press led by the Mail.
And if you heard correctly that the leave voters won and that the result should stand, then I heard correctly that you voted to buy my supercar for £5k and that the decision should stand too even though you received a pile of scrap.
-
Not sure about the Scots law thingy? The Dug will tell you what the mess is....but I doubt LBJ will be able to extracate himself from it...... https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/11/the-mess-got-messier-very-quickly/
-
There was no “stand off” – the issue was substantially whipped up by an unholy alliance of political extremists, a callow PM who thought he could fend off leeching votes in a coming election to those extremists, and a right wing press led by the Mail.
And it was a completely 'whipped up' issue - not one that bothered the vast majority of people. For years MORI have performed a monthly issues monitor - effectively they ask people, unprompted, what they think is the most important issue facing the country and then ask them to name as many other important issues as they like. Remember unprompted. So people could say 'jobs', education, terrorism, the NHS etc etc as they wish. The result are then collated into broad headings - so if someone said 'health' and another said 'NHS' they'd be lumped together.
So there has been a category (termed EU/Euro/Common market/Brexit) that collates all the people who think that is an issue without being prompted. So of course now it is the most important issue with approx 60-70% of people thinking it is the most or another important issue facing the country.
So what about in 2015 when Cameron called the referendum - surely it was a burning issue - well, no - less than 5% of the population saw the EU as an issue - yes 5%. Why on earth we had a referendum with the result that we are destroying our country on a issue that less than one in 20 thought important is beyond me.
-
I voted against the EEC as it was then as well,
But Remain won on that occasion. Why are you going against that democratic vote?
I repeatedly tell you why;
No you don't. You have never told me why you personally will be better off with us outside the EU. Surely you can think of one indisputable advantage to you of leaving the EU. If not, why are you so set on doing it?
it seems you have a need or want a punch bag and are disapointed when you haven't got one,
But we have got one. If you want to stop being a punchbag, present arguments that show why you are right.
it's as though I haven't answered
Yes, it is isn't it. Perhaps that is because you haven't answered.
-
Not that that's meaningless as such, but practically is it going to have an impact?
It will have no impact. We will already be well into the prorogation, plus I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. I was extremely surprised that the Scottish Court didn't throw the case out because, IFAICS Johnson was within his rights to prorogue Parliament.
-
In my book democracy is and still was the vote taken in 2016,
Why is that other than your side won that vote - by that argument the 1975 referendum should have been definitive and final
surly you're not still not looking for the best out of three - five, we're supposed to be the dippy ones that didn't know what we were voting for.
Well we are already on the 'best of three' as we've had two straight remain vs leave referendums. For the record the cumulative total is currently:
Remain: 33,519,822
Leave: 25,880,815
-
The Yellowhammer document, with 1 para (para 15) redacted - I suspect that will cause a stushie, as will the government's refusal to publish other documents as required by the HoC vote. Ain't Brexit fun!
Yellowhammer paper (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf)
-
The Yellowhammer document, with 1 para (para 15) redacted - I suspect that will cause a stushie, as will the government's refusal to publish other documents as required by the HoC vote. Ain't Brexit fun!
Yellowhammer paper (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf)
Is that it - I thought they'd been working on this for months - 5 pages and absolute zero detail on the likely effects. Heaven help us.
-
For anyone interested - the redacted para 15 has been released by the journalist Rosamund Urwin
15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries
-
Is that it - I thought they'd been working on this for months - 5 pages and absolute zero detail on the likely effects. Heaven help us.
Thank goodness they managed to update the title to say "worst case" instead of "base case" as it was earlier :o
-
It will have no impact. We will already be well into the prorogation, plus I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. I was extremely surprised that the Scottish Court didn't throw the case out because, IFAICS Johnson was within his rights to prorogue Parliament.
The Scottish case, as far as I can tell, rests on the fact that technically it isn't the Prime Minister that prorogues parliament, it's the Monarch on his advice. The suggestion is that he lied about why, and therefore the proroguation was engineered under false pretences. Exactly how they can establish that Johnson lied isn't clear - even if his primary motivation was to bypass a parliament that wasn't complying with his legislative agenda, the reason(s) he did give could be entirely valid, and if that's sufficient for the Monarch to agree (and let's face it, our democracy works because she doesn't contradict Parliament) then he's not lying, he's just selecting which elements he wants to go on record with.
Unless there's something in the evidence that I'm not privy to, I can't see a) how the Scottish court came to its decision or b) that the Supreme Court will back them up on it.
O.
-
Is that it - I thought they'd been working on this for months - 5 pages and absolute zero detail on the likely effects. Heaven help us.
I assumed it was just a summary. There must have been quite a lot of work behind some of their conclusions, unless they just made them up.
-
This could be interesting - those behind the recent Court of Session case in Scotland have filed another: it seems that the Court of Session has a unique power 'nobile officium' among UK courts that, if granted, means the court could send an A50 extension request to the EU even if Johnson refused to make the request himself, as he has indicated. Whether it flies or not is another matter.
They hope the nobile officium power could mean the court will send the article 50 extension letter on Johnson’s behalf, if he refused to do so.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/anti-brexiters-new-legal-challenge-scotland-to-force-article-50-extension
-
This could be interesting - those behind the recent Court of Session case in Scotland have filed another: it seems that the Court of Session has a unique power 'nobile officium' among UK courts that, if granted, means the court could send an A50 extension request to the EU even if Johnson refused to make the request himself, as he has indicated. Whether it flies or not is another matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/anti-brexiters-new-legal-challenge-scotland-to-force-article-50-extension
While the Scottish Court of Session may be opening up these opportunities, they aren't the final arbiter - that will be the Supreme Court of the UK - both the prorogue decision and this one will end up there.
-
While the Scottish Court of Session may be opening up these opportunities, they aren't the final arbiter - that will be the Supreme Court of the UK - both the prorogue decision and this one will end up there.
The article doesn't mention whether the second case, where the 'nobile officium' power seems to be unique to the Court of Session, can be appealed to the UK Supreme Court - perhaps it can, but I suppose if it were used because Johnson hadn't obeyed the recent new law then its use may well be justified. This, from the Weegingerdug, explains the background and includes a legal link that describes the power, and notes that the case is against Johnson and not the UK government.
Now a new court case has been brought by Joanna Cherry, Jo Maugham, and the businessman Dale Vince who is funding the case. They have applied directly to the Court of Session to request it to make use of a power of the court called nobile officium, a power which is unique to Scots law. This is the power of the court to intervene directly in order to ensure that the law is fulfilled. The case will, if it is successful, mean that the clerk of a Scottish court could sign a letter to the EU requesting an extension to Article 50 if the Prime Minister refuses to obey the law and do so himself. Unlike the previous case, which was against the British Government, this latest case is against LBJ personally. It’s not clear what sanctions would be taken against the Prime Minister, we can but hope it’s to be strung up by his nobile officiums.
According to The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland (see http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/60-12/1021064.aspx#.XXqE3mZ7nIU ) there are four conditions which must be met before the court will exercise the power of nobile officium.
Firstly there should be some exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. Secondly, “there should be a sense of urgency, injustice or need justifying an extraordinary response from the court.” Thirdly, the petition must not contravene statutory intention, or be used in such a way as to extend the scope of a statutory provision, or to require a person to act contrary to their statutory duties. And fourthly, there should be no other remedy available to the petitioner. It remains to be seen whether the Court of Session believes all four of these conditions to have been met.
This is one Scot who would be delighted if a Scottish Court can force Johnson's hand.
-
The article doesn't mention whether the second case, where the 'nobile officium' power seems to be unique to the Court of Session, can be appealed to the UK Supreme Court - perhaps it can, but I suppose if it were used because Johnson hadn't obeyed the recent new law then its use may well be justified. This, from the Weegingerdug, explains the background and includes a legal quote that describes the power, and notes that the case is against Johnson and not the UK government.
This is one Scot who would be delighted if a Scottish Court can force Johnson's hand.
Yep.
-
While the Scottish Court of Session may be opening up these opportunities, they aren't the final arbiter - that will be the Supreme Court of the UK - both the prorogue decision and this one will end up there.
Isn't there an EU court that over rules the UK Supreme court as well, no one has mentioned it?
ippy
-
Isn't there an EU court that over rules the UK Supreme court as well, no one has mentioned it?
ippy
The European Court of Justice can issue findings about European law as it applies in Britain, but I'm reasonably sure this is a constitutional British issue, and therefore outside of the ECJ's remit. The European Court of Human Rights can issue advisory findings which don't technically have any formal standing although the UK courts habitually tend to follow their lead, but again it has a narrow remit - arguably someone could take this case to the ECHR if they can suggest that Johnson proroguation denied them appropriate political representation, but so long as what he's done is within the bounds of law (and, as we don't have a formal constitution, there is no law here to be broken) I don't see they'd have standing.
O.
-
Isn't there an EU court that over rules the UK Supreme court as well, no one has mentioned it?
Not in this case, no. The ECJ can only make judgements about EU law and the ECHR (should anybody decide it's a human rights issue) is not an EU court.
-
When I went to the pharmacy this afternoon to pick up my husband's meds, they told me that they were already experiencing problems in getting some people's medications due to Brexit uncertainty. :o
-
Brexit: Public believes immigration can be controlled without leaving EU in remarkable turnaround, survey finds (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-eu-immigration-control-vote-leave-latest-a9102686.html)
More data suggesting that leave voters had little idea of what they were voting against.
-
Brexit: Public believes immigration can be controlled without leaving EU in remarkable turnaround, survey finds (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-eu-immigration-control-vote-leave-latest-a9102686.html)
More data suggesting that leave voters had little idea of what they were voting against.
True: and if you dropped the last six words from your sentence that would be true too.
-
The European Court of Justice can issue findings about European law as it applies in Britain, but I'm reasonably sure this is a constitutional British issue, and therefore outside of the ECJ's remit. The European Court of Human Rights can issue advisory findings which don't technically have any formal standing although the UK courts habitually tend to follow their lead, but again it has a narrow remit - arguably someone could take this case to the ECHR if they can suggest that Johnson proroguation denied them appropriate political representation, but so long as what he's done is within the bounds of law (and, as we don't have a formal constitution, there is no law here to be broken) I don't see they'd have standing.
O.
Wow. It's almost as if the statement made by the Leave Campaigns that EU courts can overrule ours was a lie.
ETA: Not suggesting Ippy was lying, merely lied to.
-
True: and if you dropped the last six words from your sentence that would be true too.
I don't think that's true. I know several Leave voters who I would normally count as being quite knowledgeable. Ippy, for example, is normally not clueless about other subjects.
-
I don't think that's true. I know several Leave voters who I would normally count as being quite knowledgeable. Ippy, for example, is normally not clueless about other subjects.
I'll confess that I was being facetious.
-
I watched the Last Night of the Proms, yesterday. One of the most interesting features of the (unruly) audience was the great number of EU flags being waved and EU berets being worn by the promenaders. My guess is that - perhaps - a quarter of the people in the arena were bearing some kind of EU device. Completely outnumbered all other national symbols.
-
I watched the Last Night of the Proms, yesterday. One of the most interesting features of the (unruly) audience was the great number of EU flags being waved and EU berets being worn by the promenaders. My guess is that - perhaps - a quarter of the people in the arena were bearing some kind of EU device. Completely outnumbered all other national symbols.
Just a pity they didn't have Beethoven's Ode toJoy instead of that Imperialistic Land of Hope and Glory claptrap.
-
I see another Tory has defected to the Lib Dems.
-
I see another Tory has defected to the Lib Dems.
a despicable act of self preservation and his speach giving his reasons was embarrassing .
-
I am hoping against hope that Article 50 will be revoked.
-
a despicable act of self preservation and his speach giving his reasons was embarrassing .
Not as embarrassing as remaining a Tory, bearing in mind the catastrofuck the Tories have orchestrated.
-
I don't think that's true. I know several Leave voters who I would normally count as being quite knowledgeable. Ippy, for example, is normally not clueless about other subjects.
I've been thinking the same as you jp only visa versa!
Regards, ippy.
-
I've been thinking the same as you jp only visa versa!
Regards, ippy.
The whole remain argument once they lost has been leavers are stupid, they didn't know what they were voting for, blah blah blah. The thing is leavers knew exactly what they were voting for. The question was simple. And we must remember it wasn't just a Tory versus Labour thing either. Many leave voters were Labour voters, a party which traditionally has been Eurosceptic.
-
The whole remain argument once they lost has been leavers are stupid, they didn't know what they were voting for, blah blah blah.
Nonsense, it was that the the leave campaign was dishonest. Despite that, many accepted the result and sought a way to deliver the result while minimising damage - now we have a government that seems intent on something that even Gove said was never voted on: no deal.
The thing is leavers knew exactly what they were voting for. The question was simple.
Although the question was "simple" (simplistic), it is actually logically impossible for people who voted leave to have known exactly what they were voting for, because leave could have meant anything from remaining in the single market and customs union (as many leave campaigners suggested) through to a no deal.
The fact remains, no matter how much some people may have voted for "leave at any and every cost to me and mine", trying to claim that every leave voter (or even a majority) did that, as opposed to voting for what the leave campaign told them it would be like, is utterly absurd.
-
The whole remain argument once they lost has been leavers are stupid
No the remain argument is
1. This will be disastrous for the UK
2. The Leavers were lied to, not just by the leaders of the campaign but also by the media over decades.
The thing is leavers knew exactly what they were voting for.
They knew they were voting for the destruction of the UK, the resumption of hostilities in NI, the rape of the economy and making enemies of all our neighbours?
Why in fuck's name did they vote for Brexit?
The question was simple. And we must remember it wasn't just a Tory versus Labour thing either. Many leave voters were Labour voters, a party which traditionally has been Eurosceptic.
What's that got to do with anything?
-
The thing is leavers knew exactly what they were voting for.
Really - have you spoken to all of them.
But there is a broader point. How could they have known what they were voting for given that the nature of the 'leaving' was not, and could not have, been known at the time of the referendum. That doesn't mean that leavers were stupid, but that they were voting for something which hadn't been worked out at that point.
And all you need to do to demonstrate the veracity of this view is to look at 'leaver' on 'leaver' action with, for example Farage and the ERG claiming that anyone supporting a May-type deal isn't in fact a brexiteer as May's deal isn't brexit.
-
Just a pity they didn't have Beethoven's Ode to Joy instead of that Imperialistic Land of Hope and Glory claptrap.
Elgar wrote a set of marches - which he called Pomp and Circumstance. The march played at the Last Night is the first in that series. He did not write Land of Hope and Glory. The trio section of the march was hi-jacked later and words added by someone else. "Pomp and circumstance" is a quotation from Othello, and is part of a highly ironic, bitter speech made by Othello after he realises the depth of the deception by the treacherous Iago.
Elgar's marches are first-rate examples of the musical form. They are not claptrap. Elgar himself was not an imperialist and was deeply saddened by the use of his march (and other music) during WW1.
The Last Night of the Proms is a party. Ode to Joy would be totally out of place.
END OF DERAIL
The point that I was hoping to make was simply that here was a public event at which a noticeably large number of people were demonstrating their apparent opposition to the potential disaster facing us.
-
No the remain argument is
1. This will be disastrous for the UK
2. The Leavers were lied to, not just by the leaders of the campaign but also by the media over decades.
They knew they were voting for the destruction of the UK, the resumption of hostilities in NI, the rape of the economy and making enemies of all our neighbours?
Why in fuck's name did they vote for Brexit?
What's that got to do with anything?
All in your opinion jp, which of course you're entitled to have.
I never did want to be tied to this European dream ever since the very beginning and jumped for joy at the opportunity to vote against it in 2016.
The time that creep Brown crept away shame faced to Lisbon avoiding every bit of publicity he possibly could sealed it for me, I wouldn't have been surprised if I was told that he'd he'd taken the crown jewels with him to give away too the underhanded dealing bastard, on top of all that, I don't like him either.
Regards, ippy.
-
I never did want to be tied to this European dream ever since the very beginning and jumped for joy at the opportunity to vote against it in 2016.
That's nice for you but you still don't seem able or willing to say in what way the UK being a part of this "European dream" has made your life so bad that you're prepared to see real damage to real people's lives and livelihoods, in order to be rid of it. Nor can you give any way in which you expect it to improve if/when we leave.
You seem perfectly happy to see real suffering inflicted on people (apparently) just so you, and people like you, can have a warm fuzzy feeling that your country isn't part of some "European dream".
-
Seems there is a flaw in the Benn Act (see link below) that clashes with the already active 2018 Withdrawal Act, which explains reports that Johnson thinks there is a way around the Benn Act that still keeps a 'no deal' exit as an option.
It depends on Johnson getting the HoC to agree a revised withdrawal deal by the 19th Oct, since the requirement of the Benn Act that he seek an extension from the EU would fall away. If so then the existing 2018 Withdrawal Act kicks in, and this requires that further ratification must be passed by the HOC before the 31st October in order that the revised EU exit deal to become law - all Johnson et al need do then is prevent these further requirements of the 2018 Withdrawal Act getting through the HoC by the end of October and the default is then a 'no deal' Brexit. There are already reports of a further prorogation being mooted for immediately after any new EU exit deal had been passed by the HoC (by 19th Oct) so as to prevent the subsequent ratification steps getting through the HoC in time.
Hopefully, now that this is in the public domain, the HoC will refuse to pass any deal presented by Johnson (if he has one, which isn't certain) by the 19th Oct so that the Benn Act then applies, since the HoC agreeing a revised EU exit deal could, ironically, lead to a 'no deal' Brexit. If they can do that then the Benn Act would apply, and if Johnson then refuses to request an extension as required by that act then hopefully the Court of Session in Edinburgh will decide to do it for him.
Hard to square this type of Machiavellian manoeuvring with 'bringing the country together'.
https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/
-
Elgar wrote a set of marches - which he called Pomp and Circumstance. The march played at the Last Night is the first in that series. He did not write Land of Hope and Glory. The trio section of the march was hi-jacked later and words added by someone else. "Pomp and circumstance" is a quotation from Othello, and is part of a highly ironic, bitter speech made by Othello after he realises the depth of the deception by the treacherous Iago. Elgar's marches are first-rate examples of the musical form. They are not claptrap. Elgar himself was not an imperialist and was deeply saddened by the use of his march (and other music) during WW1. The Last Night of the Proms is a party. Ode to Joy would be totally out of place. END OF DERAIL The point that I was hoping to make was simply that here was a public event at which a noticeably large number of people were demonstrating their apparent opposition to the potential disaster facing us.
I have Elgar's 'pomp and circumstance' - which is why I referred to "tat 'land of hope and glory claptrap"'. I don't like the Christian hmyn words slapped onto the tune by the otherwise laudable All souls Orchestra as part of their 'Prom Praise', either.
-
I have Elgar's 'pomp and circumstance' - which is why I referred to "tat 'land of hope and glory claptrap"'. I don't like the Christian hmyn words slapped onto the tune by the otherwise laudable All souls Orchestra as part of their 'Prom Praise', either.
OK - I take your point - and probably agree. But having attended the Last Night on three occasions (back in the time of Malcolm Sargent) the event does have a special significance for me.
-
That's nice for you but you still don't seem able or willing to say in what way the UK being a part of this "European dream" has made your life so bad that you're prepared to see real damage to real people's lives and livelihoods, in order to be rid of it. Nor can you give any way in which you expect it to improve if/when we leave.
You seem perfectly happy to see real suffering inflicted on people (apparently) just so you, and people like you, can have a warm fuzzy feeling that your country isn't part of some "European dream".
You seem to think leaving the EU is all bad when most of the doom & gloom evidence we hear and have heard about actual leaving forecasts have proved to be wrong, it's not going to be me to remind you of these, in these instances I'm not going to be your man.
If you were to say you haven't heard the gloom and doom forecasts that proved to be wrong where have you been?
Their's going to be good and bad for various groups of people whichever way leaving or remain goes we obviously differ on which choice is the best, that's fine by me but I know I'll not be changing my mind probably much the same as yourself.
Regards, ippy.
-
I think leaving the EU will be very bad for Britain, I can't think of any positive outcome, we need them they need us.
-
You seem to think leaving the EU is all bad when most of the doom & gloom evidence we hear and have heard about actual leaving forecasts have proved to be wrong, it's not going to be me to remind you of these, in these instances I'm not going to be your man.
Some citations would be nice, ippy, else it could be concluded that you might have been taken in by propaganda - for example, which of these forecasts would you say are factually wrong? After all, if you say some forecasts are wrong then you must know which forecasts you are referring to.
-
All in your opinion jp, which of course you're entitled to have.
Not really - in the opinion of pretty much every independent financial and social analytical paper or commentary that's been published, in the view of the civil service's various departments briefings, in the opinion of an extremely wide range of industry bodies...
I never did want to be tied to this European dream ever since the very beginning and jumped for joy at the opportunity to vote against it in 2016.
Good for you. There are third world countries you can emigrate to, you don't need to try and turn Britain into one.
The time that creep Brown crept away shame faced to Lisbon avoiding every bit of publicity he possibly could sealed it for me, I wouldn't have been surprised if I was told that he'd he'd taken the crown jewels with him to give away too the underhanded dealing bastard, on top of all that, I don't like him either.
Well if that isn't a well-reasoned critique of the remain arguments I don't know what is...
You seem to think leaving the EU is all bad when most of the doom & gloom evidence we hear and have heard about actual leaving forecasts have proved to be wrong, it's not going to be me to remind you of these, in these instances I'm not going to be your man.
Given that we haven't actually left yet, how can you tell? Ignoring, of course, the fact that despite our not having left yet we've already seen a wide range of negative effects; some of those, undoubtedly, are the result of uncertainty about if/when the shit will finally finish circling the fan, but only some of it.
Their's going to be good and bad for various groups of people whichever way leaving or remain goes we obviously differ on which choice is the best, that's fine by me but I know I'll not be changing my mind probably much the same as yourself.
There's going to be readily apparent, short-term, significant quantifiable problems for everyone. There's going to be a long term lack of opportunities and financial difficulties for an extremely wide range of people, and some opportunities for a limited number of people with influential friends and deep pockets who can weather the hardships, and there's going to be an opportunity for self-congratulatory boners for a small number of ideologically driven free-market wank-jobs who think they've invented Britain 2.0 when they've actually enabled a race to the bottom for anything even vaguely resembling a standard as free-market nodules try to out-America America in the face of pricing undercuts because people who feel rather than think dreamed of olden days with blue passport and Union Jacks flying over the Raj...
O.
-
All in your opinion jp, which of course you're entitled to have.
At least I've got an opinion. I don't run away when asked to justify my Remain stance.
I never did want to be tied to this European dream ever since the very beginning and jumped for joy at the opportunity to vote against it in 2016.
But you have, so far, failed to tell us what is bad about the European dream. You have imposed your view on me. I will lose several freedoms. I think I have a right to know what's so good about being the pariah of Europe.
The time that creep Brown crept away shame faced to Lisbon avoiding every bit of publicity he possibly could sealed it for me, I wouldn't have been surprised if I was told that he'd he'd taken the crown jewels with him to give away too the underhanded dealing bastard, on top of all that, I don't like him either.
But that's just irrational nonsense based on your hatred of Gordon Brown. We need to know why you've fucked us over for the next generation or two.
-
When the incredible Hulk turned into the invisible chicken.
A nice comment from the Dug.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/17/the-blawflummer/
-
Hi ippy, apologies for the delay replying to your reading recommendation. The book is a critique of the BBC's output as "liberal" and "left leaning". Whether that's true or not, I fail to see how it has anything to do with your reasons for wanting to leave the EU. You still haven't given any arguments as to why you think leaving the EU will be good for the country for me to consider, so I'll continue to assume you haven't got any.
On the subject of the appeal to the Supreme Court, I hope they don't use the get-out that this is political and the courts shouldn't be interested, because that, it seems to me, would give the executive free rein to do anything they like. The judiciary is another pillar of our "constitution" isn't it? If it has no restraining power over an over-reaching executive, which is apparently free to ignore parliament, I think we're in trouble.
The most telling thing I've seen in the last few days is the juxtaposition of Johnson telling a press conference in Rotherham that he never said something with a film recording of him saying exactly that thing. Why would anybody, here or in Europe, believe a word he says?
-
Some citations would be nice, ippy, else it could be concluded that you might have been taken in by propaganda - for example, which of these forecasts would you say are factually wrong? After all, if you say some forecasts are wrong then you must know which forecasts you are referring to.
As per the post you're referring to Gordon.
Regards, ippy.
-
As per the post you're referring to Gordon.
Regards, ippy.
IF you think that is an answer there is no wonder you are so easily convinced by runaway Boris. The spirit of Churchill incarnate. ::)
-
Hi ippy, apologies for the delay replying to your reading recommendation. The book is a critique of the BBC's output as "liberal" and "left leaning". Whether that's true or not, I fail to see how it has anything to do with your reasons for wanting to leave the EU. You still haven't given any arguments as to why you think leaving the EU will be good for the country for me to consider, so I'll continue to assume you haven't got any.
On the subject of the appeal to the Supreme Court, I hope they don't use the get-out that this is political and the courts shouldn't be interested, because that, it seems to me, would give the executive free rein to do anything they like. The judiciary is another pillar of our "constitution" isn't it? If it has no restraining power over an over-reaching executive, which is apparently free to ignore parliament, I think we're in trouble.
The most telling thing I've seen in the last few days is the juxtaposition of Johnson telling a press conference in Rotherham that he never said something with a film recording of him saying exactly that thing. Why would anybody, here or in Europe, believe a word he says?
The difference in views are so at very distant ends to each other that I can't see there's any reason to discuss, in this brexit case neither side will be going along with anything either side thinks or says, thus other than as I have stated before, sovereignty is at the top of my list of quite a few reasons why I think leave is in the long run is the best choice that's it I've no intention to go into fruitless go nowhere arguments with any remainer.
Don't for one minute think I'm a Boris fan, all I've been voting for in the last three and a bit years is for whoever or wherever I think my vote might further the leave the EU cause, I'm certainly not a Tory.
The liberal ideas portrayed by the guardian/BBC they're exactly similar to each other I find both of them mostly infuriating and not just on their views about brexit, the labour party, well you know that old saying, 'they couldn't organise a p'up in a brewery', none of what seem to be mainstream political parties have anything to offer me.
I find it difficult to disagree in almost any way with Douglas Murray's view on most things, he's about as near as I can get to the point of view that makes the most sense to me.
If this courts judgement assists the UK to leave the EU whatever it might be I'm for it, leaving is more important to me than any verdict they give.
We'll never be agreeing on this one Christine.
Regards ippy
-
IF you think that is an answer there is no wonder you are so easily convinced by runaway Boris. The spirit of Churchill incarnate. ::)
I'm not a Boris fan I just think he's the best bet at the moment to take us out of the EU, if three tea bags and a tent post would be successful at getting us out of the EU, in theory I'd vote for them.
Regards, ippy.
-
I'm not a Boris fan I just think he's the best bet at the moment to take us out of the EU, if three tea bags and a tent post would be successful at getting us out of the EU, in theory I'd vote for them.
Regards, ippy.
Then you are short sighted indeed. The sheer mendacity and incompetence of the man should be ringing alarm bells inside your head. If he gets us out it will be on terms so bad that even you will beg to return to the EU.
-
Trump appears to have taught Boris well in the art of stupidity! :o
-
Then you are short sighted indeed. The sheer mendacity and incompetence of the man should be ringing alarm bells inside your head. If he gets us out it will be on terms so bad that even you will beg to return to the EU.
You would be thinking something like that, you're a remainer.
-
I'm not a Boris fan I just think he's the best bet at the moment to take us out of the EU, if three tea bags and a tent post would be successful at getting us out of the EU, in theory I'd vote for them.
And once again we have you being unable, or unwilling, to give any concrete reasons for this religious fervour of yours to get us out of the EU at any and every cost. Boris the Liar is heading us towards a no-deal that will cost jobs and cause real suffering, yet all you can manage for a reason why you think people should suffer, is some vague statement about sovereignty. How has this affected your life so badly that you're prepared to risk people's livelihoods, and possibly lives, to get rid of it?
Why keep posting on the subject and then run away from any rational discussion about it?
-
And once again we have you being unable, or unwilling, to give any concrete reasons for this religious fervour of yours to get us out of the EU at any and every cost. Boris the Liar is heading us towards a no-deal that will cost jobs and cause real suffering, yet all you can manage for a reason why you think people should suffer, is some vague statement about sovereignty. How has this affected your life so badly that you're prepared to risk people's livelihoods, and possibly lives, to get rid of it?
Why keep posting on the subject and then run away from any rational discussion about it?
I know I'm not a very likely candidate for any kind of literary prize this year or any other but I have said clearly why I'm not arguing with remainers, assuming my English is really is that terrible even so it can't be as bad as you seem to be indicating.
I have no bone with you as an individual but isn't it obvious to you that we'll never agree on this one, it wouldn't matter what defence of leaving the EU I was to put up you'd more than likely want to empty both barrels and try to put whatever's left through the mincer or the liquidiser, therefore with an impasse like that, that has to be resolved, referendum, winner takes all!!
Regards, ippy.
-
Arguing with friends about how to defeat Brexit, it strikes me that the only way is to defeat the Tories and have a Labour govt, which implements a referendum. I am ignoring Swinson's fantasies about a Lib Dem govt, but I think tactical voting is important, I.e., vote for the 2nd party in a Tory seat. Is there any other solution? The idea of a right wing govt, deregulating things, lowering taxes, cutting social services, is horrible.
-
I know I'm not a very likely candidate for any kind of literary prize this year or any other but I have said clearly why I'm not arguing with remainers, assuming my English is really is that terrible even so it can't be as bad as you seem to be indicating.
If you don't want to discuss the matter, you could just stop posting about it. As long as you keep posting your views and then refusing to enter into any discussion about them, I will go on pointing out that you have provided zero justification for them and that you seem to think it's OK for people to suffer to satisfy your abstract, pseudo-religious beliefs.
As I said before, just like the religions your views so resemble, and you so criticise in others, you seem to want to just preach and not be questioned or scrutinised.
-
Arguing with friends about how to defeat Brexit, it strikes me that the only way is to defeat the Tories and have a Labour govt, which implements a referendum. I am ignoring Swinson's fantasies about a Lib Dem govt, but I think tactical voting is important, I.e., vote for the 2nd party in a Tory seat. Is there any other solution? The idea of a right wing govt, deregulating things, lowering taxes, cutting social services, is horrible.
Yes - but leavers can also do the same wrt. Tories vs Farage's Brexit.
Swinson's plan seems bonkers let alone wrong. The only point in its favour is that it is simple - but even if every remainer voted LibDem she probably still wouldn't get a majority government.
-
If you don't want to discuss the matter, you could just stop posting about it. As long as you keep posting your views and then refusing to enter into any discussion about them, I will go on pointing out that you have provided zero justification for them and that you seem to think it's OK for people to suffer to satisfy your abstract, pseudo-religious beliefs.
As I said before, just like the religions your views so resemble, and you so criticise in others, you seem to want to just preach and not be questioned or scrutinised.
To be fair, I can't remember Ippy actually providing a logical argument or explanatory reasoning for his views on any topic - just not his style?
-
IF you think that is an answer there is no wonder you are so easily convinced by runaway Boris. The spirit of Churchill incarnate. ::)
If Boris were the spirit of Churchill incarnate then he would be supporting a united Europe.
-
Arguing with friends about how to defeat Brexit, it strikes me that the only way is to defeat the Tories and have a Labour govt, which implements a referendum. I am ignoring Swinson's fantasies about a Lib Dem govt, but I think tactical voting is important, I.e., vote for the 2nd party in a Tory seat. Is there any other solution? The idea of a right wing govt, deregulating things, lowering taxes, cutting social services, is horrible.
A number of people I know who voted to remain are talking about accepting even a no deal in order for there to be a 'solution'. The problem is I can't see any possibility as a 'solution' now.
-
I find it difficult to disagree in almost any way with Douglas Murray's view on most things, he's about as near as I can get to the point of view that makes the most sense to me.
I hadn't come across Murray so looked him up and was interested to read his explanation (in a Spectator blog) of why he found fears about a no-deal Brexit unconvincing. It was mainly because such fears tended to be expressed by Remainers! Well, who'd have guessed? Then I considered this elision of message and messenger in the context of some of your posts, like this one to Trent:
You would be thinking something like that, you're a remainer.
Do you see the circularity of this position? I suppose it's something we're all susceptible to, perhaps without even noticing it, and I wouldn't venture to suggest that Leavers are more inclined to it than Remainers, but it might help to explain why so many folk haven't budged with respect to their vote in the referendum, despite all that's happened since.
Reflex dismissal of any counter arguments to one's own view on the basis that one pre-judges those who make them as inherently unreliable (because they disagree with you) is a very convenient way of never having to challenge the veracity of ones own position, but the problems with this approach should hardly need elaboration.
It makes me think of the frequently quoted words often attributed to John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
-
A number of people I know who voted to remain are talking about accepting even a no deal in order for there to be a 'solution'. The problem is I can't see any possibility as a 'solution' now.
I think actually putting the Brexiteers through a no deal scenario is the only way to make them see the stupidity of the whole thing. It's just too depressing.
-
Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out. I can't remember any of his points, unfortunately!
-
Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out.
For whom ... the UK or Australia ;)
-
I'm not rejecting anybody's views based on their stated position. I'd like to know what "sovereignty" means to ippy and why he thinks the UK's has been compromised by being in the EU. I'm starting to lose faith in ever getting an answer, though.
Currently the Tories don't seem to have a position on Brexit - some of them want to leave without a deal (presumably to avoid the tax transparency laws coming into force in January), but that's not the Prime Minister's stated position.
The Lib Dems have a position, but it's based on a fantasy and would anyway, in my opinion, exacerbate the existing divisions in our country. They also seem to have jettisoned any principles they had left over after supporting Cameron's government in its smash and grab on the non-wealthy (especially the poor) and now welcome any sitting MP into their party regardless of beliefs and objectives.
Labour says, unless I've completely misunderstood, that they will negotiate a new deal then put that to the electorate in a new referendum with an option to remain in the EU. I think that is the only sensible approach. If the country votes for the deal and we leave, I will be sad, but won't have a democratic leg to stand on to oppose it.
If May had worked with the opposition in the first place to find a deal that would be acceptable to the HoC we could have left by now and again, I would have been sad about it, but what reasonable argument could I have made against it?
Leaving on 31st October without a deal would not end this fiasco. If people want to stop talking about Brexit and get on with normal life again, they should be clamouring for Article 50 to be revoked. Years, or possibly decades, of trade negotiations with countries we currently have advantageous deals with through the EU is a total waste of time, energy and taxpayers' money.
The Independent is reporting that Dominic Cummings now has official authority to sack any minister's advisors. Blimey.
-
Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out. I can't remember any of his points, unfortunately!
He wrote an article last year on the topic in the Spectator, in which his opinion was based largely around this: "Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?"
Well, firstly, because being the fifth largest economy in the world has been achieved by being a part of the largest free-trade block in the world, but discounting that, how exactly are WTO rules working for Australia?
Australia currently has trade agreements which supersede WTO rules with: New Zealand, Singapore, USA, Thailand, Chile, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia, Philipines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Peru, and is negotiating the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, as well as agreements with the EU, the Gulf Co-operation Council, India and potentially the UK.
So WTO works for Australia, basically, when they make agreements which mean they don't have to operate under WTO rules when it comes to dealing with their closest economic partners/rivals and with the world's largest economies and economic groups...
O.
-
I hadn't come across Murray so looked him up and was interested to read his explanation (in a Spectator blog) of why he found fears about a no-deal Brexit unconvincing. It was mainly because such fears tended to be expressed by Remainers! Well, who'd have guessed? Then I considered this elision of message and messenger in the context of some of your posts, like this one to Trent:
Do you see the circularity of this position? I suppose it's something we're all susceptible to, perhaps without even noticing it, and I wouldn't venture to suggest that Leavers are more inclined to it than Remainers, but it might help to explain why so many folk haven't budged with respect to their vote in the referendum, despite all that's happened since.
Reflex dismissal of any counter arguments to one's own view on the basis that one pre-judges those who make them as inherently unreliable (because they disagree with you) is a very convenient way of never having to challenge the veracity of ones own position, but the problems with this approach should hardly need elaboration.
It makes me think of the frequently quoted words often attributed to John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
Excellent post.
However, in my case, the more facts that came to light, the more convinced a remainer I became. I'd originally thought that the Britain's (particularly Cornwall's) fisheries might be much better off if we left the EU. Cornwall did indeed predominantly vote 'leave' - now it seems that their fishermen have really shot themselves in the foot, since the very substantial grants they have been receiving from the EU would immediately cease with the implementation of Brexit.
Odd that the Welsh also predominantly voted 'leave', but I get the impression that a lot of them are at last coming to their senses as the full picture begins to emerge.
However, if the leavers keep on uttering their pathetic mantram "Do you think we were too stupid to understand what Brexit meant from the beginning?", I shall crawl into a vinegar bottle and pull down the stopper on myself.
-
The Lib Dems have a position, but it's based on a fantasy and would anyway, in my opinion, exacerbate the existing divisions in our country. They also seem to have jettisoned any principles they had left over after supporting Cameron's government in its smash and grab on the non-wealthy (especially the poor) and now welcome any sitting MP into their party regardless of beliefs and objectives.
As someone who has voted Lib Dem for most of my life, I do indeed find their present position, as revealed by recent developments and as announced in their Conference, deeply disturbing.
-
Labour says, unless I've completely misunderstood, that they will negotiate a new deal then put that to the electorate in a new referendum with an option to remain in the EU. I think that is the only sensible approach. If the country votes for the deal and we leave, I will be sad, but won't have a democratic leg to stand on to oppose it.
If May had worked with the opposition in the first place to find a deal that would be acceptable to the HoC we could have left by now and again, I would have been sad about it, but what reasonable argument could I have made against it?
The problem with Labour's position is that it's not clear what their position is even if they can renegotiate a deal which is also not clear.
And while May should have reached out, I also think Corbyn should have offered to work with the govt in getting a deal in return for supporting it.
I honestly see no action now that isn't hugely problematic.
-
As someone who has voted Lib Dem for most of my life, I do indeed find their present position, as revealed by recent developments and as announced in their Conference, deeply disturbing.
It's bizarre for a number of reasons, first of all the idea that they might get elected on a much smaller % than the 52 % who voted leave, and then use the very vagaries of an electoral system that they have campaigned against to decide to ignore that vote, secondly touting the idea that even if a Scottish Govt were to be elected on a proportional system with a majority that there would be no mandate for a second indy ref.
-
Excellent post.
However, in my case, the more facts that came to light, the more convinced a remainer I became. I'd originally thought that the Britain's (particularly Cornwall's) fisheries might be much better off if we left the EU. Cornwall did indeed predominantly vote 'leave' - now it seems that their fishermen have really shot themselves in the foot, since the very substantial grants they have been receiving from the EU would immediately cease with the implementation of Brexit.
Odd that the Welsh also predominantly voted 'leave', but I get the impression that a lot of them are at last coming to their senses as the full picture begins to emerge.
However, if the leavers keep on uttering their pathetic mantram "Do you think we were too stupid to understand what Brexit meant from the beginning?", I shall crawl into a vinegar bottle and pull down the stopper on myself.
To be fair, there is a section of Remain supporters who also offer the mantra that Leavers were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. Part of the issue here is seeing this as a simple dichotomy.
-
Ex-Australian PM Tony Abbott was on Radio 4 yesterday, saying a no-deal Brexit wouldn't be as bad as people are making out. I can't remember any of his points, unfortunately!
He was universally reviled in Australia for being an absolutely useless twat.
-
As someone who has voted Lib Dem for most of my life, I do indeed find their present position, as revealed by recent developments and as announced in their Conference, deeply disturbing.
I voted for them for the first time in the last election because their policy was to revert article 50.
Whatever happens next, there will be divisions. If we leave, there will be bitter recriminations when people's loved ones start getting deported, NI descends into terrorism and Scotland starts screaming for independence. If we have another referendum and the Remainers win, the Brexiteers won't back down quietly. We can only hope that they keep their protests within the law.
-
He wrote an article last year on the topic in the Spectator, in which his opinion was based largely around this: "Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?"
Well, firstly, because being the fifth largest economy in the world has been achieved by being a part of the largest free-trade block in the world, but discounting that, how exactly are WTO rules working for Australia?
Australia currently has trade agreements which supersede WTO rules with: New Zealand, Singapore, USA, Thailand, Chile, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia, Philipines, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong and Peru, and is negotiating the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, as well as agreements with the EU, the Gulf Co-operation Council, India and potentially the UK.
So WTO works for Australia, basically, when they make agreements which mean they don't have to operate under WTO rules when it comes to dealing with their closest economic partners/rivals and with the world's largest economies and economic groups...
O.
This suggests that although the UK would be seriously affected by WTO rules for some time, it could recover once the various trade deals have been done?
-
This suggests that although the UK would be seriously affected by WTO rules for some time, it could recover once the various trade deals have been done?
It suggests that Abbott was lying
-
The problem with Labour's position is that it's not clear what their position is even if they can renegotiate a deal which is also not clear.
Assuming they can get a deal, I'm not sure why being neutral in a referendum campaign would be a problem?
-
Assuming they can get a deal, I'm not sure why being neutral in a referendum campaign would be a problem?
(A) I said it's not clear what their position would be, not that they would be being neutral. (B) if you negotiate a position and then don't support the thing you negotiated why would anyone trust you.
-
Australians could get freedom of movement. Tell me again how wanting to stop freedom of movement wasn't racist?
-
As NS says there is no way out of this now that isn't going to cause ructions.
Since any form of Brexit, be it soft, hard or no deal, is going to disadvantage all of us, and even if it happens no doubt some Brexit supporters might find that that whatever form of Brexit finally emerges isn't to their personal taste, and of course many don't support Brexit at all in any form, then my preference would be to end up with A50 being revoked: yes it will annoy some, but no matter what the outcome Brexit has proved so divisive it seems that some will be annoyed anyway so maybe we have to see that annoyance play outwhile avoiding the downsides of Brexit (there are no upsides of Brexit) by staying in the EU.
The current situation is made worse by a PM who is an incompetent (like the rest of his government) liar - indeed he is so useless that he can't even lie with competence.
-
(A) I said it's not clear what their position would be, not that they would be being neutral. (B) if you negotiate a position and then don't support the thing you negotiated why would anyone trust you.
B) supporting something by voting for it isn't the same as campaigning for it. Corbyn seems to want Brexit but isn't against remaining in if that's what the majority want, so I think he's on the right track.
-
As NS says there is no way out of this now that isn't going to cause ructions.
Since any form of Brexit, be it soft, hard or no deal, is going to disadvantage all of us, and even if it happens no doubt some Brexit supporters might find that that whatever form of Brexit finally emerges isn't to their personal taste, and of course many don't support Brexit at all in any form, then my preference would be to end up with A50 being revoked: yes it will annoy some, but no matter what the outcome Brexit has proved so divisive it seems that some will be annoyed anyway so maybe we have to see that annoyance play outwhile avoiding the downsides of Brexit (there are no upsides of Brexit) by staying in the EU.
The current situation is made worse by a PM who is an incompetent (like the rest of his government) liar - indeed he is so useless that he can't even lie with competence.
Well one argument for Brexit is that Remainers’ protests tend not to get violent.
-
Well one argument for Brexit is that Remainers’ protests tend not to get violent.
Do Leavers' protests?
-
B) supporting something by voting for it isn't the same as campaigning for it. Corbyn seems to want Brexit but isn't against remaining in if that's what the majority want, so I think he's on the right track.
It would help discussion if you didn't insert words not used. If you negotiate a deal and then don't support what you negotiated why should you be trusted?
-
A perspective on yesterday's events in the Supreme Court from John Crace.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/18/legal-defence-of-prorogation-crashes-burns-and-then-fades-into-silence
-
Do Leavers' protests?
I suppose that depends on your definition of protest, but I don't recall a leave supporting MP being murdered.
-
The submission to the Supreme Court on behalf of John Major is fairly damning regarding Johnson - no great surprise there.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-sir-john-major.pdf
-
NS,
It's bizarre for a number of reasons, first of all the idea that they might get elected on a much smaller % than the 52 % who voted leave, and then use the very vagaries of an electoral system that they have campaigned against to decide to ignore that vote, secondly touting the idea that even if a Scottish Govt were to be elected on a proportional system with a majority that there would be no mandate for a second indy ref.
I'm not sure that they've articulated it as such, but it seems to me that the Lib Dems are effectively making their position into a de facto second referendum: a vote for us is a vote for remain, a vote for others is something else. In the (admittedly unlikely) event they won, that wouldn't be "ignoring the vote" but rather carrying out the result of the vote that superseded it.
As for Corbyn's latest position, leaving aside for now that there is no better deal to be done, nonetheless if the EU thought a supposed better deal would then be put to the public as a binary "this deal vs remain" referendum then it seems to me that the prospect would make them even less likely to agree a better deal than they are currently minded to be - the more rubbish the deal, the more likely the remain vote.
-
If you negotiate a deal and then don't support what you negotiated why should you be trusted?
As you have also said, this is an intractable mess. I think that Labour agreeing a deal with the EU is possible, but I wouldn't care if they just put May's deal as the other option in a new referendum. That deal was scuppered by the ERG and DUP, so it must have something going for it. Corbyn is sensible to say he wouldn't campaign for one thing or the other in a new referendum, in case he has to implement whatever decision is made.
Whatever Corbyn says or does is automatically disparaged by most news outlets as far as I can tell. I've said it before, the idea that the current Labour front bench would do more damage to this country than the Tories and their enablers have done over the last 9 years is ridiculous. Corbyn might be a poor leader, but I'm not sure how we'd really know that, given he's spent most of his time in the role fending off attacks from the right-wing of his own party and faced relentless and mostly dishonest criticism from the Murdoch media and the BBC.
Personally, I'd prefer Corbyn to stand down and for Keir Starmer, or somebody else with less hostage-to-fortune history encumbering them, to stand unopposed, but if that's not going to happen, Labour are still the best hope. At least Corbyn seems to find it hard to be dishonest, unlike the current PM.
Well one argument for Brexit is that Remainers’ protests tend not to get violent.
I don't suppose you were serious, but the threat of violence from Leavers is no argument or justification for leaving. Pandering to thugs and bullies is never a good idea. Look where it got Theresa May.
-
NS,
I'm not sure that they've articulated it as such, but it seems to me that the Lib Dems are effectively making their position into a de facto second referendum: a vote for us is a vote for remain, a vote for others is something else. In the (admittedly unlikely) event they won, that wouldn't be "ignoring the vote" but rather carrying out the result of the vote that superseded it.
As for Corbyn's latest position, leaving aside for now that there is no better deal to be done, nonetheless if the EU thought a supposed better deal would then be put to the public as a binary "this deal vs remain" referendum then it seems to me that the prospect would make them even less likely to agree a better deal than they are currently minded to be - the more rubbish the deal, the more likely the remain vote.
But due to FPTP any vote isn't a referendum - if you can get elected to a majority withg 35% claiming that supersedes the referendum seems both wrong and constitutionally illiterate
-
I suppose that depends on your definition of protest, but I don't recall a leave supporting MP being murdered.
It doesn't seem to make much sense to regard 52% of those that voted as equivalent to a murderrer
-
Pandering to thugs and bullies is never a good idea. Look where it got Theresa May.
Just to clarify, I was referring to her self-pitying snivelling in Downing Street, not the £3m+ castle in Scotland.
Speaking of £3m residences, I see the problem of homeless people sleeping in doorways in my city has been addressed at last. The doorways have been boarded up.
-
NS,
But due to FPTP any vote isn't a referendum - if you can get elected to a majority withg 35% claiming that supersedes the referendum seems both wrong and constitutionally illiterate
I know, but that's how FPTP works - even if a Gov't is elected with 49% of the vote it can carry out its manifesto commitments regardless of what the 51% might want. If the Lib Dems said "we'll treat the GE as if it was a second referendum, vote for us or not on that basis" I'd have thought the real referendum would therefore legitimately have been superseded.
-
NS,
I know, but that's how FPTP works - even if a Gov't is elected with 49% of the vote it can carry out its manifesto commitments regardless of what the 51% might want. If the Lib Dems said "we'll treat the GE as if it was a second referendum, vote for us or not on that basis" I'd have thought the real referendum would therefore legitimately have been superseded.
Just seems enormously hypocritical.
-
It would help discussion if you didn't insert words not used. If you negotiate a deal and then don't support what you negotiated why should you be trusted?
Because you are negotiating it because there were more Leave votes than Remain? I also don't think either main party should have to have a clear position on Brexit. It is a free choice for every individual, so at best you could only say, "the majority of Labour (or whichever party) want to Remain (or Leave)". Once you get a party that is pure Remain or Leave, they wouldn't be much good at running the country because they are too narrow minded.
-
Because you are negotiating it because there were more Leave votes than Remain? I also don't think either main party should have to have a clear position on Brexit. It is a free choice for every individual, so at best you could only say, "the majority of Labour (or whichever party) want to Remain (or Leave)". Once you get a party that is pure Remain or Leave, you know they wouldn't be much good at running the country.
That's an argument for there being no political parties
-
That's an argument for there being no political parties
Is this a wind-up?
-
Is this a wind-up?
If parties need to agree things completely there will be no parties bigger than 1 member
-
If parties need to agree things completely there will be no parties bigger than 1 member
So we don't need to know Labour's position if there is a 2nd referendum?
-
So we don't need to know Labour's position if there is a 2nd referendum?
I have no clue why you've asked that.
-
I have no clue why you've asked that.
I'm really sorry if I am being dumb, but you did say,
The problem with Labour's position is that it's not clear what their position is even if they can renegotiate a deal which is also not clear.
-
Are you saying that we need to know Labour's position on Brexit, however they are split, whether 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 etc?
-
Are you saying that we need to know Labour's position on Brexit, however they are split, whether 50/50, 40/60, 30/70 etc?
Why would I be saying that?
-
...
As for Corbyn's latest position, leaving aside for now that there is no better deal to be done, nonetheless if the EU thought a supposed better deal would then be put to the public as a binary "this deal vs remain" referendum then it seems to me that the prospect would make them even less likely to agree a better deal than they are currently minded to be - the more rubbish the deal, the more likely the remain vote.
Corbyn wants: "a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections"
The Political Declaration could be amended to include these intentions and agreed by the EU along with the existing Withdrawal Agreement. The referendum would then be a choice between that and Remain.
- Not much of a choice for anyone that voted Leave in the last referendum.
-
NS,
Just seems enormously hypocritical.
Why though? If the tories stood on that platform I'd agree, but the Lib Dems didn't call the referendum and nor to my recollection have they made statements since to the effect that they'd honour it. You could I suppose argue that they should have been saying since 2016 that they's revoke Art 50 come what may, but I don't see great hypocrisy for not doing so.
It's also their risk to take - if some otherwise Lib Dem voting remainers don't like the policy so much they'd withdraw their support that's the Lib Dems' loss to take.
-
NS,
Why though? If the tories stood on that platform I'd agree, but the Lib Dems didn't call the referendum and nor to my recollection have they made statements since to the effect that they'd honour it. You could I suppose argue that they should have been saying since 2016 that they's revoke Art 50 come what may, but I don't see great hypocrisy for not doing so.
It's also their risk to take - if some otherwise Lib Dem voting remainers don't like the policy so much they'd withdraw their support that's the Lib Dems' loss to take.
Because if one of your planks of policy is that FPTP is wrong, then using it if you were elected on 35% of the vote to rescind leaving is hypocritical.
-
Corbyn wants: "a sensible deal based on the terms we have long advocated, including a new customs union with the EU; a close single market relationship; and guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental protections"
The Political Declaration could be amended to include these intentions and agreed by the EU along with the existing Withdrawal Agreement. The referendum would then be a choice between that and Remain.
- Not much of a choice for anyone that voted Leave in the last referendum.
I have to admit to being baffled by the phrase 'a close single market' - surely that's like being a bit pregnant?
-
NS,
Because if one of your planks of policy is that FPTP is wrong, then using it if you were elected on 35% of the vote to rescind leaving is hypocritical.
Oh I see. But in that case you'd have to argue that the Lib Dems shouldn't stand for election at all because, if they did and they won, anything at all they did would be hypocritical as it would be enabled by an electoral system with which the didn't agree. Ironically, that would include having a one-policy only manifesto of changing FPTP for PR.
-
NS,
Oh I see. But in that case you'd have to argue that the Lib Dems shouldn't stand for election at all because, if they did and they won, anything at all they did would be hypocritical as it would be enabled by an electoral system with which the didn't agree. Ironically, that would include having a one-policy only manifesto of changing FPTP for PR.
Well no, because you can for example enter into coalition as they did. It only applies if they get a majority elected on a small % of the vote. Here I think there is a special case because there was a referendum and however much it might be advisory deciding just to ignore it seems deeply undemocratic to me.
And that's of course while they are also saying that even if a majority of those voting in Scotland vote for parties supporting Indyref2 then it shouldn't happen.
-
Well no, because you can for example enter into coalition as they did. It only applies if they get a majority elected on a small % of the vote. Here I think there is a special case because there was a referendum and however much it might be advisory deciding just to ignore it seems deeply undemocratic to me.
And that's of course while they are also saying that even if a majority of those voting in Scotland vote for parties supporting Indyref2 then it shouldn't happen.
I agree it is hypocritical. On the other hand those are the rules of the game as currently in place and they can and should use them to, as they expect, maximise their vote and subsequent power.
-
NS,
Well no, because you can for example enter into coalition as they did.
But you would have to argue that they shouldn't do that either surely if the GE outcome under FPTP had caused the need for a coalition?
It only applies if they get a majority elected on a small % of the vote.
I'm not following you here. If you think FPTP is wrong in principle then (by your argument) it would be hypocritical to be party to its outcome whether the outcome was a narrow or a large margin of victory.
Here I think there is a special case because there was a referendum and however much it might be advisory deciding just to ignore it seems deeply undemocratic to me.
But they're not "deciding just to ignore it". They're standing on a manifesto pledge that says, "if you vote for us in sufficient numbers, then we will revoke Art 50". Leaving aside all the problems with the referendum, if the sitting gov't decided to ignore it (having pledged to deliver it) without a further vote then that would be just ignoring it. Here though the Lib Dems are saying that only if a future democratically decided event happens, then that would be their mandate for acting as they intend.
-
I have to admit to being baffled by the phrase 'a close single market' - surely that's like being a bit pregnant?
I'm completely baffled by Corbyn.
Today, in some voting intention polls, LibDems have overtaken Labour to take second position.
-
The Supreme Court has heard all the evidence now, and will let it be known early next week what their verdict is.
-
Udayana,
I'm completely baffled by Corbyn.
Today, in some voting intention polls, LibDems have overtaken Labour to take second position.
Me too. Faced with the most incompetent, omnishambolic, mendacious, pig ignorant, thuggish gov't in living memory still Labour trail the tories in the opinion polls. If Corbyn had an ounce of self-awareness and concern about the country he aspires to lead he'd grasp that he's kryptonite to the electorate and step down so an electable leader could seize the popular vote in a GE.
-
I agree it is hypocritical. On the other hand those are the rules of the game as currently in place and they can and should use them to, as they expect, maximise their vote and subsequent power.
To be fair, hypocritical would be being elected by the current system (which they have criticised) and then doing nothing to change it - complaining about the system you have, but appreciating that you have to work with it is not hypocrisy.
O.
-
Outy,
To be fair, hypocritical would be being elected by the current system (which they have criticised) and then doing nothing to change it - complaining about the system you have, but appreciating that you have to work with it is not hypocrisy.
That was my point and, if they did win under that system and then revoked Art 50 as they said they'd do in their manifesto beforehand, then I wouldn't see hypocrisy there either.
-
So let's say they get 10 million votes and end up with a majority, then using a system that they argue is undemocratic, they overturn the vote of 17 million on a single issue on a much smaller vote in a non single issue election. It just stinks of hypocrisy to me.
And then as already covered they wouldn't allow an indyref2 even if a majority of voters in Scotland were to vote for parties supporting it. Really no principles at all.
-
NS,
So let's say they get 10 million votes and end up with a majority, then using a system that they argue is undemocratic, they overturn the vote of 17 million on a single issue on a much smaller vote in a non single issue election. It just stinks of hypocrisy to me.
Still not seeing it. As Outy says, you can disapprove of a system and still work within it (what choice is there if you want to be in politics at all?). I’d have thought they should include introducing PR in place of FPTP as part of their manifesto too, but perhaps they’re thinking that Brexit is so all-consuming they don’t want to dilute the message.
That was my point really – just be open and say they’re positioning their manifesto as a de facto second referendum and let the electorate decide to remain or not on that basis. You can’t just play an equivalent numbers game though (“10m said yes but 17m said something else before so the 17M win”) when the two systems are incompatible.
And then as already covered they wouldn't allow an indyref2 even if a majority of voters in Scotland were to vote for parties supporting it. Really no principles at all.
I don’t know whether or not they’d allow an Indyref 2. How would that work though – on what basis could they say yes to Scotland but no to any other region wanting the same thing? For what it’s worth I think an independent Scotland would weaken both Scotland and the remainder of the UK, but if after a decent interval popular opinion there was heavily for it I guess a second go would be unrefusable. What a “decent interval” would be is moot, but it feels like a once in a generation type event to me to avoid the risk of just asking the same people the same question in the hope of a different answer.
-
Swinson's position is illogical nonsense, and clearly she was keener to deploy the soundbite than she was to take the time to think about what she was saying.
She's my MP, but I won't be voting for her come the next GE even though I want to see A50 rescinded (mind you I didn't vote for her last time).
-
I don’t know whether or not they’d allow an Indyref 2. How would that work though – on what basis could they say yes to Scotland but no to any other region wanting the same thing?
Well for a start Scotland is a nation and not a region: for example, our legal system, education system and NHS etc are separate from the other nations in the UK.
For what it’s worth I think an independent Scotland would weaken both Scotland and the remainder of the UK, but if after a decent interval popular opinion there was heavily for it I guess a second go would be unrefusable. What a “decent interval” would be is moot, but it feels like a once in a generation type event to me to avoid the risk of just asking the same people the same question in the hope of a different answer.
I'd say a decent interval has already passed due to the current circumstances: we are now being compromised by the politics of another UK nation and by a Tory government whose PM lied to us in 2014, telling us that to remain in the EU we should remain in the UK - look where that got us!
-
How do you avoid playing a numbers if your objection to a voting system is based on numbers?
And it's LibDem policy to refuse Indyref 2 as discussed by Swinson, no matter the ignorance of any individual poster here, and ignoring the idea of a majority vote to support a non majority vote is surely hypocritical?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0pTpwqkB48&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0pAoEUuiFerqdxk7AtWBsYpTwqzNxLKoiGZVWEtCMXfqS0tpKZzH5Rhdk
-
Udayana,
Me too. Faced with the most incompetent, omnishambolic, mendacious, pig ignorant, thuggish gov't in living memory still Labour trail the tories in the opinion polls. If Corbyn had an ounce of self-awareness and concern about the country he aspires to lead he'd grasp that he's kryptonite to the electorate and step down so an electable leader could seize the popular vote in a GE.
I went to read your post and having read the first line, (I'm completely baffled by Corbyn) and the first line of your response I immediately thought, well you wouldn't the man's pig ignorant and this was before I had read any of the rest of your post so; snap!
Love the kryptonite analogy.
Regards, ippy.
-
Udayana,
Me too. Faced with the most incompetent, omnishambolic, mendacious, pig ignorant, thuggish gov't in living memory still Labour trail the tories in the opinion polls. If Corbyn had an ounce of self-awareness and concern about the country he aspires to lead he'd grasp that he's kryptonite to the electorate and step down so an electable leader could seize the popular vote in a GE.
hi blue
you seam to have a problem with the Tories , why is that?
-
I'm not looking to argue about in or out of the EU, (or semantics), we, both sides we should know by now where we stand on this one by now.
I relented and thought I'd offer the remainers among you a clay pidgin like shoot out.
I'd just like to know what it is that remainers have against having an Australian type points system that can be used here in the UK to keep immigration at levels or at a pace that the UK would be able to handle or deal with, such as: keeping out specific kinds of criminals and overall and hopefully greatly reducing the amount of purely economic migrants coming here.
Where Ausie immigration rules apply I'm sure they, the Ausies, would be inclined to grab any young experienced air conditioning engineer applicant with both hands and speed their entry, I'm just using this as a rather, I would have thought, an obvious example where a points system would apply in a similar manner here, only and rather obviously with a trade or profession we need here.
If the UK were to introduce a points system the points could be gained by all sorts things that effect eligibility of any individual the UK would want to accept or not for reasons such as age, pensioners that could be a liability to the UK, criminal records, credit ratings, qualifications, in other words make it easy for those people that have the combination of skills etc that we need and minimise the amount of people we don't need etc.
Adjustments to the lists of people we need with specific qualifying potentials can be made dependent on whatever skills or qualifications we needed at various times.
The only problem I have with Immigrants other than the obvious that I have expanded on within in this post it's the sheer unrestricted volume of them, the unacceptable numbers, that we now have which I accept there's very little to be done about them now and we should be granting the ones already here permanent residence, (perhaps turf out the criminals, dependant on the crime, case by case), I'm looking forward to the restrictions hopefully the UK will be applying in the near future.
Where asylum seekers are concerned like most people I can't see there's a problem with them other than checking the validity of each asylum seeker's claim as individual cases.
ippy.
-
According to this study, the reason there was a narrow 'Leave' majority in Wales was due to English people who had moved there "Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers" and it was the 'leave' voting areas in the south of England and not the north that were critical, "The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research
-
According to this study, the reason there was a narrow 'Leave' majority in Wales was due to English people who had moved there "Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers" and it was the 'leave' voting areas in the south of England and not the north that were critical, "The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research
In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it, with a free and fair, in or out only, referendum vote.
We have a UK remainer element that wishes to confound, go against or you could say cheat the leavers and rob them of their referendum victory.
Regards, ippy.
-
In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it ...
Still unable to count Ippy I see.
There are approx. 67million UK citizens - by my reckoning just under 26% of UK citizens voted leave - not a majority in anyone's books.
-
But due to FPTP any vote isn't a referendum - if you can get elected to a majority withg 35% claiming that supersedes the referendum seems both wrong and constitutionally illiterate
I think what is constitutionally illiterate is pretending it says anything about referendums.
-
Well for a start Scotland is a nation and not a region
It's actually both.
I'd say a decent interval has already passed due to the current circumstances: we are now being compromised by the politics of another UK nation and by a Tory government whose PM lied to us in 2014, telling us that to remain in the EU we should remain in the UK - look where that got us!
He didn't lie to you. Had you left the UK at that time, you would have been out of the EU. What he actually did was fuck up the Brexit vote.
-
I'm not looking to argue about in or out of the EU, (or semantics), we, both sides we should know by now where we stand on this one by now.
I relented and thought I'd offer the remainers among you a clay pidgin like shoot out.
I'd just like to know what it is that remainers have against having an Australian type points system that can be used here in the UK to keep immigration at levels or at a pace that the UK would be able to handle or deal with, such as: keeping out specific kinds of criminals and overall and hopefully greatly reducing the amount of purely economic migrants coming here.
Where Ausie immigration rules apply I'm sure they, the Ausies, would be inclined to grab any young experienced air conditioning engineer applicant with both hands and speed their entry, I'm just using this as a rather, I would have thought, an obvious example where a points system would apply in a similar manner here, only and rather obviously with a trade or profession we need here.
If the UK were to introduce a points system the points could be gained by all sorts things that effect eligibility of any individual the UK would want to accept or not for reasons such as age, pensioners that could be a liability to the UK, criminal records, credit ratings, qualifications, in other words make it easy for those people that have the combination of skills etc that we need and minimise the amount of people we don't need etc.
Adjustments to the lists of people we need with specific qualifying potentials can be made dependent on whatever skills or qualifications we needed at various times.
The only problem I have with Immigrants other than the obvious that I have expanded on within in this post it's the sheer unrestricted volume of them, the unacceptable numbers, that we now have which I accept there's very little to be done about them now and we should be granting the ones already here permanent residence, (perhaps turf out the criminals, dependant on the crime, case by case), I'm looking forward to the restrictions hopefully the UK will be applying in the near future.
Where asylum seekers are concerned like most people I can't see there's a problem with them other than checking the validity of each asylum seeker's claim as individual cases.
ippy.
Why the hell should anybody answer your questions? You won't answer ours. Why should we extend that courtesy to you?
-
According to this study, the reason there was a narrow 'Leave' majority in Wales was due to English people who had moved there "Wales was made to look like a Brexit-supporting nation by its English settlers" and it was the 'leave' voting areas in the south of England and not the north that were critical, "The real support for Brexit, in terms of numbers of votes, was in places like Cornwall, which was 57% for leave, Hampshire with 54%, Essex with 62% and Norfolk with 57%. It is those southern English voters that are dragging Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland unwillingly out of Europe".
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/22/english-people-wales-brexit-research
Yeah, that's bullshit.
-
In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it, with a free and fair, in or out only, referendum vote.
Wrong.
We have a UK remainer element that wishes to confound, go against or you could say cheat the leavers and rob them of their referendum victory.
Your 'victory' is a pyrrhic one anyway, and hopefully the electorate will get the chance to reverse it given what is now know about how ill-informed they were in 2016, taking into account what is now known about the consequences and also that the key Tory politicians are a bunch of fuckwits.
-
Yeah, that's bullshit.
It doesn't matter leave won.
ippy
-
Still unable to count Ippy I see.
There are approx. 67million UK citizens - by my reckoning just under 26% of UK citizens voted leave - not a majority in anyone's books.
As I said: 'the majority of UK citizens that voted leave'.
ippy
-
Why the hell should anybody answer your questions? You won't answer ours. Why should we extend that courtesy to you?
It's up to you jp, I can't make you.
ippy
-
Wrong.
Your 'victory' is a pyrrhic one anyway, and hopefully the electorate will get the chance to reverse it given what is now know about how ill-informed they were in 2016, taking into account what is now known about the consequences and also that the key Tory politicians are a bunch of fuckwits.
Do you know I'd forgotten how stupid us leavers were perhaps forgetting's a part of it.
ippy
-
Do you know I'd forgotten how stupid us leavers were perhaps forgetting's a part of it.
ippy
I never said you were stupid, ippy: being ill-informed, as everyone was in 2016 since nobody had done any due diligence on the idea of Brexit, isn't the same thing as being stupid.
What would be stupid though would be to fail to acknowledge and take into account all the information and events that have come to light since, and are currently emerging, all of which does show that any form of Brexit will denude the circumstances of all of us.
-
I think what is constitutionally illiterate is pretending it says anything about referendums.
Thanks for agreeing.
-
As I said: 'the majority of UK citizens that voted leave'.
ippy
No you didn't - you actually said:
'In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it ...'
That is demonstrably untrue - actually about a quarter of UK citizens voted to leave and that is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.
-
Hi ippy,
Re controlling immigration: I think you might have been misinformed by the liars who ran the Leave campaign.
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html
This country could have introduced any number of immigration restrictions if it wanted to, as long as it didn't restrict workers moving freely around the EU. And why would you want to do that? As usual, the fault, if there is one, lies with UK governments, not EU law.
Now we have Britain First thugs roaming the Kent coastline hunting brown people.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/far-right-britain-first-patrolling-20095776
The Tories (I count Tony Blair among their number, not sure if that's controversial) have done this to us, not Jeremy Corbyn. Still, the only major party leader who tries not to lie and hasn't spent his whole political life doing whatever would benefit him personally the most, should stand down in favour of someone the citizenry can get behind.
-
No you didn't - you actually said:
'In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it ...'
That is demonstrably untrue - actually about a quarter of UK citizens voted to leave and that is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.
I wouldn't have grouped you in with the usual semanticists we have on the forum.
However it's not my fault that the remainers didn't get up off of their backsides to vote.
ippy
-
I wouldn't have grouped you in with the usual semanticists we have on the forum.
So you accept that your claim that:
'In short it's still the majority of UK citizens that voted leave no matter how you look at it ...'
Is a lie.
-
However it's not my fault that the remainers didn't get up off of their backsides to vote.
ippy
Who said anything about people not getting off their backsides - a significant proportion of UK citizens were unable to vote in 2016 and yet they are the group most likely to be detrimentally affected in the years to come by Brexit.
-
Hi ippy,
Re controlling immigration: I think you might have been misinformed by the liars who ran the Leave campaign.
https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html
This country could have introduced any number of immigration restrictions if it wanted to, as long as it didn't restrict workers moving freely around the EU. And why would you want to do that? As usual, the fault, if there is one, lies with UK governments, not EU law.
Now we have Britain First thugs roaming the Kent coastline hunting brown people.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/far-right-britain-first-patrolling-20095776
The Tories (I count Tony Blair among their number, not sure if that's controversial) have done this to us, not Jeremy Corbyn. Still, the only major party leader who tries not to lie and hasn't spent his whole political life doing whatever would benefit him personally the most, should stand down in favour of someone the citizenry can get behind.
Labour needs to have a policy people can get behind, The proposal from Corbyn is an enormous guddle.
-
Labour needs to have a policy people can get behind, The proposal from Corbyn is an enormous guddle.
If guddle means muddle, fair enough, I'm not going to argue that Labour are doing a good job on this or suggest that Corbyn is a good leader. My last sentence wasn't sarcastic, if that's what you think. It's obvious that a significant number of people in this country don't think honesty is important. I do think that Corbyn is in an impossible position and has been since he was elected (twice).
To be fair, if I thought he could get us over this nightmare, I'd welcome Blair back. (But only on a temporary basis and on condition he surrendered himself to The Hague once it was all over. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge.)
-
The Tories (I count Tony Blair among their number, not sure if that's controversial)
It is because he's not.
have done this to us, not Jeremy Corbyn. Still, the only major party leader who tries not to lie and hasn't spent his whole political life doing whatever would benefit him personally the most, should stand down in favour of someone the citizenry can get behind.
Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer. He's also utterly useless and a major impediment (perhaps the only major impediment) to Labour getting in power.
-
If guddle means muddle, fair enough, I'm not going to argue that Labour are doing a good job on this or suggest that Corbyn is a good leader. My last sentence wasn't sarcastic, if that's what you think. It's obvious that a significant number of people in this country don't think honesty is important. I do think that Corbyn is in an impossible position and has been since he was elected (twice).
To be fair, if I thought he could get us over this nightmare, I'd welcome Blair back. (But only on a temporary basis and on condition he surrendered himself to The Hague once it was all over. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge.)
No, I didn't read you as sarcastic. But changing the leader won't help if the current policy 'remains' as it precisely seems designed to satisfy no one.
-
I never said you were stupid, ippy: being ill-informed, as everyone was in 2016 since nobody had done any due diligence on the idea of Brexit, isn't the same thing as being stupid.
What would be stupid though would be to fail to acknowledge and take into account all the information and events that have come to light since, and are currently emerging, all of which does show that any form of Brexit will denude the circumstances of all of us.
You didn't but the implication was clearly there and you've no idea whether leavers in general were ill informed or not, admittedly their'll always be some that haven't got a clue, I've never wanted to be in the EU from the start and arguably have as many and as I think have far more numerous and valid reasons to leave than you have to remain.
As I keep trying to get over, neither side, me probably more than most, are unlikely to be changing their minds and you're remain side is probably much the same as leavers and I prefer to leave the going around in circles to others.
I wrote in my thoughts on immigration as I see it and thought the points I had laid out were quite reasonable, supportable and a balanced way of treating people from abroad that would like to live out their lives here in the UK.
I was trying as I see it, to express a far from extremest point of view about immigration, a view most leavers hold and then remain side of this debate keeps on saying things like how extreme those dreadful leavers are toward foreigners, having an Ausie like points system is just taking a logical look at the problem and making things as fair as possible for both the UK and the immigrants with respect to the sheer numbers of immigrants wanting to enter the UK.
To date I haven't seen a counter to my view on the far too many immigrants coming in without some form of sensible control, it's not so much the immigrants it's the vast numbers involved.
I don't even mind the people of Scotland coming here to live either, I suppose we could make an exception there, that Scot v the Irish rugby match I was a neutral in that one, good game shame about the injury.
ippy
-
It is because he's not.
Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer. He's also utterly useless and a major impediment (perhaps the only major impediment) to Labour getting in power.
Agreed.
-
You didn't but the implication was clearly there and you've no idea whether leavers in general were ill informed or not
It's obvious that they are ill informed.
a) they voted for a bad idea
b) their arguments since the vote all seem to boil down to "WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!". There's nothing reasoned about how things are going to be better after Oct 31. That's because they are badly informed.
I've never wanted to be in the EU from the start
Why not?
You're not going to answer my question because you don't have an answer and that's because you have been badly informed.
To date I haven't seen a counter to my view on the far too many immigrants coming in without some form of sensible control, it's not so much the immigrants it's the vast numbers involved.
You are ill informed. Can you answer:
How many immigrants come in from the EU each year? How many is too many? Why do you choose the particular number you do?
If you can't give a good reasoned answer to those questions, you can't say you are well informed about immigration.
-
Can't see that the optics on this are going to look good almost no matter what happens.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49789938
-
It's obvious that they are ill informed.
a) they voted for a bad idea
b) their arguments since the vote all seem to boil down to "WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!". There's nothing reasoned about how things are going to be better after Oct 31. That's because they are badly informed.
Why not?
You're not going to answer my question because you don't have an answer and that's because you have been badly informed.
You are ill informed. Can you answer:
How many immigrants come in from the EU each year? How many is too many? Why do you choose the particular number you do?
If you can't give a good reasoned answer to those questions, you can't say you are well informed about immigration.
Immigrants any immigrants, from where ever.
So I guess you don't think the UK should be selective about who comes to live here in the UK permanently.
ippy
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49795111
The Supreme Court will give their verdict at 10.30am tomorrow on the proroguing issue.
-
It is because he's not.
Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer. He's also utterly useless and a major impediment (perhaps the only major impediment) to Labour getting in power.
Apologies, Blair isn't a Tory of course. I allowed my feelings to show, I should have delayed posting and changed the wording.
Corbyn may well be in favour of leaving the EU but that's not what he's said recently and as far as I can tell he tries to avoid lying. He said he doesn't want to leave without a deal and is willing to implement whatever the outcome of a second referendum might be. I think that's a sensible line to take and the only viable compromise.
Any Labour leader who advocated the kind of redistributive policies in the last Labour manifesto would face the same hostility from large parts of our media, but I'd like to see someone without Corbyn's baggage try, as long as the policies stayed redistributive. At least, in the long term - currently we just need someone who isn't a sociopathic compulsive liar (or actually making money out of this farrago) to take charge.
-
So the guddle continues at the Labour Party Conference on a show of hands.
-
Guddle means a complete mess. It's most often used to describe the state of a room or the kitchen. It's a complete guddle – meaning the place is very untidy, so bad that you don't know where to begin with the cleaning up. Or a person might say “I'm in a right guddle.” They could mean that things are really mixed up
Scottish vernacular.
-
Guddle means a complete mess. It's most often used to describe the state of a room or the kitchen. It's a complete guddle – meaning the place is very untidy, so bad that you don't know where to begin with the cleaning up. Or a person might say “I'm in a right guddle.” They could mean that things are really mixed up
Scottish vernacular.
What about griddles? Could be griddle locked.
ippy
-
I thought Corbyn was trying to bring both sides along. There are complaints about polarization, between remain and leave, but he is accused of muddle. Eh?
-
Guddle means a complete mess. It's most often used to describe the state of a room or the kitchen. It's a complete guddle – meaning the place is very untidy, so bad that you don't know where to begin with the cleaning up. Or a person might say “I'm in a right guddle.” They could mean that things are really mixed up
Scottish vernacular.
The Brexit stramash has led to a burach.
-
This country could have introduced any number of immigration restrictions if it wanted to, as long as it didn't restrict workers moving freely around the EU. And why would you want to do that? As usual, the fault, if there is one, lies with UK governments, not EU law.
Flooding the country with foreign workers, as has happened, seems to me a bit like abolishing tariffs so that the market is flooded with cheap imports. Just wondering if people agree or not?
-
Flooding the country with foreign workers, as has happened, seems to me a bit like abolishing tariffs so that the market is flooded with cheap imports. Just wondering if people agree or not?
'Flooding the country'? What are the statistics, Spud, and why is immigration a problem?
Scotland needs immigrants, and our First Minister has made it clear to EU immigrants who have already made their home here in Scotland that they are valued and are welcome. Maybe immigration, and xenophobia, are localised problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/05/nicola-sturgeon-tells-brexit-eu-citizens-in-scotland-you-are-welcome-here
-
Immigrants any immigrants, from where ever.
Yes but Brexit will only give us more control over the ones that come from the EU.
You're supposed to be trying to convince us you are not ill informed.
So I guess you don't think the UK should be selective about who comes to live here in the UK permanently.
Immigrants generally pay more taxes and use fewer resources. They are good for the country. Why would we want fewer of them?
-
Flooding the country with foreign workers, as has happened, seems to me a bit like abolishing tariffs so that the market is flooded with cheap imports. Just wondering if people agree or not?
All else being equal, goods will be manufactured where the labour is cheap. If you don't let the immigrants who will work for less in, the fact is, manufacturers will move their factories to where the immigrants are. Look at arch Brexiteer James Dyson for instance. There's a man whose actions speak louder than words.
-
Oh yes, and Thomas Cook's bankruptcy is partly the fault of Brexit. Brexiteers have 22 thousand job losses on their conscience from there alone.
-
'Flooding the country'? What are the statistics, Spud, and why is immigration a problem?
Scotland needs immigrants, and our First Minister has made it clear to EU immigrants who have already made their home here in Scotland that they are valued and are welcome. Maybe immigration, and xenophobia, are localised problems.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/05/nicola-sturgeon-tells-brexit-eu-citizens-in-scotland-you-are-welcome-here
The statistics are that many more EU nationals live in the UK than UK nationals living in the EU.
Yes, immigrants are welcome, but there could be circumstances when they cause problems for people other than the people they are benefitting. Eg a fruit farmer makes a packet out of hard working EU fruit pickers, while denying UK nationals a job. This may be "the way it is" and people have to be philosophical about it and accept it, but can we really expect those denied a job to vote for circumstances where they are denied a job because of foreign labour? Probably not.
-
Eg a fruit farmer makes a packet out of hard working EU fruit pickers, while denying UK nationals a job.
I doubt a farmer is going to go through the hassle of recruiting workers from other countries on minimum wage jobs unless they find it impossible to fill the jobs from home grown labour. If you can get someone to take your job from just down the road, why wouldn't you. The reality is that farmer have had to source labour from the EU (or elsewhere) because british people aren't prepared to take the jobs and to do them effectively.
-
The statistics are that many more EU nationals live in the UK than UK nationals living in the EU.
Yes, immigrants are welcome, but there could be circumstances when they cause problems for people other than the people they are benefitting. Eg a fruit farmer makes a packet out of hard working EU fruit pickers, while denying UK nationals a job. This may be "the way it is" and people have to be philosophical about it and accept it, but can we really expect those denied a job to vote for circumstances where they are denied a job because of foreign labour? Probably not.
Do you KNOW anything of the situation in the Scottish fruit picking sector, Spud?
Farmers have tried to recruit local workers - paying above the 'living wage', I may add - but they cannot get enough locals, and depend on migrant workers to both plant and harvest the crop, which contributes significantly to our economy.
The same situation applies in our vital tourism sector.
A UK 'one size fits all' immigration policy might benedit some areas of England; yet why should Scotland suffer at their expene?
-
The statistics are that many more EU nationals live in the UK than UK nationals living in the EU.
Yes, immigrants are welcome, but there could be circumstances when they cause problems for people other than the people they are benefitting. Eg a fruit farmer makes a packet out of hard working EU fruit pickers, while denying UK nationals a job. This may be "the way it is" and people have to be philosophical about it and accept it, but can we really expect those denied a job to vote for circumstances where they are denied a job because of foreign labour? Probably not.
That all sounds awfully anecdotal, Spud - what evidence do you have for all this, and in particular that UK nationals are being excluded from these low-paid seasonal jobs and also the extent to which there are sufficient UK nationals locally who are prepared to do these jobs?
-
I'm not sure my original question had been addressed.
-
That all sounds awfully anecdotal, Spud - what evidence do you have for all this, and in particular that UK nationals are being excluded from these low-paid seasonal jobs and also the extent to which there are sufficient UK nationals locally who are prepared to do these jobs?
I was excluded from apple picking having been interviewed for the regional news channel on the joys of apple picking, a few years before.
A shop where I currently work as a cleaner only has one foreign member of staff. The rest are English, and they seem keen to work.
-
I also got dumped, in 2015, by a girlfriend of 5 years who was Romanian. That was kind of the last straw really!
-
I'm not sure my original question had been addressed.
Your original question, Spud, wasn't really a question but an anecdotal observation, to which you've now added details involving your own work experience and romantic history - I'm not convinced that your personal experience is a good indicator of the employment situation involving migrants or is a telling argument in favour of Brexit.
-
Sorry uncle Gordon, it's been a heck of a day, in which I lost a bunch of keys. Fortunately they were found with help from above though.
-
I also got dumped, in 2015, by a girlfriend of 5 years who was Romanian. That was kind of the last straw really!
That is sad, but I'm sure even you can agree it is not relevant.
-
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the proroguing was not legal, WHEY HEY!!!! :D
-
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the proroguing was not legal, WHEY HEY!!!! :D
11-0 - blimey even Watford don't lose that badly.
-
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the proroguing was not legal, WHEY HEY!!!! :D
So Boris continually loses in Parliament, so he shuts it down ... only to be taken to court and, err, lose.
-
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the proroguing was not legal, WHEY HEY!!!! :D
I did not expect that. This is going to get interesting.
-
So Boris continually loses in Parliament, so he shuts it down ... only to be taken to court and, err, lose.
Has he actually won anything since becoming prime minister?
-
For misleading The Queen the PM should be taken to the Tower and OFF WITH HIS HEAD! ;D
-
I did not expect that. This is going to get interesting.
... And the Court's decision was unanimous. Eleven judges coming to the same conclusion.
Will Boris Johnson hold the record for the shortest Prime Ministership in history?
And will it mean the end of Dominic Cummings?
-
... And the Court's decision was unanimous. Eleven judges coming to the same conclusion.
Will Boris Johnson hold the record for the shortest Prime Ministership in history?
And will it mean the end of Dominic Cummings?
I hope both of them disappear from office a.s.a.p.
-
Technically Dominic Cummings is not in office but I get your drift.
-
Thatcher and May screwed up badly and were forced to resign, however Boris is in a category all of his own where screw ups are concerned, and will probably go down in history as the worst UK PM of all time.
Apparently the nasty Farage is having a hissy fit over the court ruling.
-
Trent,
Technically Dominic Cummings is not in office but I get your drift.
Which means that he's sackable. We know that BS Boris will throw anyone under the bus to protect himself, so the narrative "look I've just fired the person who misadvised me, nothing to do with me guv" might be what he opts for.
-
I have just very briefly seen (on the BBC) a Twitter statement from Nigel Farage - it appears to say that Farage thinks that Cummings should be sacked immediately.
Says aquite a lot about Nigel Farage ...
-
Oh yes, and Thomas Cook's bankruptcy is partly the fault of Brexit. Brexiteers have 22 thousand job losses on their conscience from there alone.
I wondered when, or more if this would come up and would find it fascinating to understand how you've arrived at this conclusion?
The council that controls building works in my little town is trying to build 70 odd houses in the middle of our growing towns parkland including a road splitting the park up even more than the houses, the houses are bad enough but the access road is worse because it makes the park more dangerous overall for the children in this increasingly populous area, where more parkland will be needed to accommodate the extra population.
Everything negative according to you'll be caused by leaving the EU I just thought you might be able to let me know how leaving the EU affects this parkland problem we have here? Perhaps you might be able to give me something else to argue with against the councils ideas about this contested parkland and how leaving the EU comes into the argument?
Regards, ippy.
-
I wondered when, or more if this would come up and would find it fascinating to understand how you've arrived at this conclusion?
The council that controls building works in my little town is trying to build 70 odd houses in the middle of our growing towns parkland including a road splitting the park up even more than the houses, the houses are bad enough but the access road is worse because it makes the park more dangerous overall for the children in this increasingly populous area, where more parkland will be needed to accommodate the extra population.
Everything negative according to you'll be caused by leaving the EU I just thought you might be able to let me know how leaving the EU affects this parkland problem we have here? Perhaps you might be able to give me something else to argue with against the councils ideas about this contested parkland and how leaving the EU comes into the argument?
Regards, ippy.
There you go trying to compare apples with blu tac.
-
ippy,
I wondered when, or more if this would come up and would find it fascinating to understand how you've arrived at this conclusion?
The council that controls building works in my little town is trying to build 70 odd houses in the middle of our growing towns parkland including a road splitting the park up even more than the houses, the houses are bad enough but the access road is worse because it makes the park more dangerous overall for the children in this increasingly populous area, where more parkland will be needed to accommodate the extra population.
Everything negative according to you'll be caused by leaving the EU I just thought you might be able to let me know how leaving the EU affects this parkland problem we have here? Perhaps you might be able to give me something else to argue with against the councils ideas about this contested parkland and how leaving the EU comes into the argument?
The collapse of TC seems to be due to a variety of factors, not least an incompetent management that failed to recognise that having lots of shops was anachronistic (while rewarding itself handsomely for its incompetence by the way). That said, it's hard to argue that the Brexit-related tanking of the £ hasn't had a disproportionately big effect on a business that relies on customers booking foreign holidays, has to pay foreign hotel costs, suffers jet fuel costs increases etc. They'll have hedged against currency fluctuations no doubt, but that's not an indefinite fix.
-
There you go trying to compare apples with blu tac.
Not really Trent, I'm just trying to see how jp's line of thought somehow involves Thomas Cook's problems with brexit.
jp's more on the lines of trying to compare apples with blu tac, quite obviously, whereas I made up my silly comparison I don't know but think jp was being serious?
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
The collapse of TC seems to be due to a variety of factors, not least an incompetent management that failed to recognise that having lots of shops was anachronistic (while rewarding itself handsomely for its incompetence by the way). That said, it's hard to argue that the Brexit-related tanking of the £ hasn't had a disproportionately big effect on a business that relies on customers booking foreign holidays, has to pay foreign hotel costs, suffers jet fuel costs increases etc. They'll have hedged against currency fluctuations no doubt, but that's not an indefinite fix.
You could say then that the remainers by delaying the implementation of our winning leave vote has made a serious dent in how our country is appreciated or not in the world's view has weakened our Pound.
Regards, ippy.
-
You could say then that the remainers by delaying the implementation of our winning leave vote has made a serious dent in how our country is appreciated or not in the world's view has weakened our Pound.
Regards, ippy.
More likely it is the idea of Brexit which has weakened the £ .
-
ippy,
You could say then that the remainers by delaying the implementation of our winning leave vote has made a serious dent in how our country is appreciated or not in the world's view has weakened our Pound.
No you couldn't, or at least not with a straight face.
1. It was actually the ERG who put the boot into May's putative deal.
2. How our country was appreciated or not was determined largely by the rest of the world looking on in disbelief at the effectiveness of the cadre of hard right liars and ignoramuses who managed to dupe enough voters into obtaining a narrow win by about a third of potential voters.
3. The £ tanked because markets recognised that any Brexit outcome would be economically harmful to the UK.
-
Looking at the reactions, it's not really clear that anyone has a plan, or rather that many people may have different plans but it's not clear that any of them will be agreed by enough people.
-
Looking at the reactions, it's not really clear that anyone has a plan, or rather that many people may have different plans but it's not clear that any of them will be agreed by enough people.
I think you are correct, the court's verdict came as a surprise to most, I think. Those opposing Johnson in all parties need to get their act together and fast.
-
He's saying his priority is to get on and deliver Brexit on Oct 31. Assuming he means, getting a deal, that is what parliament will be engaged in scrutinising. He must surely be a little bit nervous about refusing to implement the delay, after today. If he voted for Theresa May's withdrawal agreement the third time round, maybe he will try and get it through, backstop and all, in a fourth vote?
-
Our eldest girl made me giggle, she said that Boris should be very grateful to the EU . As he mislead The Queen about the prorogation of Parliament she could have issued the instruction that Boris was sent to the Tower and his head removed. However, as the UK is still in the EU, the European Court of Human Rights, wouldn't have permitted that to happen! Although on second thoughts in the case of Boris they might have made an exception! ;D
-
You would think there has to be a VoNC but it's not clear that a govt of 'national unity' could be formed - as it's not clear we have any unity. If they went for that and didn't manage to form one, we either fall out with no deal, or revoke Article 50. If they can't form a govt then we go to an election and I have no idea what might happen in it.
-
Boris is gambling on winning an election, and I think he probably would. He just has to sit tight and waffle for a bit.
-
Boris is gambling on winning an election, and I think he probably would. He just has to sit tight and waffle for a bit.
Unfortunately for Boris, that requires time as things stand and a significant number of his backers are likely to want the UK out of Europe before the new anti-money laundering/tax avoidance regulations hit in January.
If we leave after that, we of course have the right to revoke them, but that would need to be new legislation issued by Parliament where the reasoning would be scrutinised.
I'm wondering, especially given that there seems to be a growing sense of impatience in Europe, if he'll manage to get a 'now or never' wording to an agreement to put before Parliament close to the October 19th deadline? Or, perhaps, agree to an extension (reluctantly) until December 31st, ostensibly to 'hammer out details' but really to get around the Benn amendment?
O.
-
Unfortunately for Boris, that requires time as things stand and a significant number of his backers are likely to want the UK out of Europe before the new anti-money laundering/tax avoidance regulations hit in January.
If we leave after that, we of course have the right to revoke them, but that would need to be new legislation issued by Parliament where the reasoning would be scrutinised.
I'm wondering, especially given that there seems to be a growing sense of impatience in Europe, if he'll manage to get a 'now or never' wording to an agreement to put before Parliament close to the October 19th deadline? Or, perhaps, agree to an extension (reluctantly) until December 31st, ostensibly to 'hammer out details' but really to get around the Benn amendment?
O.
I think the 2nd is the only one that he has a chance of achieving but at some point there will be an election. The delay will have had an effect on his polling and the Leave Alliance becomes much more problematic as a result. I still have no real understanding of the Labour policy can keep people on either side to vote for them.
-
I haven't a clue how the polls will react, but I suspect Boris will keep a lead. I suppose it's simplified, Tories offer no deal or a deal, Labour offer a referendum, Lib Dems hypothetical revoke. Then there are non-Brexit issues. Dunno.
-
I think the 2nd is the only one that he has a chance of achieving but at some point there will be an election. The delay will have had an effect on his polling and the Leave Alliance becomes much more problematic as a result. I still have no real understanding of the Labour policy can keep people on either side to vote for them.
I think the issue with trying to understand the current Labour party policy is that there isn't a single current Labour Party policy on very much, to the point where it's something of a fiction to claim that there's a single Labour Party. I think Corbyn's a fairly genuine guy, for a politician, but I can't help but feel that he's only a member of the Labour Party because he'd have to develop schizophrenia if he stood as an independent just so he could somehow create discord amongst himself, he has an unfathomable talent for turning like-minded people against each other, let alone people who fundamentally disagree with him.
O.
-
The Dug in tail-wagging mode! https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/24/the-law-is-not-an-ass/
-
Boris is gambling on winning an election, and I think he probably would. He just has to sit tight and waffle for a bit.
Following the unanimous agreement of the judges, I notice that Yahoo have opened a poll as to whether Boris should resign or not. Amazingly (to me) its 70 to 30 % in favour of his remaining - at the moment.
I wonder, when he next appears in Parliament, how long it will be before someone shouts "Resign!", and who it will be who shouts it. I seem to remember a previous prime minister (on just being elected) hadn't managed to stand up for one second before some wag shouted this. Anyone remember the occasion?
-
Surely, his actions have put him in contempt of Parliament. He should be subject to a motion of no confidence.
-
Surely, his actions have put him in contempt of Parliament. He should be subject to a motion of no confidence.
I agree.
-
Surely, his actions have put him in contempt of Parliament. He should be subject to a motion of no confidence.
I don't think there is enough in the judgements to be found in contempt of Parliament, and even if there was honestly no clue what would happen. The VoNC needs to be in the govt to have any effect.
-
I wondered when, or more if this would come up and would find it fascinating to understand how you've arrived at this conclusion?
I don't really see the need to justify myself to you.
However, if you want to try to figure it out for yourself think about the following two questions:
What has Brexit done to the Sterling-Euro exchange rate?
If you were thinking of going on holiday to Europe after November, and were concerned about what the entry requirements might be for your destination, would you book the holiday now, or would you wait?
The council that controls building works in my little town is trying to build 70 odd houses in the middle of our growing towns parkland including a road splitting the park up even more than the houses, the houses are bad enough but the access road is worse because it makes the park more dangerous overall for the children in this increasingly populous area, where more parkland will be needed to accommodate the extra population.
Perhaps you could explain what the EU has to do with that? I don't see it myself.
Everything negative according to you'll be caused by leaving the EU
I've never said that.
I just thought you might be able to let me know how leaving the EU affects this parkland problem we have here? Perhaps you might be able to give me something else to argue with against the councils ideas about this contested parkland and how leaving the EU comes into the argument?
You tell me how it comes into the argument. From your description here, it seems the EU has nothing to do with your problem.
-
You could say then that the remainers by delaying the implementation of our winning leave vote has made a serious dent in how our country is appreciated or not in the world's view has weakened our Pound.
Regards, ippy.
The Remainers didn't delay the implementation of Brexit. Theresa May had a deal a year ago but she couldn't get it implemented because of the No Deal Brexiteers.
-
Boris is gambling on winning an election, and I think he probably would. He just has to sit tight and waffle for a bit.
I think it will be a hung parliament.
-
The Remainers didn't delay the implementation of Brexit. Theresa May had a deal a year ago but she couldn't get it implemented because of the No Deal Brexiteers.
Including on 2 occasions one Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. SO his suggestions, accusations against Remainers are just so much a load of bollocks that it is hard to overstate the complete bollicking bollickiness of his bolloxed position.
-
I'd have thought that when the HoC resumes today they should pass a new bill to force Johnson to request an A50 extension immediately, and if he refuses it seems the Scottish Court of Session have the power to do it for him - it seems pointless to think that in less than 3 weeks the EU will bend over backwards to help this particular PM and failing government whose days are, hopefully, numbered.
I'd prefer to see another referendum before a GE since knowing what the electorate currently think would be useful, since I think the oft repeated mantra beloved by Brexit enthusiasts along the lines of 'the people want out now' needs to be sanity checked, and at least that way there would be a result that would inform any subsequent GE since I suspect, and hope, Brexit would be off the table, and if not then that there is still a majority support for Brexit it would have been confirmed.
No matter what it will be a can of worms.
-
Latest poll gives Lab 27, Con 27, LD 20, Brexit 17.
-
I'd have thought that when the HoC resumes today they should pass a new bill to force Johnson to request an A50 extension immediately, and if he refuses it seems the Scottish Court of Session have the power to do it for him - it seems pointless to think that in less than 3 weeks the EU will bend over backwards to help this particular PM and failing government whose days are, hopefully, numbered.
I'd prefer to see another referendum before a GE since knowing what the electorate currently think would be useful, since I think the oft repeated mantra beloved by Brexit enthusiasts along the lines of 'the people want out now' needs to be sanity checked, and at least that way there would be a result that would inform any subsequent GE since I suspect, and hope, Brexit would be off the table, and if not then that there is still a majority support for Brexit it would have been confirmed.
No matter what it will be a can of worms.
Agree with all that. Just to note that on a trawl of the news channels this morning there appears to me, at least, to be a concerted effort by those on the right: Tories, Farage, Brexit party chair to claim that "the people" want to leave, as if "the people" was one body. This is not challenged often enough by the TV presenters (I hesitate to call them journalists) - in fact I only saw one challenge to this mantra of "the people" and that on SKY for goodness sake.
-
I suspect many who voted to leave hadn't much idea what they were voting for, or were influenced by the lying siren voices, like those of Boris and Farage! A good number of leavers may have wised up to the consequences of leaving the EU, and if there was another referendum would vote remain.
-
The Remainers didn't delay the implementation of Brexit. Theresa May had a deal a year ago but she couldn't get it implemented because of the No Deal Brexiteers.
Exactly as I've been saying round and around it goes na na na na na you said he said you're a crook no you are, raspberries all around.
As long as we, the UK sticks to the result of the 2016 referendum I wont be complaining.
Regards, ippy.
-
Exactly as I've been saying round and around it goes na na na na na you said he said you're a crook no you are, raspberries all around.
As long as we, the UK sticks to the result of the 2016 referendum I wont be complaining.
Regards, ippy.
Ippy, would you accept staying in the customs union, which is necessary to avoid a hard Irish border?
-
I think I heard Geoffrey Cox initially say the supreme court has 'discovered' a legal principle; now he's saying they have 'invented/created' one.
-
Ippy, would you accept staying in the customs union, which is necessary to avoid a hard Irish border?
Nobody wants Ireland North or south to have, a, so called hard boarder, and it's not beyond the pale to engineer one unless of course you're trying to put a spanner in the works of brexit, it's what remainers do.
As far as I know we the UK are not about to declare war on the EU or have the British isles moved away from them, when we've left them to go their own sweet way have trade talks with our friends over there, the ones that want to belong to the EU actually we should be discussing trade with them now and making the necessary amicable arrangements needed for when we have left them, soon I hope.
Having trade talks when we have left the EU would remove most of the remainer spiking movement from the frame and make the negotiations far more straight forward.
Regards, ippy. P S Engineer a soft boarder I should have put do'h
-
Nobody wants Ireland North or south to have, a, so called hard boarder, and it's not beyond the pale to engineer {a soft} one unless of course you're trying to put a spanner in the works of brexit, it's what remainers do.
Really? It's not hard? How do you easily track what's being moved over that border? How do you ensure that the right customs duties are being placed on those goods? How do you ensure sufficient scrutiny to ensure that the materiel being trafficked is compliant with the regulations in the country of destination? Without implementing checks at the border? It is 'beyond the pale' to the extent that no-one who is calling for both a soft border and regulatory disentanglement has actually suggested a viable solution, yet.
As far as I know we the UK are not about to declare war on the EU or have the British isles moved away from them, when we've left them to go their own sweet way have trade talks with our friends over there, the ones that want to belong to the EU actually we should be discussing trade with them now and making the necessary amicable arrangements needed for when we have left them, soon I hope.
And those 'trade talks' take how long? What happens in the meantime?
Having trade talks when we have left the EU would remove most of the remainer spiking movement from the frame and make the negotiations far more straight forward.
How many times does it need to be pointed out that it wasn't 'remainers' spiking the arrangements, it was those that wouldn't implement a viable interim arrangement - leavers who wouldn't accept the trade deal on offer, which is only to be implemented until further agreements are reached.
O.
-
Nobody wants Ireland North or south to have, a, so called hard boarder, and it's not beyond the pale to engineer one unless of course you're trying to put a spanner in the works of brexit, it's what remainers do.
As far as I know we the UK are not about to declare war on the EU or have the British isles moved away from them, when we've left them to go their own sweet way have trade talks with our friends over there, the ones that want to belong to the EU actually we should be discussing trade with them now and making the necessary amicable arrangements needed for when we have left them, soon I hope.
Having trade talks when we have left the EU would remove most of the remainer spiking movement from the frame and make the negotiations far more straight forward.
Regards, ippy. P S Engineer a soft boarder I should have put do'h
Ippy, either Northern Ireland only, aligns itself with EU customs, or the whole UK does, to avoid the hard border.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason Remainers are against the soft border is because they see it as a poor arrangement compared to our current one. But then that would be the price we pay for ending free movement (that is, we wouldn't subsequently be free to do our own trade deals). That's what I was meaning. I think you are saying you'd be ok with it.
-
Ippy, either Northern Ireland only, aligns itself with EU customs, or the whole UK does, to avoid the hard border.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason Remainers are against the soft border is because they see it as a poor arrangement compared to our current one. But then that would be the price we pay for ending free movement (that is, we wouldn't subsequently be free to do our own trade deals). That's what I was meaning. I think you are saying you'd be ok with it.
To my knowledge the problems with a soft border are not ideological, they're practical. The EU will not accept a deal with no checks at the border if there is to be no regulatory alignment on either side, otherwise there is an uncontrolled European border - exactly the argument that led so many Leave voters to complain about membership of the EU in the first place.
O.
-
What fun they have had in the House of Commons today, each side of the house screaming abuse at the other. ::)
-
What fun they have had in the House of Commons today, each side of the house screaming abuse at the other. ::)
The emission of so much hateful hot air left a bad smell and made a mockery of Lady Hales beautifully clear and reasoned statement yesterday.
-
And of course he does
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/09/boris-johnson-knows-exactly-what-hes-doing-when-he-talks-about-jo-cox-and
-
Boris is despicable! >:(
-
As per NS, it is calculated by Boris, presumably part of his strategy of acting tough, I can get Brexit through, despite the moaning minnies.
-
As per NS, it is calculated by Boris, presumably part of his strategy of acting tough, I can get Brexit through, despite the moaning minnies.
Indeed.
Well the minnies really need to get their act together and put in an interim GNU.
-
As per NS, it is calculated by Boris, presumably part of his strategy of acting tough, I can get Brexit through, despite the moaning minnies.
I wonder just how long his bravado and bluster can last though. At the moment he's still buoyed up by support from his chum Trump and that pompous and extraordinarily brass-necked speech by the Attorney General Cox. One might have thought that Johnson and his cabinet had just been given a mild slap on the wrist rather than being defeated by seven Commons votes and their actions on the proroguing of Parliament being declared null and void by the Supreme Court of the land. Referring to calls for Johnson to resign Cox blithely joked that if he'd resigned every time he lost a case he'd never have had a career as a barrister. As if there were some comparison with this damning judgment, with which he and Boris etc "respectfully disagree". Well, there's a surprise! No doubt most criminals disagree with the judgment that they spend time in jail. If only the Supreme Court had such powers as to lock that bugger Johnson away.
I wonder how long he'll be able to spin out his act of being the 'people's prime minister', especially after his 'humbug' remarks.
-
Boris is despicable! >:(
As long as he gets us out of that EU I really don't care a jot.
Regards, ippy.
-
As long as he gets us out of that EU I really don't care a jot.
Here we go again with the fundamentalist religious cult mindset. It doesn't matter how many people are hurt, it doesn't matter how much the country and its institutions are damaged, so long as you get something you can't even give a coherent reason why you want.
-
Those of you who are customers of NHS England & Wales should be worried, unless these clowns can be stopped before anyone gets hurt (or sick people get sicker).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/23/matt-the-blank-made-few-friends-when-grilled-over-the-nhs-and-brexit
-
Our local pharmacy was complaining that some meds are not available at the moment. They said it was a direct result of the anticipation of Brexit.
-
Our local pharmacy was complaining that some meds are not available at the moment. They said it was a direct result of the anticipation of Brexit.
i was in a barber shop the other day, he blamed his blunt scissors on ...... you've got it !
-
Can't see any other position the SNP can reasonably take.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49850484
-
Can't see any other position the SNP can reasonably take.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49850484
The opposition parties certainly should come to an agreement as to who should lead. Corbyn could let Jo Swinson have the job - with an agreed cabinet and agenda: extension->deal->referendum->election or similar.
As the leader of the largest party behind the interim government, he could pull the plug if needed?
-
The opposition parties certainly should come to an agreement as to who should lead. Corbyn could let Jo Swinson have the job - with an agreed cabinet and agenda: extension->deal->referendum->election or similar.
As the leader of the largest party behind the interim government, he could pull the plug if needed?
Why should the leader of the 3rd largest party be PM though. I think Swinson was right about any such govt being easier with Clarke or Harman - but even if they agree a leader, it's nor clear they can agree on what any such a GNU would do.
-
Since whichever administration is formed after a putative confidence vote will be temporary, its' only purpose being to seek an extention to article 50 then dissolve at an election, I fail to understand why the Lib Dems are having a hissy fit over this. I have no respect for Corbyn, but if that's what it takes to get the d****d job done, so be it.
-
Since whichever administration is formed after a putative confidence vote will be temporary, its' only purpose being to seek an extention to article 50 then dissolve at an election, I fail to understand why the Lib Dems are having a hissy fit over this. I have no respect for Corbyn, but if that's what it takes to get the d****d job done, so be it.
Isn't Labour's position that they negotiate a deal before any election? Not clear that others accept that or think it is possible.
-
Since whichever administration is formed after a putative confidence vote will be temporary, its' only purpose being to seek an extention to article 50 then dissolve at an election, I fail to understand why the Lib Dems are having a hissy fit over this. I have no respect for Corbyn, but if that's what it takes to get the d****d job done, so be it.
As the crisis, that the GNU must address, is over brexit, it must resolve brexit. An election cannot do that unless one party gets greater than 52% of the vote.
-
Isn't Labour's position that they negotiate a deal before any election? Not clear that others accept that or think it is possible.
They should agree the modified May deal with the EU and put that for ratification (against revoke) in a referendum.
-
They should agree the modified May deal with the EU and put that for ratification (against revoke) in a referendum.
Modified in what way? None of the parties that would be in govt voted for that, and in the case of Labour and the Lib Dems have just voted against it again effectively at their conference. Don't get me wrong I think that they shouldn't even try to modify the deal but pass it and have the referendum as you suggest. That however means the GNU, as you do, will have to stick around while there is the referendum and deal with the rest of political life. And then call an election - note again that order isn't general policy for the parties. To get it done will need a lot of nose holding.
-
According to one commentator, Hugo Dixon, the risk of a GNU following a VoNC is that the convention is that Johnson is supposed to resign if he can't form a government that has the confidence of parliament so as to clear the way for an interim PM - and the risk is that he might refuse to resign. I'd imagine that if he is still the PM he'd have to comply with the Benn Act, but it would no doubt get messy and more legal action might follow.
https://twitter.com/Hugodixon/status/1177581582292586496
One of the lawyers involved in the prorogation case has suggested that "The strategy is, by hook or by crook, to delay the duty in the Benn Act to send an extension letter to the EU for long enough that the timetable for that extension to be agreed is compressed unmanageably."
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1177308131644325888
In effect, even of Johnson complies with the Benn Act and requests an extension the time available is less that 2 weeks and that might be enough to obstruct an extension coming into effect in time. None of this is secret though, so I'd imagine there might be steps taken next week to force the request for extension to be submitted immediately and have it agreed with the EU prior to the mid-October EU meeting on the basis that it could be rescinded by the HoC.
What a mess.
-
Modified in what way? None of the parties that would be in govt voted for that, and in the case of Labour and the Lib Dems have just voted against it again effectively at their conference. Don't get me wrong I think that they shouldn't even try to modify the deal but pass it and have the referendum as you suggest. That however means the GNU, as you do, will have to stick around while there is the referendum and deal with the rest of political life. And then call an election - note again that order isn't general policy for the parties. To get it done will need a lot of nose holding.
As I understand, when May finally allowed discussions with the opposition parties the meetings did result in a modified deal that was never to put to Parliament.
We are in a cesspit - best to hold nose.
-
As I understand, when May finally allowed discussions with the opposition parties the meetings did result in a modified deal that was never to put to Parliament.
We are in a cesspit - best to hold nose.
Which is why Swinson as PM isn't a go-er as that is an unbalanced nose holding. I have my doubts about any midified deal as it ism't clear that it is acceptable to the EU or any of the parties, hence it not being tried.
-
An aside on Orders In/Of Council that have suddenly become cool.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1177551865438986240.html
-
As I understand it an extension would have to be agreed by all 27 Member States. Does anyone know whether our now hard right Tory party could find a fellow traveller - say Orban in Hungary - and put the fix in to persuade them to vote against? We know that the tories aren't averse to a backhander re the DUP (or more accurately to a front hander as their bung was done in plain sight) so a pay off of some sort in exchange might not be out of the question.
-
There was vague talk of this before and nothing came of it. I suspect that any bribery the Tories might manage pales in comparison to the pull of being 1 v 26, and whatever effect the EU might have.
In addition I think that would strengthen the hand for revocation of the star of the Articles, 50
-
As I understand it an extension would have to be agreed by all 27 Member States. Does anyone know whether our now hard right Tory party could find a fellow traveller - say Orban in Hungary - and put the fix in to persuade them to vote against? We know that the tories aren't averse to a backhander re the DUP (or more accurately to a front hander as their bung was done in plain sight) so a pay off of some sort in exchange might not be out of the question.
The only legal alternative to an extension would be to withdraw article 50.
-
If an extension was turned down by the EU the only option, aside from passing May's deal in a hurry, and even then there would be little time to implement it, would be that a majority in the HoC were prepared to vote to revoke rather than let no-deal happen - and I doubt that would be a goer until maybe sometime during the late afternoon or early evening of the 31st October.
I wonder what future political historians will say about the whole Brexit shambles and about how the UK managed to paint itself into all 4 corners of the room at the same time.
-
Which is why Swinson as PM isn't a go-er as that is an unbalanced nose holding. I have my doubts about any midified deal as it ism't clear that it is acceptable to the EU or any of the parties, hence it not being tried.
Sadly I doubt that Corbyn would agree to Clarke or Harman as leader, let alone Swinson.
I think a government with Corbyn at the head, relying on the support of the other parties would be too unstable to achieve anything (top heavy and with known splits in Labour)
Also, in fact, the SNP is the third largest party, LibDems fourth.
-
Sadly I doubt that Corbyn would agree to Clarke or Harman as leader, let alone Swinson.
I think a government with Corbyn at the head, relying on the support of the other parties would be too unstable to achieve anything (top heavy and with known splits in Labour)
Also, in fact, the SNP is the third largest party, LibDems fourth.
i meant the 3rd largest party in the coalition. I have no idea what you mean be let alone Swinson, since I can't see any reason for Swinson. You might as well say let alone David Gauke.
If Corbyn or Labour should hold their nose, the LDs have no chance of Swinson as PM without looking hypocritical.
-
Reading this about the latest discussions, there seems to be no prospect of any revised deal.
Of course the Tory government will continue to pretend there is progress until after their conference next week, in order to avoid upsetting their membership, who still seem gullible enough to think all is well and that a no-deal Brexit should be allowed to happen despite all the information that shows it would be disastrous: though that they still bleat on that 'the people want this done' but refuse to check that this is indeed the case currently suggests they are living in fantasy-land.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/no-deal-brexit-fault-uk-government-alone-juncker-eu
-
i meant the 3rd largest party in the coalition. I have no idea what you mean be let alone Swinson, since I can't see any reason for Swinson. You might as well say let alone David Gauke.
If Corbyn or Labour should hold their nose, the LDs have no chance of Swinson as PM without looking hypocritical.
The only way they are going to negotiate an alternate government is to ditch the party positions and put individuals in the posts that will best achieve the agreed limited programme (whatever that is). To get any programme through they will need the support of all remainers, "leave with a deal" leavers and convince the remaining Torys that they would get "no brexit at all" unless a deal is ratified by the chosen method.
LDs already support a referendum before a GE. JC also wants the people to decide on a deal that he puts to them.
-
Looks like Johnson has something else to worry about - let's hope so.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/boris-johnson-referred-to-police-watchdog-over-potential-misconduct
-
The only way they are going to negotiate an alternate government is to ditch the party positions and put individuals in the posts that will best achieve the agreed limited programme (whatever that is). To get any programme through they will need the support of all remainers, "leave with a deal" leavers and convince the remaining Torys that they would get "no brexit at all" unless a deal is ratified by the chosen method.
LDs already support a referendum before a GE. JC also wants the people to decide on a deal that he puts to them.
Yes, I know, I have been violently agreeing. The issue is this can't be just a single holding of the nose. For Swinson to be PM it will appear as if Labour did, borrowed to the LDs, who didn't and as already covered this would be a PM from the 3rd largest party in the coalition.
The LDs position is for a revocation after an election. And a referendum if it isn't. In many ways it's as fatously vague as Labour's.
-
Looks like Johnson has something else to worry about - let's hope so.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/boris-johnson-referred-to-police-watchdog-over-potential-misconduct
If he is guilty he should be sent down.
-
If he is guilty he should be sent down.
'Sent down' just brought this into my head. Names changed to protect the guilty
https://youtu.be/nvmYfcQB5HY
-
'Sent down' just brought this into my head. Names changed to protect the guilty
https://youtu.be/nvmYfcQB5HY
If Boris was sent down he might be of the Harry Grout ilk, dominating the prison. ;D
-
If Boris was sent down he might be of the Harry Grout ilk, dominating the prison. ;D
Mmm, while Eton and prison have a number of things in common, I doubt that would be the case.
-
If Boris was sent down he might be of the Harry Grout ilk, dominating the prison. ;D
If he had a record of success like he does as PM, he's more likely to end up with his throat slit in the showers.
-
There is talk of a possible no confidence vote next week, with the aim of bringing Johnson down.
-
There is talk of a possible no confidence vote next week, with the aim of bringing Johnson down.
Which as already covered needs a plan about 'What next?'.
-
There is talk of a possible no confidence vote next week, with the aim of bringing Johnson down.
If so it needs to be on the basis of clear agreement on an interim government, since if Johnson loses a VoNC and the plan for an interim government fails then there is still the risk of no-deal happening, so it would have to be the last throw of the dice and depend on the ex-Tories and Lib-Dems accepting Corbyn as interim PM, no doubt through gritted teeth.
-
If so it needs to be on the basis of clear agreement on an interim government, since if Johnson loses a VoNC and the plan for an interim government fails then there is still the risk of no-deal happening, so it would have to be the last throw of the dice and depend on the ex-Tories and Lib-Dems accepting Corbyn as interim PM, no doubt through gritted teeth.
They will have great difficulty accepting Corbyn, we shall have to see what happens.
-
They will have great difficulty accepting Corbyn, we shall have to see what happens.
They are the 3rd largest party in any coalition
They need perspective. I say thar as someone who doesn't have a lot of time for Corbyn
-
Gove, strong and stable
https://youtu.be/taqxVxSoOB8
-
So here’s the solution (assuming the Art 50 process is extended as the Benn Act requires).
The rebel alliance concludes that Corbyn is loved by his hard core coterie but is kryptonite to most MPs and to most of the country. They decide instead therefore that a pairing of Harriet Harman and Ken Clarke should lead the cross-party group into a GE with the following manifesto:
1. A second referendum to be held within six months of the new Gov’t sitting.
2. The referendum question will be a choice between remaining and leaving for the model that’s then known to have been negotiated with the EU.
3. The referendum result will be final and binding.
4. At the time of announcing the referendum an independent office of fact checking will be appointed to monitor and report on the claims made by the competing campaigns.
5. During the life of the Gov’t normal business will be conducted, but no new major legislative initiatives will be brought forward (other than those essential to the referendum itself).
6. Once the referendum result is known and enacted, the gov’t will immediately dissolve and a new GE will be called.
Job done.
-
They will have great difficulty accepting Corbyn, we shall have to see what happens.
Much as I think Corbyn is a useless twat, he would be the only possible PM in a coalition against no deal Brexit. Other than the Tories, he has the most MPs of any party by far. I'm afraid the other parties have got to bite that particular bullet.
-
Jeremy,
Much as I think Corbyn is a useless twat, he would be the only possible PM in a coalition against no deal Brexit. Other than the Tories, he has the most MPs of any party by far. I'm afraid the other parties have got to bite that particular bullet.
What if enough of his own MPs tell him that the only way an alliance will unite is if he stands aside for now to resolve the Brexit issue (see above), and that he will be g’teed to lead Labour into the GE that will follow (also see above)?
-
Jeremy,
What if enough of his own MPs tell him that the only way an alliance will unite is if he stands aside for now to resolve the Brexit issue (see above), and that he will be g’teed to lead Labour into the GE that will follow (also see above)?
I don't think he would do it. He's already guaranteed to lead Labour into the next general election.
-
I don't think he would do it. He's already guaranteed to lead Labour into the next general election.
So much for the rebel alliance then.
Can BJ time a resignation/VoNC such that Oct 31st passes without an extension being in place?
-
There are now reports that Johnson plans to foment civil unrest so as to have an excuse to use emergency powers in order to ensure a no deal Brexit, which perhaps explains his contradictory position of refusing to request an extension as per the Benn Act but still not break the law: by simply using alternative laws that negate the Benn Act.
Seems far-fetched that a UK PM would go down a route like this- but perhaps this one would.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/boris-johnson-invoke-civil-emergency-powers-brexit-deal
-
According to one Scottish paper there is a 'secret' plot, though since it's the front page headline it may no longer be a secret, to make Bercow the interim PM of a GNU.
Brexit is such as mess now that there is almost daily speculation regarding what happens next, and surely someone has to do something sensible soon. If there is to be an unexpected interim PM I suggest we resurrect dear old Mr Pastry: he would at least be an improvement on the current incumbent.
-
...surely someone has to do something sensible soon.
I wouldn't put money on it...
-
According to one Scottish paper there is a 'secret' plot, though since it's the front page headline it may no longer be a secret, to make Bercow the interim PM of a GNU.
Brexit is such as mess now that there is almost daily speculation regarding what happens next, and surely someone has to do something sensible soon. If there is to be an unexpected interim PM I suggest we resurrect dear old Mr Pastry: he would at least be an improvement on the current incumbent.
Mr Pastry couldn't do a worse job than Boris, nor could one of the monkeys in the zoo. ::)
-
Mr Pastry couldn't do a worse job than Boris, nor could a one of the monkeys in the zoo. ::)
As long as he gets us what was voted for, out of the EU, I couldn't give a monkeys, I'm hoping he makes a good job of that, we'll see so roll on the 31st.
Regards, ippy.
-
As long as he gets us what was voted for, out of the EU, I couldn't give a monkeys, I'm hoping he makes a good job of that, we'll see so roll on the 31st.
Regards, ippy.
Boris and a good job are an oxymoron Hopefully the UK will not leave the EU unless a good deal has been arranged or not at all, which would be far preferable.
-
As long as he gets us what was voted for, out of the EU...
"But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.
Leaving without a deal ... would not honour that commitment."
-- Michael Gove (source (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6793255/MICHAEL-GOVE-backing-Prime-Ministers-deal-EU-ensure-Brexit-happens.html))
-
All leavers knew exactly what they were voting for - just failed to check that the other leavers had the same destination in mind.
Theresa May came to a clear conclusion: "Leave means Leave" - then the hard line leavers failed to vote to leave when given the chance.
-
All leavers knew exactly what they were voting for - just failed to check that the other leavers had the same destination in mind.
Indeed.
Remember the referendum on the voting system, which asked whether we wanted to continue to use the first past the post voting system or use the alternative voting system instead. In that case the non status quo option was clear. For brexit it wasn't and the equivalent would have been asking would have been asking whether we wanted to continue to use first past the post or to use a different method to select MPs, but without being clear what that different method would be.
And to continue with the analogy, image if the referendum campaign on that non defined new way of selecting MPs promised that it would make everyone's vote count, would retain link with MP, would produce strong and stable government etc, but with our defining what that method would be. And despite that 3 years after the vote we get a game of rock, paper and scissors between the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury as the proposed method (qv no deal) in other words something that would be disastrous and that no one suggested as an option in the campaign.
-
"But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.
Leaving without a deal ... would not honour that commitment."
-- Michael Gove (source (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6793255/MICHAEL-GOVE-backing-Prime-Ministers-deal-EU-ensure-Brexit-happens.html))
Are you referring to the same referendum I'm writing about the one here in the UK, the June 2016 referendum only the voting slip I put my cross on was for leave or remain only?
Regards, ippy.
-
Are you referring to the same referendum I'm writing about the one here in the UK, the June 2016 referendum only the voting slip I put my cross on was for leave or remain only?
I believe that is the one Michael Gove was referring to, yes. There are good reasons why that was not about no-deal that have already been stated many times here (in exactly the same way that your coherent reasons for wanting to leave, haven't) and I was just pointing out that Gove (one of the people who led the leave campaign, as I'm sure you recall) seemed to agree just a few months ago.
Unless you have an argument that pretty much everybody who put their mark in the leave box did so on the basis, not of what they were told by the leave campaign, but on the basis of "do this at any and every cost to me and mine", then you can't claim it was a vote for no-deal.
-
I believe that is the one Michael Gove was referring to, yes. There are good reasons why that was not about no-deal that have already been stated many times here (in exactly the same way that your coherent reasons for wanting to leave, haven't) and I was just pointing out that Gove (one of the people who led the leave campaign, as I'm sure you recall) seemed to agree just a few months ago.
Unless you have an argument that pretty much everybody who put their mark in the leave box did so on the basis, not of what they were told by the leave campaign, but on the basis of "do this at any and every cost to me and mine", then you can't claim it was a vote for no-deal.
I've been against the idea of being in the EU as well as being against being in the EEC, yes even as far back as the EEC days, the very idea of ever closer union with the EU something we didn't even get a vote about is certainly something that is a complete anathema to me and obviously to the majority of people that took the most welcome opportunity to vote against being in the EU either.
It was very much a very long term held opinion of mine that this organisation wasn't the best deal for us here in the UK and I very much doubt I was the only one to find how offensive this EU was especially that phrase 'ever closer union', F O.
Regards, ippy.
-
As long as he gets us what was voted for, out of the EU, I couldn't give a monkeys, I'm hoping he makes a good job of that, we'll see so roll on the 31st.
Regards, ippy.
What do you think would be voted for in 2020?
-
I've been against the idea of being in the EU as well as being against being in the EEC, yes even as far back as the EEC days, the very idea of ever closer union with the EU something we didn't even get a vote about is certainly something that is a complete anathema to me and obviously to the majority of people that took the most welcome opportunity to vote against being in the EU either.
It was very much a very long term held opinion of mine that this organisation wasn't the best deal for us here in the UK and I very much doubt I was the only one to find how offensive this EU was especially that phrase 'ever closer union', F O.
- It's actually very far from obvious that the majority who voted leave felt the same as you (rather than being persuaded by the campaign of the fictitious advantages of leaving) - where is your evidence?
- Even if a majority did, a minority who didn't (and believed the lies) could esily have made the difference.
- You have still not given any practical reason for your view and why it is so important to you that you don't seem to care how many people get hurt along the way.
- Cameron got an opt-out from "ever closer union".
-
- It's actually very far from obvious that the majority who voted leave felt the same as you (rather than being persuaded by the campaign of the fictitious advantages of leaving) - where is your evidence?
He doesn't have any.
Actually from the post-referendum analysis of reasons for voting leave there were 2 recurring themes. The first being a nebulous issue with immigration, which went far beyond immigration from the EU itself (which is of course the only thing that is actually relevant to the referendum). The second being, to paraphrase, the view that we joined a common market and this has evolved into the EU - now that implies that the original 1973 common market was OK but the current EU isn't. Neither view aligns with Ippy's.[/list]
-
What do you think would be voted for in 2020?
The next election, if it isn't anything else it'll certainly be interesting jp.
Regards, ippy.
-
- It's actually very far from obvious that the majority who voted leave felt the same as you (rather than being persuaded by the campaign of the fictitious advantages of leaving) - where is your evidence?
- Even if a majority did, a minority who didn't (and believed the lies) could esily have made the difference.
- You have still not given any practical reason for your view and why it is so important to you that you don't seem to care how many people get hurt along the way.
- Cameron got an opt-out from "ever closer union".
I have pointed out why I haven't gone into setting up a clay pidgin shoot for remainers enough times.
The referendum was for leave or remain, you and your remaining compatriots are welcome to spend as much time as you like moaning amongst yourselves about how remain managed to loose and as far as I'm concerned the views of remainers are of no interest to me because all of your remain moans should have became irrelevant, surplus to requirements the moment the figures were added up on the day after the referendum.
At the moment until we leave if there's any voting to be done my vote goes wherever I think it's the most likely place or person that'll comply with the referendum vote and completely remove the UK from the EU, but once we have left the EU it doesn't necessarily mean I'll be voting for the same people or person again.
In normal times, whatever's normal, I'm a no one particular party supporter there's very little I have in common with any single political party we have on offer here in the UK.
Regards, ippy.
-
I have pointed out why I haven't gone into setting up a clay pidgin shoot for remainers enough times.
We know why. It's because you have nothing except your fear of foreigners. You won't tell us how you're going to benefit because you know you won't.
the views of remainers are of no interest to me
That's unfortunate because it is looking very much like they are right.
-
I have pointed out why I haven't gone into setting up a clay pidgin shoot for remainers enough times.
It's as if you know that whatever reasons you do have will be so easily shown to be irrational and based in misinformation you're scared of presenting them.
Eerily reminiscent of "I've got loads of evidence for God, but you wouldn't understand it, so I'm keeping it to myself".
We have a government with no majority looking for a way to bypass the law and raising the spectre of violence in the streets if they don't get their way. And you're worried about an "ever closer union" with friendly democratic states which we are formally NOT committed to?
I sometimes wish I believed in a benevolent god, at least I'd be able to comfort myself asking it to help us.
-
The referendum was for leave or remain, you and your remaining compatriots are welcome to spend as much time as you like moaning amongst yourselves about how remain managed to loose and as far as I'm concerned the views of remainers are of no interest to me because all of your remain moans should have became irrelevant, surplus to requirements the moment the figures were added up on the day after the referendum.
The irony being that the views of remainers are based on the known and assessed likely consequences of leaving the EU, and especially if that is on a no-deal basis, and these will quickly become increasingly relevant and very obvious (even to you) should the shit ever hit the fan on Halloween - such as there being no surpluses of anything, but shortages instead, and everything will cost more.
Hopefully though Brexit will be stopped by hook or by crook so that the rest of us aren't dragged down by this suicidal Tory-inspired idiocy.
-
The irony being that the views of remainers are based on the known and assessed likely consequences of leaving the EU, and especially if that is on a no-deal basis, and these will quickly become increasingly relevant and very obvious (even to you) should the shit ever hit the fan on Halloween - such as there being no surpluses of anything, but shortages instead, and everything will cost more.
Hopefully though Brexit will be stopped by hook or by crook so that the rest of us aren't dragged down by this suicidal Tory-inspired idiocy.
Hear! Hear!
-
The referendum was for leave or remain, you and your remaining compatriots are welcome to spend as much time as you like moaning amongst yourselves about how remain managed to loose and as far as I'm concerned the views of remainers are of no interest to me because all of your remain moans should have became irrelevant, surplus to requirements the moment the figures were added up on the day after the referendum.
So once again, you are running away from the points that have been raised. And by the way, Michael Gove (who I quoted about the vote not being for no-deal) is not a remainer.
At the moment until we leave if there's any voting to be done my vote goes wherever I think it's the most likely place or person that'll comply with the referendum vote and completely remove the UK from the EU, but once we have left the EU it doesn't necessarily mean I'll be voting for the same people or person again.
And once again (again) you don't seem to care about the consequences for anybody just so long as you get some warm fuzzy feeling that EU courts don't have any say and there no "ever closer union" that we were opted out of anyway.
-
Heard something on Radio 4 earlier that I'd forgotten. When he announced that the tories would promise a referendum, what Cameron actually said was that they'd give the public a choice between leaving and the deal he'd just negotiated. Somehow that critical last bit didn't make it to the actual question (which has caused huge problems because the proponents of any of the various versions of leave all claim now, "and that's what 17.4m people voted for" when clearly all of them could have done no such thing), but it's interesting that that's what he said people would vote on nonetheless.
-
The latest idea on the border in Ireland looks like many of the old rejected ideas with a new term applied to make it look different. Struggling to avoid thinking that it is merely a piece of handwaving which the EU will reject which will allow the govt to postpone, and have an election on the nasty EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49881345
-
And there we have it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49890199
Boris Johnson admits there will be a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Note that he claims it is not a hard border, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
-
And there we have it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49890199
Boris Johnson admits there will be a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Note that he claims it is not a hard border, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
And regardless of what happens with brexit this will simply not be allowed under the international legal obligations of the Good Friday Agreement.
So if there is a no deal brexit the UK and RofI will be required rapidly under their international obligations to put in place a solution that returns to a position of no hard border. And the only thing that could be done immediately would be to, in effect, trigger the backstop. So rather than eliminate the back stop a no deal brexit will ensure it has to be immediately implemented.
-
And regardless of what happens with brexit this will simply not be allowed under the international legal obligations of the Good Friday Agreement.
I don't think Boris Johnson gives a flying fuck about the GFA. It will be broken.
-
I don't think Boris Johnson gives a flying fuck about the GFA. It will be broken.
I don't think it will as it will be reneging on international legal obligations and the international community will take an extremely dim view, with serious implications on our ability to gain influence and deals abroad. Most notably, were we to renege on GFA agreement we can kiss goodbye any chance of a deal etc with the US.
-
I don't think it will as it will be reneging on international legal obligations and the international community will take an extremely dim view, with serious implications on our ability to gain influence and deals abroad.
I don't think the leading Bexiteers care about that.
Most notably, were we to renege on GFA agreement we can kiss goodbye any chance of a deal etc with the US.
Yep.
Mind you, it's clear that the USA can't be trusted to honour their obligations in international deals either.
-
https://inews.co.uk/news/britain-brexit-europe-boris-johnson-paid-budget-150m-week-ons-638866
Britain’s contribution to the EU budget was £150m a week, significantly lower than the £350m cited by pro-Brexit campaigners in the 2016 referendum campaign, according to the Office of National Statistics.
Figures published yesterday showed that the UK’s net outgoings to Brussels were as low as £7.8bn a year on average over the past five years, once the rebate and other payments were taken into account.
-
And regardless of what happens with brexit this will simply not be allowed under the international legal obligations of the Good Friday Agreement.
So if there is a no deal brexit the UK and RofI will be required rapidly under their international obligations to put in place a solution that returns to a position of no hard border. And the only thing that could be done immediately would be to, in effect, trigger the backstop. So rather than eliminate the back stop a no deal brexit will ensure it has to be immediately implemented.
In the event of a no-deal wouldn't the backstop implemented be between the island of Ireland and the GB rather than the UK and RoI?
Even if Ireland accepted a version of the alternative arrangements proposed by BJ (assuming this might happen) so that we left with a deal , those arrangements are likely to drift in the same direction imo.
-
We know why. It's because you have nothing except your fear of foreigners. You won't tell us how you're going to benefit because you know you won't.
That's unfortunate because it is looking very much like they are right.
Where I wrote: 'the views of remainers are of no interest to me', and a part of your reply says, 'We know why. It's because you have nothing except your fear of foreigners. You won't tell us how you're going to benefit because you know you won't'.
Can't think of where I have said or implied that I've got some fear of foreigners, I have said something like having to many immigrants come crashing over a cliff here into the UK in such vast apparently uncontrolled numbers isn't that desirable.
===
I then went on to say: 'the views of remainers are of no interest to me', to which your response was: 'That's unfortunate because it is looking very much like they are right; well again we could be going around in circles on that one, great, fine you go ahead, just don't involve me.
Regards, ippy.
-
That parrots back again.
You know the one. The one that learnt all its language in Nigel Farage's living room.
-
And regardless of what happens with brexit this will simply not be allowed under the international legal obligations of the Good Friday Agreement.
So if there is a no deal brexit the UK and RofI will be required rapidly under their international obligations to put in place a solution that returns to a position of no hard border. And the only thing that could be done immediately would be to, in effect, trigger the backstop. So rather than eliminate the back stop a no deal brexit will ensure it has to be immediately implemented.
Why can't the two countries just agree not to have a hard border? Am I missing something?
-
Udayana,
https://inews.co.uk/news/britain-brexit-europe-boris-johnson-paid-budget-150m-week-ons-638866
Quote
Britain’s contribution to the EU budget was £150m a week, significantly lower than the £350m cited by pro-Brexit campaigners in the 2016 referendum campaign, according to the Office of National Statistics.
Figures published yesterday showed that the UK’s net outgoings to Brussels were as low as £7.8bn a year on average over the past five years, once the rebate and other payments were taken into account.
That's the lie by commission, More significant though is the lie by omission - that is, in exchange for no longer paying what we currently pay what's the net loss in reduced economic activity by stepping outside the single market? It's a bit like paying £20 to go to a car boot sale every Sunday, and deciding you wanted to be £20 by no longer going. You'd be £20 better off all right in the sense of no longer paying it, but you'd be (say) net £180 worse off because you were no longer at the market to make your weekly profit of £200. The £200 equivalent part is what was left off the side of the bus.
Funny that.
-
Steve H,
Why can't the two countries just agree not to have a hard border? Am I missing something?
Yes. The EU has a common external tariff - that is, there's a hard border wherever you bring goods from outside the EU to the EU. Once you're inside though (ie, past the external border checks) the concept of free circulation applies so there are effectively no more border formalities between Member States.
If you did away with hard border on the island if Ireland, goods could enter the Republic from the North with no checks. Once in the Republic, they would therefore appear to be within the EU even though the external border formalities had not been completed, duty had not been paid etc. Then in principle they could move to any other Member State with no further checks when they arrived in France, Germany etc. It's a smugglers' charter in other words.
-
I can't believe it. Boris is doubling down
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891899
It was a lie before. It's a lie now. This man needs to go to prison.
-
I can't believe it. Boris is doubling down
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891899
It was a lie before. It's a lie now. This man needs to go to prison.
You sound surprised.
He's a liar. It's what he is and what he does.
Lied to his wife, his mistress, his boss. Surely you worked out he would lie to us?
I know that question was rhetorical.
-
Can't think of where I have said or implied that I've got some fear of foreigners, I have said something like having to many immigrants come crashing over a cliff here into the UK in such vast apparently uncontrolled numbers isn't that desirable.
Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home.
I then went on to say: 'the views of remainers are of no interest to me', to which your response was: 'That's unfortunate because it is looking very much like they are right; well again we could be going around in circles on that one, great, fine you go ahead, just don't involve me.
Nice to see you conceding my point.
The views of remainers should be of interest to you. If you shut them out, you'll never know if you are right or wrong.
Similarly the views of Brexiteers are definitely of interest to me. I'd love to know how anybody is going to be better off after this fiasco has concluded. Well, I know how Boris and his chums will be better off, but I don't know how the ordinary people without loads of cash stashed in offshore tax havens are going to be better off. And the worst thing about it is that the ordinary people who voted for Brexit have no idea how they are going to be better off either.
That's the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that people like you refuse to engage with me on the subject. For fuck's sake Ippy, grows a pair and tell us how our lives are going to be better on November 1st.
-
Just to help out, he has an obvious tell for when he is lying, he speaks.
-
Just to help out, he has an obvious tell for when he is lying, he speaks.
But it's so fucking blatant. How is anybody being taken in?
-
But it's so fucking blatant. How is anybody being taken in?
They don't care, or he's being stitched up, or it's for the best. See Trump.
-
It’s much worse than that. Whatever the true weekly cost is, it’s a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of being outside the single market. Our contribution is in significant part the membership fee for being part of that market. It’s fucking tragic that this is consistently missed.
-
But it's so fucking blatant. How is anybody being taken in?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/30/europe-populist-lie-shamelessly-salvini-johnson
-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/30/europe-populist-lie-shamelessly-salvini-johnson
I'm not sure I agree with the article's thesis. I think the key sentence is
The defiant line, found nestling in most populist party manifestos, used to be: “We’re only saying what everyone is thinking.”
People have biased beliefs and pandering to them reinforces them. If Ippy suspects that we can't cope with the number of immigrants, then telling him "immigrants are flooding in to the country" reinforces a belief he already has.
-
Westminster voting intention: CON: 34% (+1) LDEM: 23% (+2) LAB: 21% (-1) BREX: 12% (-1) GRN: 5% (-) via
@YouGov
Chgs. w/ 27 Sep
-
People have biased beliefs and pandering to them reinforces them. If Ippy suspects that we can't cope with the number of immigrants, then telling him "immigrants are flooding in to the country" reinforces a belief he already has.
Perhaps the mistake is to assume that most people are primarily interested in facts. What if most folk operate mainly at the level of feelings and prefer to have these validated rather than challenged? Changing your beliefs can be unsettling, even painful. If we prioritise facts then we might feel obliged to defer to experts - and we've had enough of those elitists telling us what to do (think Gove). But everyone is equal in having feelings and personal opinions based on them. If you feel in your gut that we're overrun with immigrants then studies that contradict this conviction might have little influence on you. Instead they might just reinforce your belief that the kind of people who come up with such nonsensical ideas are never to be trusted and you double down on your anti-immigrant sentiments. If the people you associate with in daily life and the news sources you go to share these sentiments then your sense of righteousness would likely become almost unshakeable.
-
Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home.
Nice to see you conceding my point.
The views of remainers should be of interest to you. If you shut them out, you'll never know if you are right or wrong.
Similarly the views of Brexiteers are definitely of interest to me. I'd love to know how anybody is going to be better off after this fiasco has concluded. Well, I know how Boris and his chums will be better off, but I don't know how the ordinary people without loads of cash stashed in offshore tax havens are going to be better off. And the worst thing about it is that the ordinary people who voted for Brexit have no idea how they are going to be better off either.
That's the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that people like you refuse to engage with me on the subject. For fuck's sake Ippy, grows a pair and tell us how our lives are going to be better on November 1st.
In your post you seem to want to plant this on me: 'Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home'.
It's not worth trying to deny these lines of yours, they have nothing to do with me and the rest of your post, so much of it amounts to juggling with semantics what would be the point of trying to answer?
Regards, ippy.
-
Westminster voting intention: CON: 34% (+1) LDEM: 23% (+2) LAB: 21% (-1) BREX: 12% (-1) GRN: 5% (-) via
@YouGov
Chgs. w/ 27 Sep
With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.
-
With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.
The biq question is that if Johnson extends and the election follows what the reaction of people who wanted No Deal Brexit would be be - it could increase the Brexit party vote at the cost of the Tory vote. If say they dropped 8% points to them, it could be desperately messy.
-
With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.
Sounds good to me, Udayana the cheque's in the post thank you very much.
Regards, ippy.
-
With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.
Weirdly I don't think that is what would happen. The reason why the Tories are driving towards no deal is because they are terrified of the brexit wing. Were they to win a big majority I think we'd actually see a pragmatic deal pushed through. Firstly because I think most tory MPs (not the ERG obviously) actually recognise that no deal would be a disaster. And secondly because having a big majority would allow the PM to stick 2 fingers up to the ERG and Nigel Farage.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/raising-hopes-and-denying-gropes-tory-conference-leaves-no-fantasy-untouched
-
Moderator Note as per the rules, we don't allow large copy and pastes from unknown sources, so ippy's post and replies have been removed, and a request to find a suitable link has been sent to ippy.
-
Please note all I've done is pass this on
Perhaps you should have at least done some basic fact checking before even considering passing it on? Much of it is obvious nonsense and it took me all of a minute to find out that most of it is:
There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty (https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/)
Factcheck 26 questions on EU (https://www.derekthomas.org/news/factcheck-26-questions-eu)
If you're basing your views on this sort of bullshit, perhaps you should think again.
-
A number of posts seem to have been deleted: one from Ippy, rehashing a mendacious load of scaremongering from the internet, and my and Professor Davey's replies.
P.S.: just seen NS's explanation.
-
Moderator
As Stranger's post has a link to a something that includes all of ippy's cut and paste, albeit a critique of it, we are leaving that post up.
-
Moderator
As Stranger's post has a link to a something that includes all of ippy's cut and paste, albeit a critique of it, we are leaving that post up.
The first link also contains links to some of the sources, for example:
Is it the UK’s decision of not joining the euro zone and keep the pound as its independent currency? (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-the-UK-s-decision-of-not-joining-the-euro-zone-and-keep-the-pound-as-its-independent-currency)
IF YOU STAY IN THE EU THERE ARE KNOWN OUTCOMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN AGREED AS TRUE BY ALL SIDES (https://unitedtruthseekers.com/profiles/blogs/if-you-stay-in-the-eu-there-are-known-outcomes-that-have-already-?fbclid=IwAR31QW6axFhXCLp8iDhG23fReBbSrgjulbNOj_l1gxIPHTtTTYumx6BeOYU)
-
Mmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309
-
I had already seen the long list of "outcomes" from the Lisbon Treaty on Facebook. I now see that it originated on Quora - a site for anyone with an opinion (any opinion) to express it.
Looking at the list, the first thing that jumped out at me was the apparent belief that the London Stock Exchange is some kind of official body which is a part of the "government" process and can therefore be transferred at the EU's will to Frankfurt. The Stock Exchange is a limited company, it is owned by shareholders not the state and is not subject to any bureaucratic administrative control. I dare say that if I examined other aspects of the list they, too, would also lack any credibility.
-
In your post you seem to want to plant this on me: 'Why don't you try reading your own posts. You know: the ones where you bemoan immigration and think it's OK to tell foreigners they should go home'.
It's not worth trying to deny these lines of yours, they have nothing to do with me and the rest of your post, so much of it amounts to juggling with semantics what would be the point of trying to answer?
Regards, ippy.
Grow a pair, coward.
-
With those %'s we'd get a Con govt. with a large majority - which would confirm a no-deal brexit.
I don't think that necessarily follows. I think it's more likely to be a repeat of what we've got now.
-
Mmm...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309
Mmm... indeed. NI would be in the single market but the rest of the UK not? How would that work?
-
I don't think that necessarily follows. I think it's more likely to be a repeat of what we've got now.
They will have to go into an election with a plan - either an agreed deal or no-deal if they continue in their effort to out-brexit Farage.
-
Perhaps you should have at least done some basic fact checking before even considering passing it on? Much of it is obvious nonsense and it took me all of a minute to find out that most of it is:
There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty (https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/)
Factcheck 26 questions on EU (https://www.derekthomas.org/news/factcheck-26-questions-eu)
If you're basing your views on this sort of bullshit, perhaps you should think again.
I passed it on to give the remainers that post here something to get their teeth into, a sort of clay pidgin, and particularly pointed out that I was only passing it on without making a comment about it without giving a view of my thinking on or about the content of its text.
I suspected that it may have not been 100% correct and some of it more than likely could have been absolutely correct.
I still have not got where it came from other than it might have something to do with someone named Gary Turnbull, I'm not very good at remembering names and I can't recall ever hearing of him and couldn't find anything very helpful via Mr Google, oh yes it may have something to do with facebook,I've never joined so was unable to look there.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
Grow a pair, coward.
Where in the forum rules does it state that I have to argue with anyone if I don't feel so inclined?
It wouldn't matter whatever I was to write in favour of leave you'd not want to concede anything, likewise myself, circular ad infinitum.
Find you own clay pidgin shoot, why should I be supplying you?
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
"pidgin" = pigeon. Just saying.
-
Where in the forum rules does it state that I have to argue with anyone if I don't feel so inclined?
It wouldn't matter whatever I was to write in favour of leave you'd not want to concede anything, likewise myself, circular ad infinitum.
Grow a pair, coward.
Find you own clay pidgin shoot, why should I be supplying you?
Regards, ippy.
You voted for Brexit. I want to know why you decided to strip my rights from me.
-
Mmm... indeed. NI would be in the single market but the rest of the UK not? How would that work?
Not a clue, especially as 'Arlene Foster, leader of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, supported the plan, saying it would allow Northern Ireland to leave the customs union and single market at the same time as the rest of the UK.'
-
European Parlisment Says No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-plan-latest-news-parliament-proposal-meps-reject-a9138346.html
-
European Parlisment Says No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-plan-latest-news-parliament-proposal-meps-reject-a9138346.html
Can you blame them?
-
European Parlisment Says No
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-plan-latest-news-parliament-proposal-meps-reject-a9138346.html
Also, would get a veto from the RoI judging by what their government said.
I wonder how BoJo is enjoying his dream job.
-
Not a clue, especially as 'Arlene Foster, leader of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party, supported the plan, saying it would allow Northern Ireland to leave the customs union and single market at the same time as the rest of the UK.'
The 4-yearly consent/veto Stormont would have under the "deal" is being sold as an opt out for NI if the regulations diverge but Foster is seeing it as an "opt-in for another 4 years". One of the reasons why this deal can't fly.
-
Blog reports say that the European Parliament view it as a non-starter, and a contrived one given the advice to Tory MPs to portray the EU as 'crazy' - it wouldn't surprise me that Johnson wants the EU to reject so that he can portray them as the baddies.
-
It feels to me as though we're finally coming to the point at which the BS of the leave campaign and reality will collide. The Irish land border that was so airily hand-waved away back in 2016 ("technology will provide the solution", "frictionless traffic" etc) was always going to be the Waterloo of the liars and ignoramuses and so, inevitably, it has proved. Of course it'll all be the fault of those nasty Europeans even though they've been consistent from day one, and even though the backstop was a concession they gave to the UK at our request but hey, Boris will never place the blame where it deserves to be - with himself and the other chancers - and so the pantomime villain will do instead.
Cock-eyed optimist that I am I still think that, having tried everything else and failed, we'll eventually have a second referendum and enough people will have seen the light by then to vote remain but no, I'm not putting any money on it.
-
It feels to me as though we're finally coming to the point at which the BS of the leave campaign and reality will collide. The Irish land border that was so airily hand-waved away back in 2016 ("technology will provide the solution", "frictionless traffic" etc) was always going to be the Waterloo of the liars and ignoramuses and so, inevitably, it has proved. Of course it'll all be the fault of those nasty Europeans even though they've been consistent from day one, and even though the backstop was a concession they gave to the UK at our request but hey, Boris will never place the blame where it deserves to be - with himself and the other chancers - and so the pantomime villain will do instead.
Cock-eyed optimist that I am I still think that, having tried everything else and failed, we'll eventually have a second referendum and enough people will have seen the light by then to vote remain but no, I'm not putting any money on it.
I wish, but like you I'm not putting any money on it.
-
That the likes of Cash and Francios are reportedly positive about Johnson's plan should be enough to conclude it is a nonsense, and that it envisages the DUP having a future key role adds another reason for concern.
The ad pop of 'the people' needs to be checked since the electorate aren't wholly stupid, and having been exposed to information regarding the realities of Brexit it may be that sufficient numbers may have a different view now.
-
ippy,
"pidgin" = pigeon. Just saying.
Totally useless with spelling always have been even learning parrot fashion doesn't give me any reliability, be more surprised when I get through a post without a spelling mistake, I'd love to get on top of spelling truth is I'm 77 now and still unable to do so, what do you think?
Regards, ippy.
-
Cock-eyed optimist that I am I still think that, having tried everything else and failed, we'll eventually have a second referendum and enough people will have seen the light by then to vote remain but no, I'm not putting any money on it.
You're wise not to put money on a another referendum but a remain result now wouldn't even need anybody to have changed their minds: In January 2019 Britain will officially switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country, and this is how we know (https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-remain-leave-second-referendum-brexit-no-deal-crossover-day-a8541576.html).
-
Grow a pair, coward.
You voted for Brexit. I want to know why you decided to strip my rights from me.
What's the trouble jp someone, anyone to hit out at and I'm not playing?
I voted leave, leave won the day and you and yours can't take it, now you want to strip my rights from me.
It is and always was an impasse, it's not an area where it would be remotely feasible to toss a coin, so the next best thing was to have a referendum.
The only thing I could possibly write to you to make my viewpoint agreeable to you would be something like, 'Yes jp you were right to vote remain and I can't think whatever it was that made me think leave was the right thing for the UK's future', except I don't think remaining in the EU is the right thing for the long term future of the UK----Referendum!!
All it means jp, is we don't agree on this issue and are very unlikely to do so anytime and very little else, I don't think you're a coward or have any other particular negative thoughts about you only that I think you've got it wrong on this one.
Regards, ippy.
-
So Rory the Tory isn't a Tory anymore and will stand as an independent in the London mayoral election. Sadiq Khan will be pleased.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49931937
-
What's the trouble jp someone, anyone to hit out at and I'm not playing?
You're a coward. That's all we need to know.
I voted leave, leave won the day and you and yours can't take it, now you want to strip my rights from me.
You can leave the EU any time you like. Emmigrate. You will not lose any rights by us staying in the EU.
It is and always was an impasse, it's not an area where it would be remotely feasible to toss a coin, so the next best thing was to have a referendum.
I can list off several reasons why being in the EU is good. You can't tell us any reasons why it is bad and yet you are the one getting their way.
All it means jp, is we don't agree on this issue and are very unlikely to do so anytime and very little else, I don't think you're a coward or have any other particular negative thoughts about you only that I think you've got it wrong on this one.
I wouldn't think you're a coward for disagreeing with me. I think you are a coward for refusing to tell us why you disagree with me.
-
You're a coward. That's all we need to know.
You can leave the EU any time you like. Emmigrate. You will not lose any rights by us staying in the EU.
I can list off several reasons why being in the EU is good. You can't tell us any reasons why it is bad and yet you are the one getting their way.
I wouldn't think you're a coward for disagreeing with me. I think you are a coward for refusing to tell us why you disagree with me.
OK jp, I'm a coward, there, make you feel better?
Regards, ippy.
-
OK jp, I'm a coward, there, make you feel better?
Regards, ippy.
No, it would make me feel better if you would engage. I want to know why my country is being flushed down the toilet.
-
An EU country must have said it will veto Boris' request for an extension, so he can simultaneously say he will keep the law and that the uk leaves on Oct 31. A bluff, maybe?
-
An EU country must have said it will veto Boris' request for an extension, so he can simultaneously say he will keep the law and that the uk leaves on Oct 31. A bluff, maybe?
Current bets seem to be on Hungary, which has had a troubled relationship with the EU. They will however face enormous pressure from other EU states to adhere to the wish for a deal and an orderly (or less disorderly) Brexit.
-
An EU country must have said it will veto Boris' request for an extension, so he can simultaneously say he will keep the law and that the uk leaves on Oct 31. A bluff, maybe?
That assumes that Johnson isn't a liar. Since we know he is a liar, the logic is specious.
-
No, it would make me feel better if you would engage. I want to know why my country is being flushed down the toilet.
Like I keep on saying we're extremely unlikely to ever agree so what would be the point, I would think it obvious to you that I don't think our country is being flushed down the pan, I think after the initial, inevitable ups and downs of settling down of the act of leaving the EU well be a lot better off in the long run.
It wouldn't matter what I was to say to defend my thoughts about leaving the EU we'd be so unlikely to agree and probably would disagree till the day we die, you must be aware of this in just the same way as I am, so I elect to opt out of arguing other than the odd comment here and there.
Don't forget you've got practically the whole of the T V news the Guardian the Independent and BBC radio on your side all singing from the same prayer sheet, that must be cheering you a little.
Anyway, regards to you jp, ippy.
-
Like I keep on saying we're extremely unlikely to ever agree so what would be the point, I would think it obvious to you that I don't think our country is being flushed down the pan, I think after the initial, inevitable ups and downs of settling down of the act of leaving the EU well be a lot better off in the long run.
It wouldn't matter what I was to say to defend my thoughts about leaving the EU we'd be so unlikely to agree and probably would disagree till the day we die, you must be aware of this in just the same way as I am, so I elect to opt out of arguing other than the odd comment here and there.
Don't forget you've got practically the whole of the T V news the Guardian the Independent and BBC radio on your side all singing from the same prayer sheet, that must be cheering you a little.
Anyway, regards to you jp, ippy.
And you've got the Mail, the Express, the Sun, and the Daily Telegraph, and your claim that the BBC is biased towards remain is higly debateable.
Why not put your reasons for supporting Brexit anyway, so that we at least know what they are? Otherwise, we will just have to assume that you haven't got any arguments, but won't admit it.
-
And you've got the Mail, the Express, the Sun, and the Daily Telegraph, and your claim that the BBC is biased towards remain is higly debateable.
Why not put your reasons for supporting Brexit anyway, so that we at least know what they are? Otherwise, we will just have to assume that you haven't got any arguments, but won't admit it.
You're welcome to keep on trying Steve, do you really think we're likely to find any common ground?
That's the reason why when you get something as contentious as Brexit the only way out's a vote, remain lost.
Regards, ippy.
-
You're welcome to keep on trying Steve, do you really think we're likely to find any common ground?
If Steve is right and you actually have no arguments, then obviously not because your position is then one of emotion and faith. If, on the other hand, you do have something rational to offer, who knows?
-
Like I keep on saying we're extremely unlikely to ever agree so what would be the point,
Well I would stop thinking of you as being an abject coward, for one thing.
I would think it obvious to you that I don't think our country is being flushed down the pan
It's pretty far down the pan already. Never mind the economic chaos and the rampant racism, I can't see it surviving as one country for more than a few years past Brexit.
It wouldn't matter what I was to say to defend my thoughts about leaving the EU we'd be so unlikely to agree and probably would disagree till the day we die
I don't think we will. I don't know how old you are, but I think it won't take more than a year or two for it to become blindingly obvious that Brexit has been and will continue to be a disaster. Even if we do disagree forever, that's no reason not to express our views. You don't refuse to engage with creationists or Alan Burns just because they'll never agree with you.
Don't forget you've got practically the whole of the T V news the Guardian the Independent and BBC radio on your side all singing from the same prayer sheet, that must be cheering you a little.
The BBC has remained completely neutral. The right wing press, on the other hand, has been feeding us a diet of lies about the EU for 40 years.
-
And are you looking forward to the UK trading solely under WTO rules because we shall have walked away from the largest trading block in the world? It will take years - possibly decades - for an independent UK (or what is left of it) to re-establish the trading relations it has now with the rest of the world.
Well, at least we shall not be alone. See what you can find out about Mauretania.
-
Well I would stop thinking of you as being an abject coward, for one thing.
It's pretty far down the pan already. Never mind the economic chaos and the rampant racism, I can't see it surviving as one country for more than a few years past Brexit.
I don't think we will. I don't know how old you are, but I think it won't take more than a year or two for it to become blindingly obvious that Brexit has been and will continue to be a disaster. Even if we do disagree forever, that's no reason not to express our views. You don't refuse to engage with creationists or Alan Burns just because they'll never agree with you.
The BBC has remained completely neutral. The right wing press, on the other hand, has been feeding us a diet of lies about the EU for 40 years.
I've no problem with you thinking I'm a abject coward jp I really don't mind, it's just something else we don't agree about.
Regards, ippy.
-
You just won't engage will you?
Now that is your choice, but your continuing presence here to just pop up and say "we don't agree." and "Leave won" isn't really in keeping with the aims of this place which is after all a discussion board. What you have done repeatedly is stonewall: that is not engage with the arguments.
Now I appreciate you don't want to be the "target" as you see yourself, but all people are asking is for you to justify what to them seems a ludicrous position to take.
If you don't want to engage just don't post in this thread, instead of posting in a manner which suggests you rather enjoy your little game of wind up.
-
Like I keep on saying we're extremely unlikely to ever agree so what would be the point ...
A curious rationale on a forum like this and not one you noticeably apply to other topics.
-
Ippy, you might feel differently if your pension goes down. I have a few years to go but out of interest I googled and there are several sites giving information about how pensions will be affected by leaving the EU.
-
For those of us who think no deal was an option at the time of the referendum. Have a read:
https://tinyurl.com/nonodeal
-
Nine months old, but still relevant. (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/01/why-uk-cannot-see-brexit-utterly-utterly-stupid?fbclid=IwAR3pAJLXO6aJZx5mWAs2yB-Ju1rcytLJh1WtnXMIgs9Kw_mxmMCYBkbUQgs)
-
Nine months old, but still relevant.
(https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/01/why-uk-cannot-see-brexit-utterly-utterly-stupid?fbclid=IwAR3pAJLXO6aJZx5mWAs2yB-Ju1rcytLJh1WtnXMIgs9Kw_mxmMCYBkbUQgs)
Indeed it is: Brexit is lunacy, and the reasons given in this article remain valid, and of course there are now some new ones (such as the Tory party selecting a lying fuckwit as PM).
-
Indeed it is: Brexit is lunacy, and the reasons given in this article remain valid, and of course there are now some new ones (such as the Tory party selecting a lying fuckwit as PM).
But you're forgetting the oh-so insightful comments of Andrea Leadsom at Conference:
"He has the pizzazz and personality to get Brexit over the line, doesn’t he?”
As the Irish premier Leo Varadkar commented : "Optimism is not a policy"
But of course, being a lying cunt doesn't help either.
As a humorous aside, we had Boris' dad being interviewed by Andrew Garmston on Bristol's local Sunday Politics.
"At Christmas, the politically divided family leave all that aside, and sit round the table for their roast turkey. And I say: "Okay chaps, is it going to be breast or thigh?"
I wonder what Boris' answer would be?
-
Ippy, you might feel differently if your pension goes down. I have a few years to go but out of interest I googled and there are several sites giving information about how pensions will be affected by leaving the EU.
If it's certain that your pension is either going down or just going down in purchasing power if we manage to leave the EU, where can I look to see conformation for this?
Regards, ippy.
-
It looks as if Boris is determined not to get any sort of deal. :o
-
It looks as if Boris is determined not to get any sort of deal. :o
Not Johnson - Cummings.
-
Not Johnson - Cummings.
They are singing from the same hymn sheet.
-
They are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Cummings composed the hymn. Johnson's just singing along.
On the issue of referring to Johnson as Boris, I was reading an article this morning that suggests we don't fall into this trap. The trap being that referring to him by his chosen name makes him sound all nice and cuddly. It was always Mrs May, Mr Cameron or David Cameron, but never just their first name.
So Johnson, Mr Johnson, Boris Johnson - or as a last resort Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Or lying wanker.
-
Cummings composed the hymn. Johnson's just singing along.
On the issue of referring to Johnson as Boris, I was reading an article this morning that suggests we don't fall into this trap. The trap being that referring to him by his chosen name makes him sound all nice and cuddly. It was always Mrs May, Mr Cameron or David Cameron, but never just their first name.
So Johnson, Mr Johnson, Boris Johnson - or as a last resort Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Or lying wanker.
I shall continue to call the PM, Boris, just as I referred to Thatcher as Maggie.
-
I shall continue to call the PM, Boris, just as I referred to Thatcher as Maggie.
I think that just proves the point.
-
I think that just proves the point.
To you maybe, not to me. ::)
-
I just think it is wise to ask ourselves why the media will quite frequently refer to "Boris" and equally frequently refer to "Corbyn". You may not see a connection but I do.
-
I just think it is wise to ask ourselves why the media will quite frequently refer to "Boris" and equally frequently refer to "Corbyn". You may not see a connection but I do.
I really don't care. If BORIS has his way I am of the opinion that Brexit will be very harmful to the UK if it goes ahead, that is much more important than whether the PM is called by his first name or surname.
-
I really don't care. If BORIS has his way I am of the opinion that Brexit will be very harmful to the UK if it goes ahead, that is much more important than whether the PM is called by his first name or surname.
I don't disagree. But, by calling him Boris you are in some way humanising him, making him more acceptable. I was involved in a conversation recently about Brexit, where the majority were leavers (the South Coast around Worthing is like that I've found out) and one guy actually seriously said "we'll be alright, Boris will sort it out" I did a double take trying to work out if he was being ironic. He wasn't. To expand on my earlier remarks - "Boris" is a persona that Johnson has cultivated over the years to make himself a lovable tousle- haired rogue, rather than the dangerous politician he actually is.
-
I suppose they're using the ancient tactic of presenting proposals which they know are unacceptable to the EU. Then they can say the EU are inflexible and intransigent, and the devout Brexiters will believe this. True faith.
-
I know I post a lot of stuff from the "Wee Ginger Dug", but today's offering is very much to the point, given today's shenanigans. (Oh, and there's reference to a Christian book as well....) https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/quo-vadis/
-
I suppose they're using the ancient tactic of presenting proposals which they know are unacceptable to the EU. Then they can say the EU are inflexible and intransigent, and the devout Brexiters will believe this. True faith.
I agree.
-
I suppose they're using the ancient tactic of presenting proposals which they know are unacceptable to the EU. Then they can say the EU are inflexible and intransigent, and the devout Brexiters will believe this. True faith.
It seems to be out of lack of ideas though rather than ideology
-
I don't disagree. But, by calling him Boris you are in some way humanising him, making him more acceptable. I was involved in a conversation recently about Brexit, where the majority were leavers (the South Coast around Worthing is like that I've found out) and one guy actually seriously said "we'll be alright, Boris will sort it out" I did a double take trying to work out if he was being ironic. He wasn't. To expand on my earlier remarks - "Boris" is a persona that Johnson has cultivated over the years to make himself a lovable tousle- haired rogue, rather than the dangerous politician he actually is.
Yep - calling Johnson 'Boris' is like bumping into Daniel Craig and calling him 'Mr Bond'.
-
I suppose they're using the ancient tactic of presenting proposals which they know are unacceptable to the EU. Then they can say the EU are inflexible and intransigent, and the devout Brexiters will believe this. True faith.
The astonishing thing is that this is so blatant that no one who is not completely intellectually challenged can see it. I don't think every Brexiteer is completely thick, but the intransigence of many of the leave camp seems to have left them an easy prey to any devious tactic that Johnson and his cronies employ.
I've previously referred to the astonishing brass-neck of the leaders of the Brexit campaign, which leads them to blithely try to use any tactic to achieve their goal, no matter how weak their position must now seem to any objective analysis (of course, they're counting on the weakness and division of the opposition). I'm sure Johnson doesn't fully believe in the political stance he is taking, nor Stephen Barclay. Perhaps Rees-Mogg might just, lost in his dreams of Britain's glory days, and cosseted from any financial hardship while he, no doubt, has his anonymous accountants looking after his overseas investments.
As for that obnoxious windbag Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General - he wouldn't know what the truth was if it jumped up and bit him on his fat arse.
-
As for that obnoxious windbag Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General - he wouldn't know what the truth was if it jumped up and bit him on his fat arse.
You really must try to say what you mean more plainly ;D
-
You really must try to say what you mean more plainly ;D
Have you seen the following hilarious article by John Crace of the Guardian re. Geoffrey Cox's opening speech after Parliament re-convened?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/incredible-sulks-anger-is-followed-by-ranting-of-geoffrey-cox
-
And Leave.EU show their racism again
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-angela-merkel-latest-xenophobic-arron-banks-a9147551.html
-
And Leave.EU show their racism again
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-angela-merkel-latest-xenophobic-arron-banks-a9147551.html
DISGUSTING! >:(
-
And Leave.EU show their racism again
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-leave-eu-angela-merkel-latest-xenophobic-arron-banks-a9147551.html
As LR rightly says, disgusting. But also, so much more than that.
By which I mean that is not an isolated person making an isolated statement. It does represent quite a sizeable minority within the country who somehow think that "winning" WW2; with the help of let's see now, the USA, Canada, India, USSR, Australia, resistance movements across Europe.....well you get my drift no doubt; allows us to consider ourselves special in some way. The narrative of "we won the war", "2 World Wars and 1 world cup" is deep in our national psyche and it is a destructive and perverse narrative and should be resisted.
We aren't special, at least no more special than any other nation state, and our leaders foolhardiness in pursuing No deal will show us in a fairly short space of time just how not special we are.
-
I've just turned off the PM programme - I can't stand any more. Anonymous briefings from No. 10 - presumably that vicious, unpleasant Cummins person is behind it. The appalling lack of decent diplomacy is , well, just that - appalling.
-
As LR rightly says, disgusting. But also, so much more than that.
By which I mean that is not an isolated person making an isolated statement. It does represent quite a sizeable minority within the country who somehow think that "winning" WW2; with the help of let's see now, the USA, Canada, India, USSR, Australia, resistance movements across Europe.....well you get my drift no doubt; allows us to consider ourselves special in some way. The narrative of "we won the war", "2 World Wars and 1 world cup" is deep in our national psyche and it is a destructive and perverse narrative and should be resisted.
We aren't special, at least no more special than any other nation state, and our leaders foolhardiness in pursuing No deal will show us in a fairly short space of time just how not special we are.
I agree with you.
-
Will be odd being glued to parliament TV on a Saturday
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49984367
-
As LR rightly says, disgusting. But also, so much more than that.
By which I mean that is not an isolated person making an isolated statement. It does represent quite a sizeable minority within the country who somehow think that "winning" WW2; with the help of let's see now, the USA, Canada, India, USSR, Australia, resistance movements across Europe.....well you get my drift no doubt; allows us to consider ourselves special in some way. The narrative of "we won the war", "2 World Wars and 1 world cup" is deep in our national psyche and it is a destructive and perverse narrative and should be resisted.
We aren't special, at least no more special than any other nation state, and our leaders foolhardiness in pursuing No deal will show us in a fairly short space of time just how not special we are.
They have apologised but it's one of those not really an apology apologies
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/leaveeu-campaign-apologises-over-tweet-calling-merkel-a-kraut-and-invoking-world-war/ar-AAIuCXT?ocid=ientp
-
I just think it is wise to ask ourselves why the media will quite frequently refer to "Boris" and equally frequently refer to "Corbyn". You may not see a connection but I do.
boris is easier to write than Johnson.
-
Yep - calling Johnson 'Boris' is like bumping into Daniel Craig and calling him 'Mr Bond'.
No it isn’t, it’s like calling him Daniel which is his name and Boris is Johnson’s name.
-
As LR rightly says, disgusting. But also, so much more than that.
By which I mean that is not an isolated person making an isolated statement. It does represent quite a sizeable minority within the country who somehow think that "winning" WW2; with the help of let's see now, the USA, Canada, India, USSR, Australia, resistance movements across Europe.....well you get my drift no doubt; allows us to consider ourselves special in some way. The narrative of "we won the war", "2 World Wars and 1 world cup" is deep in our national psyche and it is a destructive and perverse narrative and should be resisted.
We aren't special, at least no more special than any other nation state, and our leaders foolhardiness in pursuing No deal will show us in a fairly short space of time just how not special we are.
It’s ironic but the only reason we joined in either world war at great cost to the nation and millions of people was because we refused to turn our backs on our European allies. In a way it’s good that nearly everybody involved is dead because we’ve turned a nation that they thought worth dying for into a xenophobic shithole.
-
Boris is Johnson’s name.
Well - yes & no. Alexander Boris etc.
-
Well - yes & no. Alexander Boris etc.
Is there an alternative universe where the person we call Boris is referred to as Sandy Johnson?
-
No it isn’t, it’s like calling him Daniel which is his name and Boris is Johnson’s name.
That doesn't detract from the creation of a character called Boris as well. T
-
No it isn’t, it’s like calling him Daniel which is his name and Boris is Johnson’s name.
Fair enough, since that is true: however, since he isn't known as 'Boris' to his friends and family it does seem that he uses 'Boris' as an identity specific to his political persona.
-
Well - yes & no. Alexander Boris etc.
Jeremy is my name, it's not my only name but it is the one I choose to be known by. If Boris lying liar Johnson prefers to be known as Boris rather than any of his other given names, it's fine by me. I expect Boris to be about as popular as Adolf is in Germany in a couple of years time, much like Mr Thorpe and Mr Corbyn scuppered the popularity of my name.
-
Well I would stop thinking of you as being an abject coward, for one thing.
It's pretty far down the pan already. Never mind the economic chaos and the rampant racism, I can't see it surviving as one country for more than a few years past Brexit.
I don't think we will. I don't know how old you are, but I think it won't take more than a year or two for it to become blindingly obvious that Brexit has been and will continue to be a disaster. Even if we do disagree forever, that's no reason not to express our views. You don't refuse to engage with creationists or Alan Burns just because they'll never agree with you.
The BBC has remained completely neutral. The right wing press, on the other hand, has been feeding us a diet of lies about the EU for 40 years.
I find it very disappointing to think that you're one of those people jp, that think the BBC is even handed with the way it presents its brexit content, I thought we leavers were supposed to be the thick ones?
Just 'Question Time', alone leavers are outnumbered on every show, when was the last time the remainers were outnumbered on this show?
You wont be able to tell me when the remainers were outnumbered on 'Question Time', because it's never happened.
And that's only one instance of their institutional bias, they're also biased right across the whole board, if you can't see this jp, that's even the worse for you.
Regards, ippy.
-
I find it very disappointing to think that you're one of those people jp, that think the BBC is even handed with the way it presents its brexit content, I thought we leavers were supposed to be the thick ones?
I'm very disappointed you refuse to engage on the subject.
Just 'Question Time', alone leavers are outnumbered on every show, when was the last time the remainers were outnumbered on this show?
Well if all the Leavers are refusing to actually put their case, I don't blame the BBC.
And that's only one instance of their institutional bias, they're also biased right across the whole board, if you can't see this jp, that's even the worse for you.
Nonsense, during the referendum campaign, they cut the leavers far too much slack.
-
Just 'Question Time', alone leavers are outnumbered on every show, when was the last time the remainers were outnumbered on this show?
Non-sense - sometimes when there are odd number of guests there may be 3 leavers, 2 remainers, sometimes the opposite but over the course of a number of programmes the panelists are broadly balanced.
Tonight we have:
Grant Shapps (Leaver)
Lisa Nandy (Leaver)
Theo Paphitis (Leaver)
Rupert Read (no idea)
Julia Hartley-Brewer (Leaver)
Doesn't look very balanced to me.
-
I'm very disappointed you refuse to engage on the subject.
Well if all the Leavers are refusing to actually put their case, I don't blame the BBC.
Nonsense, during the referendum campaign, they cut the leavers far too much slack.
Now who's doing the, avoiding at least I've said why? During the period just before the referendum vote, the BBC obeyed the law where they have no choice the law requires them to be even handed we all know that as obviously you should do. (I don't know the exact terms to use but during an election period broadcasters by law have to be even handed, if not they're in some sort of trouble).
Proff you must have been up all night looking for that one occasion were there any others where the leavers outnumbered the remainers? I somehow doubt it but if there were and this appears to be the only one occasion you could find this hardly puts a dent in the case I was putting forward and when if you were to add to that the general overall obvious remain bias the BBC presents in every relevant programme puts on air, even in a lot of programmes that are not so obviously relevant.
I worry for those of you that don't think the BBC has a bias for remain, I think it's termed as 'being in denial', it's such a blindingly obvious bias.
Regards, ippy.
PS if you think they cut the leavers too much slack during the referendum you were obviously wrong because during the campaign too much slack as you call it was put to one side at that time when the BBC had to be even handed with the treatment they gave to both sides leave/remain and that even treatment's now lacking with the BBC's coverage and something it would still look like if they were to continue being even handed after the event, which obviously they're not.
-
Proff you must have been up all night looking for that one occasion
ippy
Since the programme the Prof cited is the one to be broadcast tonight, I don't think he'd have had to wear out his fingers finding out what the views of the participants are.
I see that even the Daily Express conceded the previous week's QT had a balanced panel. I use the word 'balanced' with some irony, since one of the Brexiteers was Melanie Phillips, whom our very own SteveH has previously and wickedly called "a swivel-eyed basket case".
-
Proff you must have been up all night looking for that one occasion were there any others where the leavers outnumbered the remainers? I somehow doubt it but if there were and this appears to be the only one occasion you could find this hardly puts a dent in the case I was putting forward ...
Didn't have to spend any time - this is tonight's programme - 4-1 in favour of leave.
And unless you somehow consider all Labour politicians to be ardent remain then many weeks over the past few have had the various flavours of leave in the majority.
-
Jeremy is my name, it's not my only name but it is the one I choose to be known by. If Boris lying liar Johnson prefers to be known as Boris rather than any of his other given names, it's fine by me. I expect Boris to be about as popular as Adolf is in Germany in a couple of years time, much like Mr Thorpe and Mr Corbyn scuppered the popularity of my name.
Not to mention Mr Kyle (& no, I'm not a fan). It's a good name, one of my nephews is a Jeremy.
Isn't one of Alexander Boris's name 'Piffle' or something like that?
-
I had a miscarriage a couple of years after our eldest girl was born, if it had been a boy it would have been called Jeremy. Not a name I would consider these days.
-
ippy
I see that even the Daily Express conceded the previous week's QT had a balanced panel. I use the word 'balanced' with some irony, since one of the Brexiteers was Melanie Phillips, whom our very own SteveH has previously and wickedly called "a swivel-eyed basket case".
A very interesting swivel-eyed basket case though. I don't like her politics but find her fascinating as a character.
I had a miscarriage a couple of years after our eldest girl was born, if it had been a boy it would have been called Jeremy. Not a name I would consider these days.
Snap, I too thought of Jeremy for a boy. I have an Uncle Jeremy and my sis called one of her sons that. I still think it's a good name. Jeremy Irons wears it well.
-
ippy
Since the programme the Prof cited is the one to be broadcast tonight, I don't think he'd have had to wear out his fingers finding out what the views of the participants are.
I see that even the Daily Express conceded the previous week's QT had a balanced panel. I use the word 'balanced' with some irony, since one of the Brexiteers was Melanie Phillips, whom our very own SteveH has previously and wickedly called "a swivel-eyed basket case".
Yes Dicky U, for the sake of argument let's say your comments about the Daily Express are 100% right, this still doesn't let the bias the BBC has for remain off the hook, they are bordering on 100% biased in favour of remaining in the EU cause, that's assuming that you'll always have the odd one or two people bucking the trend.
Regards, ippy.
-
A very interesting swivel-eyed basket case though. I don't like her politics but find her fascinating as a character.
Snap, I too thought of Jeremy for a boy. I have an Uncle Jeremy and my sis called one of her sons that. I still think it's a good name. Jeremy Irons wears it well.
Now and again I find myself agreeing with Mad Mel, it is very very rare though.
One of best friends - we were each other's best man - is a Jeremy.
-
Didn't have to spend any time - this is tonight's programme - 4-1 in favour of leave.
And unless you somehow consider all Labour politicians to be ardent remain then many weeks over the past few have had the various flavours of leave in the majority.
I, like so many don't know where the Labour party's coming from these days, I suspect fishing for votes is in there somewhere, even then that's not very clear either but one thing's certain the Labour M P's from a lot of the constituencies where the majorities voted leave are betraying their constituents.
Just as a footnote I'm not a supporter of any of the main political parties we have at the moment, at the moment I'm voting for whoever I think might be successful in taking us out of the EU, I don't care what party or if they're liars or not.
Regards, ippy.
-
NS:- Now and again I find myself agreeing with Mad Mel, it is very very rare though.
Same here, I like the way she puts her arguments even if I disagree. Never thought of her as swivel-eyed! I'll pay more attention to details in future.
-
Have a look at at how the things went with 'The Pentonville Five' in 1972, in my opinion things will be going this way on a far larger scale if there's a final attempt to thwart the 2016 referendum result.
Regards, ippy.
-
Have a look at at how the things went with 'The Pentonville Five' in 1972, in my opinion things will be going this way on a far larger scale if there's a final attempt to thwart the 2016 referendum result.
Regards, ippy.
Unfortunately either way there will be mass civil unrest imo. Maybe not immediately in the case of leaving, but when the public realises it's been sold nothing but empty promises by a bunch of self interested tossers who haven't done a real days work in their lives: amongst that number, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Farage, Cummings then you will see civil unrest and none of us will be immune.
-
... but one thing's certain the Labour M P's from a lot of the constituencies where the majorities voted leave are betraying their constituents.
Not only can you not spell "pigeon" but you are clueless about the constitutional role of Members of Parliament. They are representatives not delegates. This was exemplified by Edmund Burke in his address to the voters of Bristol when he told them that an MP owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
-
Now who's doing the, avoiding at least I've said why?
This doesn't make any sense.
You made an unsupported assertion that the BBC is biased against leavers. I merely posited a reason why they might be forced to do so.
During the period just before the referendum vote, the BBC obeyed the law where they have no choice the law requires them to be even handed we all know that as obviously you should do.
But the problem was that they would run a story which would invariably be based on Remainers giving reasons why leaving is bad (rarely the other way around, since you leavers seem to want to keep your reasons secret), but to satisfy the need for balance they'd ask the leave campaign for comment and the leave campaign would just give them a statement saying the story was not true. So, for pretty much every story, the last thing the listener would hear would be "the Leave campaign denied this" or an equivalent which would go completely unchallenged.
If you want to claim that Question Time is biased in the balance of its guests, you provide the evidence. Until you do, you just have an unsupported assertion.
While you're at it, why not do some research into how you are going to be better off and answer the question that you have been avoiding for weeks.
-
(Reply to Harrowby Hall) Yes, Brexit is producing a revisionist politics, where MPs are supposed to act out the voters' wishes, contrary to the idea of representational democracy. I'm not sure how much of it is ignorance, some I suppose, but also a right wing attempt to derail parliament, and substitute direct democracy. Thus, the referendum is sacred and not repeatable, but the 2017 general election is irrelevant. Will there be a Reichstag fire or equivalent?
-
Isn't one of Alexander Boris's name 'Piffle' ?
It is now.
-
Wiggs,
(Reply to Harrowby Hall) Yes, Brexit is producing a revisionist politics, where MPs are supposed to act out the voters' wishes, contrary to the idea of representational democracy. I'm not sure how much of it is ignorance, some I suppose, but also a right wing attempt to derail parliament, and substitute direct democracy. Thus, the referendum is sacred and not repeatable, but the 2017 general election is irrelevant. Will there be a Reichstag fire or equivalent?
Sensible as always. The problem with MPs acting out the voters' wishes though is that the referendum question was so asymmetric. The remain option was clear - the status quo. Axiomatically though if you leave somewhere you have to go somewhere else, and thus the prospectus of the leave campaign was critical because it needed to describe the leave outcome with equivalent clarity and certainty to the remain outcome. And the problem with that is not only that we know so much of the leave prospectus to have been utter bollocks, but also that the people cheerleading for each outcome each claim that that's what 17.4m voted for.
Still, maybe Leo Varadkar will bail out BS Boris and we'll end up amputating just one leg rather than both legs, or maybe the ERG will decide that the deal isn't proper Brexit so will sabotage it again, or maybe a soft exit will so stiffen the resolve of the Brexit party that they'll romp the election, wipe out the tories and crash us out as their first act in power. Who can possibly say eh?
-
One thing I hadn't realized is that in the event of no deal, the EHIC health insurance scheme would lapse. OK, you can get private health insurance, but that often doesn't cover existing conditions. So people who have had a serious illness wouldn't be able to travel? Madness.
-
Wiggs,
One thing I hadn't realized is that in the event of no deal, the EHIC health insurance scheme would lapse. OK, you can get private health insurance, but that often doesn't cover existing conditions. So people who have had a serious illness wouldn't be able to travel? Madness.
Project fear! Project fear! Oh, hang on...
-
Latest YouGov opinion poll
CON: 35% (+1) LAB: 22% (+1) LDEM: 20% (-3) BREX: 12% (-) GRN: 6% (+1)
-
Not only can you not spell "pigeon" but you are clueless about the constitutional role of Members of Parliament. They are representatives not delegates. This was exemplified by Edmund Burke in his address to the voters of Bristol when he told them that an MP owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
The politicians were mandated to apply, (expected to apply whatever the result of the referendum was to extricate the UK from membership of the EU or not), all of it not bits of it, the result of the 2016 referendum and a large number of them are still doing their best to renege on that mandate.
Because the EU vote was a mandated in or out vote it makes your reference to Edmund Burke irrelevant and not even loosely connected in this case, perhaps it's you that needs to be sharpening up your skill base?
Regards to you H H, ippy.
-
The politicians were mandated, (expected to apply whatever the result of the referendum was to extricate the UK from membership of the EU or not), not bits of it all of it, the result of the 2016 referendum and a large number of them are still doing their best to renege on that mandate.
Because the EU vote was a mandated in or out vote it makes your reference to Edmund Burke irrelevant and not even loosely connected in this case, perhaps it's you that needs to be sharpening up your skill base?
Regards to you H H, ippy.
Drivel
-
I shall continue to call the PM, Boris, just as I referred to Thatcher as Maggie.
Only her supporters generally called her "Maggie". I always called her "Thatcher", "that bloody woman", or worse.
-
Only her supporters generally called her "Maggie". I always called her "Thatcher", "that bloody woman", or worse.
I didn't say 'Maggie' in a polite way. ;D
-
I didn't say 'Maggie' in a polite way. ;D
'Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!'
-
'Maggie! Maggie! Maggie! Out! Out! Out!'
Definitely OUT! OUT! OUT!
Now it should be
BORIS, BORIS, BORIS! BYE, BYE, BYE!
-
I didn't say 'Maggie' in a polite way. ;D
She's at at the top of my list of UK people that figured in recent history I most detest, 'The Wicked Witch is Now Indeed Dead'.
Regards, ippy.
-
She's at at the top of my list of UK people that figured in recent history I most detest, 'The Wicked Witch is Now Indeed Dead'.
Regards, ippy.
She had dementia in her later years.
-
The politicians were mandated to apply, (expected to apply whatever the result of the referendum was to extricate the UK from membership of the EU or not), all of it not bits of it, the result of the 2016 referendum and a large number of them are still doing their best to renege on that mandate.
Because the EU vote was a mandated in or out vote it makes your reference to Edmund Burke irrelevant and not even loosely connected in this case, perhaps it's you that needs to be sharpening up your skill base?
Regards to you H H, ippy.
I thought the point being made by Burke is that MPs are not mandated to do anything. They are not delegates. I realize that various right wing twats are trying to insist that they are, but that is a right wing subversion of parliament.
-
The politicians were mandated to apply, (expected to apply whatever the result of the referendum was to extricate the UK from membership of the EU or not), all of it not bits of it, the result of the 2016 referendum and a large number of them are still doing their best to renege on that mandate.
No they weren't - indeed MPs can never be mandated in that manner as they are representatives, not delegates. How our democratic system works is that is allows MPs to vote as they wish on the various matters that come before parliament (although they might lose a party whip if they vote in a manner not approved by their party). If voters don't like how they voted in their period of tenure they can vote them out at the next election.
-
Interesting point, that we get to vote again about our MP, and Boris seems keen on another election now. But apparently the referendum was a holy and sacred relic, that can never be repeated.
-
Interesting point, that we get to vote again about our MP, and Boris seems keen on another election now. But apparently the referendum was a holy and sacred relic, that can never be repeated.
And MPs were allowed to vote 3 times on the same withdrawal agreement in the space of a few weeks.
-
And MPs were allowed to vote 3 times on the same withdrawal agreement in the space of a few weeks.
And some of them changed their mind, I think. But we're not allowed to? Eh?
-
And some of them changed their mind, I think. But we're not allowed to? Eh?
Johnson did
-
No they weren't - indeed MPs can never be mandated in that manner as they are representatives, not delegates. How our democratic system works is that is allows MPs to vote as they wish on the various matters that come before parliament (although they might lose a party whip if they vote in a manner not approved by their party). If voters don't like how they voted in their period of tenure they can vote them out at the next election.
I obviously didn't make a sufficient provision for the remainers penchant for trying to reverse results, the political parties promised to implement the result of the EU referendum whichever way it went leave or remain, in effect a mandate.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
I obviously didn't make a sufficient provision for the remainers penchant for trying to reverse results, the political parties promised to implement the result of the EU referendum whichever way it went leave or remain, in effect a mandate.
Regards to all, ippy.
It is nothing to do with whether someone is a remainer to a leaver, it is a basic fact about our democracy that MPs are not mandated to vote in any particular manner. If you don't like how they vote in parliament then you vote them out at the next election.
And regarding promises, if I had a £ for each time a manifesto promise hadn't been delivered then I'd be a rich chap. And further your notion that 'the political parties promised to implement the result of the EU referendum' flies in the face of the legal position of the referendum itself. MPs had a choice to make that referendum advisory to binding - they chose the former. Always best to read the legal small-print (in this case it was pretty large print labelled 'advisory') rather than political spin.
This from the MPs briefing on what they were voting for wench they enacted the referendum:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
-
I obviously didn't make a sufficient provision for the remainers penchant for trying to reverse results, the political parties promised to implement the result of the EU referendum whichever way it went leave or remain, in effect a mandate.
Regards to all, ippy.
No, not a mandate: the referendum was advisory.
Moreover, even if people did vote 'leave' in good faith that they did so without sufficient information about the consequences, and that the consequences are now known, does not preclude a change of mind should it transpire, as it has, that the original decision was a poor one.
-
I obviously didn't make a sufficient provision for the remainers penchant for trying to reverse results, the political parties promised to implement the result of the EU referendum whichever way it went leave or remain, in effect a mandate.
Regards to all, ippy.
So in your opinion you can never reverse a democratic result?
So the Tories should not have been allowed to take office in 2010 as this was a reverse of the result of the vote in 2005. Nor could Labour in 97 as that would reverse the result of 92 etc, etc.
Democracy is a process, not a fixed point - as even David Davis recognised a democracy where you cannot change you mind ceases to be a democracy.
-
Yes, politics involves many reversals of previous votes. I think it's correct that one parliament can't bind the next one.
-
:o
I obviously didn't make a sufficient provision for the remainers penchant for trying to reverse results, the political parties promised to implement the result of the EU referendum whichever way it went leave or remain, in effect a mandate.
Regards to all, ippy.
Or your ignorance of the constitution
-
No, not a mandate: the referendum was advisory.
The referendum did provide a mandate to leave the EU if the government decided to do so, what it didn't provide was a requirement to do so as the referendum was advisory.
What it also did not provide was a mandate for any particular arrangement for leaving the EU, hence the need for a mandate on a specific deal which currently doesn't exist (the mandate, not the deal).
And the referendum certainly doesn't provide a mandate to leave without a deal.
-
So in effect, a mandate.
ippy
-
She had dementia in her later years.
Poor soul. Wouldn't wish that on worst enemy.
I hated Thatcher on a political level but accepted that, on a personal level, she was a very good person, kind and considerate to individuals. I wasn't one of her individuals but accept the words of those who were, they'd have no reason to lie.
-
So in effect, a mandate.
ippy
At best a mandate to try to negotiate a deal - but not a mandate for a specific deal or for 'no deal', which is why the 2016 referendum was a mistake in asking a simplistic question in respect of a complicated issue when the complications weren't advised to to the electorate at the time of voting. Nor does the referendum compel the government to leave no matter what: the government are free to say that after trying to negotiate it is clear that an acceptable deal isn't a viable option and then just walk away (hopefully this will be the end result).
-
One thing I hadn't realized is that in the event of no deal, the EHIC health insurance scheme would lapse. OK, you can get private health insurance, but that often doesn't cover existing conditions. So people who have had a serious illness wouldn't be able to travel? Madness.
Yep. Of course. What else would happen?
Another thing, that came as a surprise to my parents (both voted for Brexit) is that the rules that stop mobile phone operators from fleecing us with roaming charges when we are abroad will go away.
-
The politicians were mandated to apply, (expected to apply whatever the result of the referendum was to extricate the UK from membership of the EU or not), all of it not bits of it, the result of the 2016 referendum and a large number of them are still doing their best to renege on that mandate.
Yes, because they know it's a stupid mandate made by people who were lied to.
it makes your reference to Edmund Burke irrelevant
No it doesn't. MPs don't have to agree with the referendum result. Just because people voted for something (we still don't know exactly what), doesn't mean it has to be implemented.
-
Interesting point, that we get to vote again about our MP, and Boris seems keen on another election now. But apparently the referendum was a holy and sacred relic, that can never be repeated.
Repeated again you mean. The referendum was already a repeat.
-
Many prominent politicians believed in some issues with which many disregarded.
(Mgt Thatcher is an example - capital punishment.)
No more from me on Brexit right now, others have said better than I could say. I love reading the posts!
-
Repeated again you mean. The referendum was already a repeat.
I think there is a reasonable argument that the move from the EEC to the EU makes the 2016 a referendum on a different if related subject to the 1975 one.
-
I think there is a reasonable argument that the move from the EEC to the EU makes the 2016 a referendum on a different if related subject to the 1975 one.
The point is that the referendum in 2016 happened in spite of the fact that we had already had one referendum on what is now the EU. That gives the lie to the idea that we can't have a third one. The EU may not have changed much in three years but the British people have.
-
The point is that the referendum in 2016 happened in spite of the fact that we had already had one referendum on what is now the EU. That gives the lie to the idea that we can't have a third one. The EU may not have changed much in three years but the British people have.
Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make, I just don't think it is a very good obe given that it doesn't seem as if the 2016 referendum was a repeat since the question had changed.
-
So in effect, a mandate.
ippy
You do understand what a mandate is, do you Ippy.
A mandate provides authorisation for something to be done, it doesn't require that it is done. The point is that without a mandate that thing shouldn't happen, with a mandate it is allowed to happen but not required to happen.
So currently there is a mandate to leave the EU, which allows it to happen but does not require it to happen. However there is no mandate for a no-deal exit so that should not happen unless a mandate is provided. I would also argue that there is no mandate for any particular brexit deal so they also shouldn't happen without a specific mandate either.
That mandate could come via a general election (although I think that is a poor option for a single issue of major constitutional importance) but of course as no party gained an overall majority (let alone 50% of the vote) the 2017 general election does not provide that mandate. The alternative would be a mandate for either no deal or a particular deal via a referendum. But without either any particular brexit (deal or no-deal) has no mandate.
-
Should be an interesting week coming up: if a last minute deal emerges it seems likely to include elements of May's deal that were rejected before, but since Brexit enthusiasts are desperate for some form of Brexit it might stand a chance now, though it seems there may be an attempt next Saturday to ensure that if Johnson's deal is to be approved it would be on the basis that it is subject to a confirmatory referendum.
If not then I'm gleefully looking forward to the Benn Act taking effect: ideally Johnson will fail to write a letter, the Scottish Court of Session will do it for him and they'll then decide to put him in jail - I do hope they choose Barlinnie (we can but dream).
-
More on what next week might bring, and noting that a 2nd referendum may be gaining support.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/12/support-grows-for-new-brexit-poll-amid-fears-pm-plan
-
Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make, I just don't think it is a very good obe given that it doesn't seem as if the 2016 referendum was a repeat since the question had changed.
The question hadn't changed but the name or the organisation had, as well as some of the rules - rules that the UK was party to drafting and that the UK ratified.
-
Should be an interesting week coming up: if a last minute deal emerges it seems likely to include elements of May's deal that were rejected before, but since Brexit enthusiasts are desperate for some form of Brexit it might stand a chance now, though it seems there may be an attempt next Saturday to ensure that if Johnson's deal is to be approved it would be on the basis that it is subject to a confirmatory referendum.
If not then I'm gleefully looking forward to the Benn Act taking effect: ideally Johnson will fail to write a letter, the Scottish Court of Session will do it for him and they'll then decide to put him in jail - I do hope they choose Barlinnie (we can but dream).
I'll settle for leaving the EU, while at the same time not wanting to declare war on the EU, most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.
In a way I'd like to see the authorities trying to jail Boris for not going along with Benn's surrender act or assuming they did manage to jail him enjoy seeing the 'Pentonville Five' like result that I feel would be sure to follow without violence involved hopefully
In reality if Boris doesn't sign that surrender note I can't see him being put into jail, even then that's assuming they manage to get him to the prison gates.
It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.
Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.
Regards, ippy.
-
I'll settle for leaving the EU, while at the same time not wanting to declare war on the EU, most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.
In a way I'd like to see the authorities trying to jail Boris for not going along with Benn's surrender act or assuming they did manage to jail him enjoy seeing the 'Pentonville Five' like result that I feel would be sure to follow without violence involved hopefully
In reality if Boris doesn't sign that surrender note I can't see him being put into jail, even then that's assuming they manage to get him to the prison gates.
It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.
Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.
Regards, ippy.
Lots of drivel
-
Strange analogy with a rugby game, which, as far as I know, are never reversed. However, political decisions frequently are. Obvious example, clause 28, passed in 1988, repealed in 2003, and in fact, in Scotland in 2000. It's a cornerstone of parliamentary politics that one parliament cannot bind the next. And as we are seeing recently, MPs frequently change their mind. Otherwise, we would be operating under Lord Palmerston's edicts.
-
I'll settle for leaving the EU, while at the same time not wanting to declare war on the EU, most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.
It's impossible to "leave the EU as was promised" because the promises were fantasies and lies.
In a way I'd like to see the authorities trying to jail Boris for not going along with Benn's surrender act or assuming they did manage to jail him enjoy seeing the 'Pentonville Five' like result that I feel would be sure to follow without violence involved hopefully
In reality if Boris doesn't sign that surrender note I can't see him being put into jail, even then that's assuming they manage to get him to the prison gates.
I would normally refer to this kind of language ("surrender" and the other nonsense that's going around, like "traitors") as infantile but it's more serious than that. This is about a trading partnership we entered into voluntarily and have benefited greatly from. We are not at war and there can be no "surrender". It's irresponsible as well is idiotic.
It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.
We can't "separate ourselves from the EU for good and all", they're our largest trading partner and we need to have a comprehensive trade deal with them.
All this and you still can't give any actual, rational, down-to-earth reasons as to what is so bad about the EU it's worth all this risks to be rid of it. I listened to Dame Sally Davies (Chief Medical Officer for England until 1st October) the other morning saying that a no-deal would put people's lives at risk.
This isn't a silly game, this is people's lives and livelihoods. You appear to be being every bit as fanatical and irrational as the religious posters you so often criticise here - worse in some ways, I've rarely seen the religious people here advocate things that put people's lives at risk.
-
It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.
Since when did democracy get rationed?
-
Since when did democracy get rationed?
That's a good point. You had your share of democracy in 2016, and there's none left!
-
ippy,
Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.
Doesn't work. Both sides were told the rules before the game, and those were the rules that were applied. For an analogy with Brexit to work you'd have to say something like, "But the Scots were also told that any player with a "Mc" in his name would be awarded an extra try after the final whistle". When it turned out that no such additional tries were awarded, you presumably would argue that the result should stand in any case as the Scots "voted" to proceed with the game.
Do you remember my supercar worth £0.5m that I sold to you for £1k, but when it turned up it was a bag of rust and then I took the position that I should keep the money because you "voted" to pay it to me? How would you argue differently given that you take exactly that view on the referendum that was sold on a bogus prospectus too?
-
Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.
Terrible analogy as, no doubt, there will be future matches between the 2 nations that Scotland might win in which case today's result would be reversed by a future match.
-
It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum, so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good ...
So if you think the result of the 2016 referendum means we should leave the EU for good then surely you should also think that the result of the 1975 referendum meant we should stay in the EU for good. Otherwise you are being hypocritical and cherry picking the democratic results you think are final and for ever and those that aren't.
The reality is that no democratic result can be final and for ever, because if it were then democracy would be dead as you would never be given the chance to change your mind, or even for a future electorate comprising very different people to change decisions that their parents of grandparents generation might have made.
-
most leavers that I know of want to leave the EU as was promised.
What exactly was promised?
It's certainly outrageous to defy the result of the 2016 referendum
No it isn't. What is outrageous is careering blindly into the disaster of no deal just because slightly over half of the people who voted on one day in 2016 voted for leave.
so much for democracy if we don't manage to separate ourselves from the EU for good and all.
Democracy is not having a vote and then leaving it set in stone. Why do the electorate that existed in 2016 have precedence over the electorate that exists today? Or the one that existed in 1975?
Perhaps the result of that Japan V Scotland Rugby game today should be reversed too because you don't like it or would it be the Japanese didn't really know what they were doing when they went on scoring so many points.
That's just bollocks.
-
Strange analogy with a rugby game, which, as far as I know, are never reversed.
Actually, they are. In the quarter finals of this World Cup, Ireland will now meet the All Blacks. Strangely, no one is saying that the result of the last meeting between those two sides should count this time.
-
I notice that Brextremists have started to refer to a no-deal exit as a "clean break", which sounds nice and - well - clean, and avoids the negativity of "no-deal". This kind of deceitful political euphemism is what George Orwell railed against. He must be turning in his grave.
-
I notice that Brextremists have started to refer to a no-deal exit as a "clean break", which sounds nice and - well - clean, and avoids the negativity of "no-deal". This kind of deceitful political euphemism is what George Orwell railed against. He must be turning in his grave.
Isn't 'Brextremists' a similar use of language?
-
I notice that Brextremists have started to refer to a no-deal exit as a "clean break", which sounds nice and - well - clean, and avoids the negativity of "no-deal". This kind of deceitful political euphemism is what George Orwell railed against. He must be turning in his grave.
Spinning in it more like!
-
Isn't 'Brextremists' a similar use of language?
Not quite. There are your basic derogatory terms for the other camp, "Brextremists" and "remoaners", then there is the actually deceptive, like calling a no-deal a clean break, because it clearly wouldn't be clean or a complete separation from the situation (which is what the phrase means (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/a_clean_break)).
-
Not quite. There are your basic derogatory terms for the other camp, "Brextremists" and "remoaners", then there is the actually deceptive, like calling a no-deal a clean break, because it clearly wouldn't be clean or a complete separation from the situation (which is what the phrase means (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/a_clean_break)).
But using the derogatory terms is seeking to portray the other side in a similarly dishonest way.
-
Isn't 'Brextremists' a similar use of language?
No, because it is obviously meant as a derogatory term. "Clean break" sounds neutral, but is subtly complimentary.
-
No, because it is obviously meant as a derogatory term. "Clean break" sounds neutral, but is subtly complimentary.
It's still using a term in a lying fashion. The motivation seems the same.
-
*Deep sigh.*
"Clean break" is dishonest; "brextremist" isn't.
-
*Deep sigh.*
"Clean break" is dishonest; "brextremist" isn't.
It seems deeply dishonest to me.
-
Do you and Outrider disagree with people just for the fun of pissing them off? It begins to look like it, with you here, and him on "are humans unique".
-
Do you and Outrider disagree with people just for the fun of pissing them off? It begins to look like it, with you here, and him on "are humans unique".
So people can't just disagree with you?
-
Latest ComRes poll
Con: 33% (-11) Lab: 27% (-14) LD: 18% (+10) BXP: 12% (+12) SNP: 4% (+1) Grn: 4% (+2)
-
The book of Revelation is notorious for being interpreted by those with overactive imaginations to supposedly predict modern day events. It wouldn't surprise me if someone has found a verse in that crazy tome, which they reckon relates to Brexit. ;D
-
The book of Revelation is notorious for being interpreted by those with overactive imaginations to supposedly predict modern day events. It wouldn't surprise me if someone has found a verse in that crazy tome, which they reckon relates to Brexit. ;D
https://www.christiantruthcenter.com/brexit-and-bible-prophecy/
-
https://www.christiantruthcenter.com/brexit-and-bible-prophecy/
BONKERS, BONKERS, BONKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ::)
-
https://www.christiantruthcenter.com/brexit-and-bible-prophecy/
the bible is a very useful book . When you release it from about a metre high, it can kill a mouse :o
-
But using the derogatory terms is seeking to portray the other side in a similarly dishonest way.
An obvious insult is not the same as a lie.
-
An obvious insult is not the same as a lie.
It is if it a deliberate attempt to smear people.
-
It is if it a deliberate attempt to smear people.
Smearing somebody is about making false accusations to damage their reputation. Calling somebody obviously insulting names is not the same thing at all. The terms "Brextremist" and "remoaner" are not attempts to deceive - it's name calling based on what you think about them (namely that Brexiters are extremists and remainers are moaning).
-
Smearing somebody is about making false accusations to damage their reputation. Calling somebody obviously insulting names is not the same thing at all. The terms "Brextremist" and "remoaner" are not attempts to deceive - it's name calling based on what you think about them (namely that Brexiters are extremists and remainers are moaning).
Saying that those who voted leave are extremists is making an attempt to damage their reputation. It's an obvious attempt at bothering and while some people may well think it, it is also used deliberately by many who don't but find it useful to use.
-
NS,
But using the derogatory terms is seeking to portray the other side in a similarly dishonest way.
Do you not think there's difference between the ad hom of attacking the person (ie, "Brextremist", "remoaner" etc) and attacking an idea (ie, the euphemism "clean break")?
-
NS,
Do you not think there's difference between the ad hom of attacking the person (ie, "Brextremist", "remoaner" etc) and attacking an idea (ie, the euphemism "clean break")?
I think they are both examples of spin. And referring to people as extremists is surely an attack on their ideas as well?
-
NS,
I think they are both examples of spin.
I agree.
And referring to people as extremists is surely an attack on their ideas as well?
Not so sure about that. Calling someone an "extremist" goes to the character of that person (the content of his extremism being a different matter); criticising an idea for being a euphemism on the other hand seems to me to be an attack on the idea itself (ie, the content) rather than the person. They're different classes of spin don't you think?
-
Do you and Outrider disagree with people just for the fun of pissing them off? It begins to look like it, with you here, and him on "are humans unique".
I'm sorry that you see it as somehow 'pissing you off' - I'm not aware I've been particularly obnoxious or aggressive in my posting. Perhaps you might want to not put up direct questions like 'Are Humans unique?' if someone giving an answer you don't like is going to piss you off?
O.
-
NS,
I agree.
Not so sure about that. Calling someone an "extremist" goes to the character of that person (the content of his extremism being a different matter); criticising an idea for being a euphemism on the other hand seems to me to be an attack on the idea itself (ie, the content) rather than the person. They're different classes of spin don't you think?
I think spin is based on dishonesty. So I see these as effectively equivalent.
-
Try this on YouTube: 'Rod Liddle live: the great brexit betrayal-the Brendan O'Neill show'.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
Try this on YouTube: 'Rod Liddle live: the great brexit betrayal-the Brendan O'Neill show'.
Regards to all, ippy.
I don't think we need trouble ourselves unduly with Liddle, ippy: you might find this review of his book interesting, and here is a quote from the review that gives an indication of why you should be wary of the likes of Liddle.
Liddle is as untroubled by facts as by logic. He repeatedly cites the figure of £9bn as the UK’s annual net contribution to the EU – it is £7.9bn. The House of Commons library report of 24 June on the net contribution says the £9bn does not take account of EU funds given to non governmental agencies in the UK (universities and so on). He thinks Ireland was “forced” by the EU to hold another referendum on the Nice treaty in 2001 – it wasn’t. He thinks the DUP speaks for “the Northern Irish”, even though it gets a third of the vote and does not represent the strongly anti-Brexit majority. He claims Britain could have negotiated a trade deal with the EU before it discussed a withdrawal agreement, even though the EU can’t do a trade deal with Britain until it has actually left. His understanding of the border question – blockchain can solve “almost all” the problems – is childish. He even seems oblivious to the basic history of the UK: “Our boundaries have not shifted much over the years.” (So Ireland neither joined the UK in 1801 nor left it in 1922?)
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/17/great-betrayal-rod-liddle-brexit-review
-
But using the derogatory terms is seeking to portray the other side in a similarly dishonest way.
What is dishonest about calling an extremist Brexiteer i.e one who wants "no deal" a Brextremeist?
-
I think spin is based on dishonesty. So I see these as effectively equivalent.
Brextremist is merely a contraction of Brexit and extremist. There's nothing dishonest about it. A "clean break" is a dishonest way of portraying a no deal Brexit, which will be anything but clean.
-
So people can't just disagree with you?
By all means disagree with me if you've got good reason to, but if you've run out of reasons and facts to support your position, and are continuing to disagree just for the hell of it, as you seem to be doing, it gets a bit annoying.
-
The book of Revelation is notorious for being interpreted by those with overactive imaginations to supposedly predict modern day events. It wouldn't surprise me if someone has found a verse in that crazy tome, which they reckon relates to Brexit. ;D
You just can't help yourself, can you? You have to bring your obsessive anti-religious beliefs into absolutely every discussion, however irrelevant. Have you come across any fundies claiming that Brexit has been predicted in the Bible? Thought not.
-
I think there are claims of Biblical prophecies about Brexit. Too late now, will dig some up tomorrow.
-
By all means disagree with me if you've got good reason to, but if you've run out of reasons and facts to support your position, and are continuing to disagree just for the hell of it, as you seem to be doing, it gets a bit annoying.
Evasion noted.
-
Brextremist is merely a contraction of Brexit and extremist. There's nothing dishonest about it. A "clean break" is a dishonest way of portraying a no deal Brexit, which will be anything but clean.
Keep telling yourself that.
-
You just can't help yourself, can you? You have to bring your obsessive anti-religious beliefs into absolutely every discussion, however irrelevant. Have you come across any fundies claiming that Brexit has been predicted in the Bible? Thought not.
Take it you didn't read the reply to LR? Thought not.
-
I think spin is based on dishonesty. So I see these as effectively equivalent.
Except that they quite obviously aren't. One has the potential to actually mislead, whereas the other is just name-calling. Classifying them both as spin doesn't mean that they are equivalent.
-
Except that they quite obviously aren't. One has the potential to actually mislead, whereas the other is just name-calling. Classifying them both as spin doesn't mean that they are equivalent.
They are both quite obviously to me attempts to mislead. The name calling by othering the opposition in an incorrect way.
-
They are both quite obviously to me attempts to mislead. The name calling by othering the opposition in an incorrect way.
How does Brextremist or remoaner mislead anybody?
-
How does Brextremist or remoaner mislead anybody?
By the idea that everyone supporting Brexit is an extremist.
-
By the idea that everyone supporting Brexit is an extremist.
Which can either be read as a political opinion or just an insult. It doesn't compare with calling a complicated mess, that will just be the start of a process of resolving an issue, a "clean break".
-
Which can either be read as a political opinion or just an insult. It doesn't compare with calling a complicated mess, that will just be the start of a process of resolving an issue, a "clean break".
Or a deliberate attempt to other a side you don't agree with with a smear.
-
Or a deliberate attempt to other a side you don't agree with with a smear.
Well of course an insult is an attempt to other someone, but it still isn't an attempt to mislead. It really isn't even a smear, since that generally involves false accusations (extremist being a matter of opinion).
-
How does Brextremist or remoaner mislead anybody?
They don't - he's just being a silly little troll. In the context of my post, "brextremist" isn't even derogatory (though I certnly intended it to be). I was talking about brexiters who are not merely prepared for, but positively want, a no-deal exit. That's an extreme position. Moderate brexiters want us to leave with a deal. "Bextremist" is simply a contraction of "brexit extremist".
-
These last few post are as good an example I've seen showing just how far apart the two sides of this brexit argument still are, I just like the remainers wont be changing my mind anytime soon.
I don't see anything wrong with remainers complaining, it's the stand taken against the democratic process by various remainers that's so wrong, the reasons for wanting to remain are irrelevant, remain plane and simple lost the vote.
I look forward to perhaps having proportional representation when we've finally left which'll hopefully give us the opportunity to get a bit nearer to having representatives that really do represent us in parliament.
I'm sure it's going to be much better than how I have to vote at present voting for the person that is most likely to implement the winning sides preference rather than voting for someone that I'm not that keen on voting for just to get out.
Regards, ippy.
-
Keep telling yourself that.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
-
By the idea that everyone supporting Brexit is an extremist.
Brextremist doesn't convey the idea that everybody supporting Brexit is an extremist any more than Brexit extremist does.
-
These last few post are as good an example I've seen showing just how far apart the two sides of this brexit argument still are, I just like the remainers wont be changing my mind anytime soon.
That's true but mainly because the Brexiteers don't seem to be prepared to tell us how we will be better off after Brexit. You won't change anybody's mind by refusing to engage.
-
I don't think we need trouble ourselves unduly with Liddle, ippy: you might find this review of his book interesting, and here is a quote from the review that gives an indication of why you should be wary of the likes of Liddle.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/17/great-betrayal-rod-liddle-brexit-review
I wonder who wrote that review a brexiteer or a remainer, what do you think Gordon? I would be inclined to think it's a no brainer answer to that one.
Regards, ippy.
-
That's true but mainly because the Brexiteers don't seem to be prepared to tell us how we will be better off after Brexit. You won't change anybody's mind by refusing to engage.
You're right!
Regards, ippy.
-
They don't - he's just being a silly little troll. In the context of my post, "brextremist" isn't even derogatory (though I certnly intended it to be). I was talking about brexiters who are not merely prepared for, but positively want, a no-deal exit. That's an extreme position. Moderate brexiters want us to leave with a deal. "Bextremist" is simply a contraction of "brexit extremist".
You seem to be back in your position that someone disagreeing with must be doing it just to wind you up. Indeed it seems to be what motivated your annoyance with people using the words clean break.
-
These last few post are as good an example I've seen showing just how far apart the two sides of this brexit argument still are, I just like the remainers wont be changing my mind anytime soon.
I don't see anything wrong with remainers complaining, it's the stand taken against the democratic process by various remainers that's so wrong, the reasons for wanting to remain are irrelevant, remain plane and simple lost the vote.
You don't seem to want to even listen to the arguments, let alone actually address them, you can't give any rational reason for your views, and don't seem to care about who might get hurt as a result of your cult's actions. Just like the religious people you so often criticise.
::)
-
These last few post are as good an example I've seen showing just how far apart the two sides of this brexit argument still are, I just like the remainers wont be changing my mind anytime soon.
In what way do the last few posts show that?
-
I don't see anything wrong with remainers complaining, it's the stand taken against the democratic process by various remainers that's so wrong, the reasons for wanting to remain are irrelevant, remain plane and simple lost the vote.
In an advisory referendum nigh on 3 and a half years ago with a brexit which wasn't defined.
Ippy - are you sure there is a popular mandate for either no deal or May's deal or Boris' deal (if that ever appears). Are you sure that were any of those three were clearly stated as the brexit option in 2016 that they'd have beaten remain (frankly I doubt it). Are you sure that any of those three would beat remain now? If not then you are foisting the most significant decision on the UK in generations without being clear that it is the 'will of the people' - how can that be democratic?
-
ippy,
These last few post are as good an example I've seen showing just how far apart the two sides of this brexit argument still are, I just like the remainers wont be changing my mind anytime soon.
I don't see anything wrong with remainers complaining, it's the stand taken against the democratic process by various remainers that's so wrong, the reasons for wanting to remain are irrelevant, remain plane and simple lost the vote.
So does that mean I can keep the £1k you paid for the bag of rust I delivered when I'd promised you my Ferrari then? The reasons for wanting your money back are it seems all irrelevant - you "lost the vote" after all.
-
Getting back to Brexit, it looks as if today might be a make or break day in getting a deal with the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50044873
-
The point is that the referendum in 2016 happened in spite of the fact that we had already had one referendum on what is now the EU. That gives the lie to the idea that we can't have a third one. The EU may not have changed much in three years but the British people have.
Do you think that might be just wishful thinking?
-
In an advisory referendum nigh on 3 and a half years ago with a brexit which wasn't defined.
Ippy - are you sure there is a popular mandate for either no deal or May's deal or Boris' deal (if that ever appears). Are you sure that were any of those three were clearly stated as the brexit option in 2016 that they'd have beaten remain (frankly I doubt it). Are you sure that any of those three would beat remain now? If not then you are foisting the most significant decision on the UK in generations without being clear that it is the 'will of the people' - how can that be democratic?
I wonder if any part of the reason the Labour lot are reluctant to go for an election has anything to do with when they look at how the voting went that produced the result of the European parliamentary election?
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
I wonder if any part of the reason the Labour lot are reluctant to go for an election has anything to do with when they look at how the voting went that produced the result of the European parliamentary election?
Some part of it might be, though that would still be the case if a GE was held shortly after the no deal Brexit was taken off the table. The more pressing reason though is that Johnson can't be trusted not to game the system if a GE is called and a no deal exit is still possible.
Oh, and using your reasoning re Brexit do I get to keep the £1k then having sold the pile of rust to you on the false prospectus that it was a Ferrari?
-
I wonder if any part of the reason the Labour lot are reluctant to go for an election has anything to do with when they look at how the voting went that produced the result of the European parliamentary election?
Regards, ippy.
Nope - it is because they (and the other opposition parties) don't trust Johnson, since they know he is a serial liar. Once the possibility of a no-deal EU exit on Oct 31st is legally removed they will then consider supporting a GE.
-
Gordon,
Nope - it is because they (and the other opposition parties) don't trust Johnson, since they know he is a serial liar. Once the possibility of a no-deal EU exit on Oct 31st is legally removed they will then consider supporting a GE.
I hear he even lies about having cornflakes for breakfast when he actually has rice krispies...
...yep, clearly the man's a cereal liar too.
I'll get me jacket :-[
-
I wonder if any part of the reason the Labour lot are reluctant to go for an election has anything to do with when they look at how the voting went that produced the result of the European parliamentary election?
Regards, ippy.
How would a referendum produce 'the result of the European parliamentary election' and why would that frighten Labour?
Actually were a referendum to mirror the EU election then it would result in a remain vote as the parties broadly favouring remaining gained more votes than those broadly favouring leave.
Also Labour beat the Tories in the EU election and as it is pretty well impossible that one or other of those parties wont be the largest after a general election I suspect they'd take an election where they gained 50% more votes than the Tories.
But, of course the EU election is an irrelevance to either a general election or a referendum, because the turnout in the latter two will likely be north of 70% or so, while the turnout in the former was just 37%.
-
Guardian reporting that a deal is imminent, looks like May's deal, but with border down Irish sea. Cummings probably calculating on some Labour votes, plus ERG, DUP under the bus?
-
Just had LBC on where James O'Brien was talking about why Leavers are still getting angry with the people who told them they were being lied to, rather than with the people who lied to them.
A caller rang in and said his problem with the EU is, it is toxic.
James asked him for an example. He said a farmer had told him years ago that they had had restrictions placed on them by the EU on the size of cattle herds, also milk quotas, which hadn't helped that farmer.
James told the caller that quotas for farming are no longer there. The caller said: still, that is one of many ways in which the EU has been toxic.
James asked for another example. The caller said, what about the large number of nurses coming to work for the NHS from the EU, when there are a million unemployed people here? He said the nursing vacancies should be being filled by UK-trained nurses, but successive governments have been bringing in EU nurses instead of investing more in training them here.
This caller only just managed to make his point, as James kept on talking over him, saying for example that the exact number of nursing vacancies is 43,000 so it's essential to be able to hire EU nurses.
It struck me that the caller had a valid point though. James eventually cut him off, as he often does (as well as talking over them) when a caller is in the process of winning an argument.
So, what do you think? Could investing more in things like nursing training (rather than filling the vacancies with EU workers) result in UK unemployment going down? Did this caller have a point, or was James correct to say after the call finished, "there is another example of how people have been misled" (ie, rather than admit the caller had made a logical point, he stuck to his position of, "so many vacancies means we need access to EU labour")
The way he kept interrupting the guy made him look quite rude; this is one of the reasons why, back in 2016, I decided not to take his advice.
-
So you based your entire decision on his advice?
-
So you based your entire decision on his advice?
No, he was one of many people.
-
Spud
If you are concerned about the supply of nurses to the NHS, have a look at Project 2000 and consider the effect it may have had on nurse recruitment. Then ask yourself whether the importation of nurses trained in other places than the UK (not just the EU but places like the Philippines) may not have been necessary.
-
Do you think that might be just wishful thinking?
To put it bluntly, three years of old people have died and three years of new voters have arrived.
There are about 45,000,000 people in the electorate. There are about 2,000,000 people aged 15-17, so assume that amount has been added to the electorate and there are about 1.8 million deaths in three years - that's a bit high for our purposes as it includes deaths amongst people not in the electorate. That means that the electorate has somewhere between 5 and 10% different people in it which is substantially larger than the margin of victory for leave.
Plus those people who were eligible to vote last time and are still alive have much better information on the likely consequences of Brexit. I'd say Britain has changed.
-
This caller only just managed to make his point, as James kept on talking over him, saying for example that the exact number of nursing vacancies is 43,000 so it's essential to be able to hire EU nurses.
The caller essentially lost the argument right there. If there are 43,000 nursing vacancies, it's not people from the EU preventing British people from becoming nurses. Not to mention the fact that the arrangement is reciprocal: British nurses can go and work in other EU countries, at least until 31 October.
-
Some interesting stuff in the confusions in the parties.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/10/labour-believes-its-best-chance-win-election-have-reached-brexit-settlement
-
Some interesting stuff in the confusions in the parties.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2019/10/labour-believes-its-best-chance-win-election-have-reached-brexit-settlement
Certainly very confusing.
Still, we can be reasonably confident that JC will grab defeat from the jaws of victory: whip against a Tory deal then go into an election with a promise to negotiate another deal that he will campaign against.
-
Certainly very confusing.
Still, we can be reasonably confident that JC will grab defeat from the jaws of victory: whip against a Tory deal then go into an election with a promise to negotiate another deal that he will campaign against.
Unconvinced that this is what will happen. There is now considerable support for a referendum before any election in Labour, and at the same time the idea of a deal of not one in place by 31at October, impossible and might with DUP support and some of the 'Spartans' might pass.
-
Just had LBC on where James O'Brien was talking about why Leavers are still getting angry with the people who told them they were being lied to, rather than with the people who lied to them.
A caller rang in and said his problem with the EU is, it is toxic.
James asked him for an example. He said a farmer had told him years ago that they had had restrictions placed on them by the EU on the size of cattle herds, also milk quotas, which hadn't helped that farmer.
James told the caller that quotas for farming are no longer there. The caller said: still, that is one of many ways in which the EU has been toxic.
James asked for another example. The caller said, what about the large number of nurses coming to work for the NHS from the EU, when there are a million unemployed people here? He said the nursing vacancies should be being filled by UK-trained nurses, but successive governments have been bringing in EU nurses instead of investing more in training them here.
This caller only just managed to make his point, as James kept on talking over him, saying for example that the exact number of nursing vacancies is 43,000 so it's essential to be able to hire EU nurses.
It struck me that the caller had a valid point though. James eventually cut him off, as he often does (as well as talking over them) when a caller is in the process of winning an argument.
So, what do you think? Could investing more in things like nursing training (rather than filling the vacancies with EU workers) result in UK unemployment going down? Did this caller have a point, or was James correct to say after the call finished, "there is another example of how people have been misled" (ie, rather than admit the caller had made a logical point, he stuck to his position of, "so many vacancies means we need access to EU labour")
The way he kept interrupting the guy made him look quite rude; this is one of the reasons why, back in 2016, I decided not to take his advice.
Most of the phone in talk shows do that old trick O'Brien's using it on leavers that phone in at the moment; if he gets someone that's particularly articulate phoning in about leaving he doesn't agree with they get cut off as soon as poss, but then if he gets a leaver that's not quite quick enough on the phone challenging his remain agenda he'll hang on to them for a lot longer.
The only thing I would say in O'Brien's defence is that this approach is common place in most phone in programmes, whatever the subject, mind you that O'Brien's a pretty obnoxious example of a phone in host.
Regards, ippy.
-
Harrowby and Jeremy,
If tuition fees hadn't been introduced for UK trainee nurses, there would be more of them. It appears that this is why there are so many unfilled nursing jobs.
The caller seemed to be saying that rather than focussing on importing foreign nurses (although in the short term they would be needed) more should be done to enable training in the UK (which at first glance would logically mean cutting tuition fees) so as to reduce our reliance upon foreign ones.
-
Harrowby and Jeremy,
If tuition fees hadn't been introduced for UK trainee nurses, there would be more of them.
Sorry, I missed the bit where it was the EU that mandated those fees. It may surprise you to know that, when we leave the EU, tuition fees won't go away.
The caller seemed to be saying that rather than focussing on importing foreign nurses (although in the short term they would be needed) more should be done to enable training in the UK (which at first glance would logically mean cutting tuition fees) so as to reduce our reliance upon foreign ones.
We could cut tuition fees now while we are still in the EU.
Sorry, but the caller lost the argument horribly.
-
Sorry, I missed the bit where it was the EU that mandated those fees. It may surprise you to know that, when we leave the EU, tuition fees won't go away.
We could cut tuition fees now while we are still in the EU.
Sorry, but the caller lost the argument horribly.
Maybe, but the bragging is still out of order, I don't like it.
-
Philip Hammond indicating he may vote for whatever the 'deal' is.
-
Philip Hammond indicating he may vote for whatever the 'deal' is.
Perhaps he wants to get back into Dominic Cummings' good books.
-
Perhaps he wants to get back into Dominic Cummings' good books.
I think he is already marked down for the bad fire.
-
It is being reported, in the Guardian live blog quoting Stella Creasy, that part of the price the government would pay to get DUP support for their EU deal would be to find a way to stop the imminent changes to abortion and SSM law in NI - if true, this would be shameful.
There is a story on this on the BBC, which suggests it is unlikely there is now enough time to prevent the changes to abortion and SSM law that are due to kick-in next week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50062998
-
And meanwhile in Labour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50077384
-
Interesting move from one of the lawyers involved in winning the prorogation case in the Court of Session - he's going back to the same court to seek an interdict to prevent Johnson putting his 'deal' to the vote in the HoC saying it would be illegal, though he can know this for certain without seeing the detail isn't clear.
Still - it all adds to the entertainment produced by Brexit (which is, of course, a farce).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50076186
-
Seems the DUP won't play ball, so no doubt Johnson will by now be dipping into his wallet.
From the Guardian Live politics blog.
The DUP has issued a statement from Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds saying that “as things stand, we could not support what is being suggested on customs and consent issues and there is a lack of clarity on VAT.
“We will continue to work with the Government to try and get a sensible deal that works for Northern Ireland and protects the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.”
Now reported on the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50077760
-
Interesting move from one of the lawyers involved in winning the prorogation case in the Court of Session - he's going back to the same court to seek an interdict to prevent Johnson putting his 'deal' to the vote in the HoC saying it would be illegal, though he can know this for certain without seeing the detail isn't clear.
Still - it all adds to the entertainment produced by Brexit (which is, of course, a farce).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50076186
I know many supporting Brexit see the use of the courts as bad, but I am sort of with them on this one - it feels wrong to stop something being put to the Commons.
-
Seems the DUP won't play ball, so no doubt Johnson will by now be dipping into his wallet.
From the Guardian Live politics blog.
Now reported on the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50077760
In truth I have not understood why the DUP should/would prefer the new proposal over the May WA - they would have been better off under that - with longer term arrangements more carefully thought out.
-
A L Kennedy's take in the form of a parody of Jolene - Arlene
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1184580848185761805.html
-
A L Kennedy's take in the form of a parody of Jolene - Arlene
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1184580848185761805.html
Love it.
-
A L Kennedy's take in the form of a parody of Jolene - Arlene
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1184580848185761805.html
Clearly Arlene will only have him back if she can stuff the deal through the shredder the morning after ...
-
Maybe, but the bragging is still out of order, I don't like it.
Do you not understand that a lot of people are very angry about what the Brexiteer leaders have done to this country?
-
Seems the DUP won't play ball, so no doubt Johnson will by now be dipping into his wallet.
He'll being dipping into all of our wallets.
-
He'll being dipping into all of our wallets.
While it has been said of some of the Ulster Unionist that they are more loyal to the half crown than the Crown, this seems a difficult one to get them to agree to - I can't see that they accept the proposal without fundamentally going back on their previous position.
-
He'll being dipping into all of our wallets.
Mine has got barbed wire wrapped around it. ;D
-
Do you not understand that a lot of people are very angry about what the Brexiteer leaders have done to this country?
Yes. I did actually shout "stop Brexit" outside the houses of parliament a few weeks ago (but quietly as I'm a bit shy). Back to the caller Martin: I think what he meant was that once free movement of labour ends, they'll have to invest more in training nurses, they won't have any choice. And to be honest, I think a lot of the work could be done by carers.
-
I think Johnson is a dangerous lying narcissist but I have to say the production of a deal which he can claim is different enough to May's is an achievement. It doesn't mean it will get passed and given the DUP's refusal, which doesn't seem surprising, it will need a substantial number of Labour rebels to get it through but I think it puts Johnson in a stronger position as with any defeat he will have enough bogey people to blame. And then onto an election.
The possibility of a referendum with no option to stay still seems unlikely to make it. I don't think enough of the DUP/Tory Rebels/Tories without the whip would vote for it.
-
I see the Letwin amendment allowing more discussion and amendments to be tabled has passed in the eight defeat for the govt since Johnson became PM. This makes the vote more likely I suspect for the deal to be voted down, as it waters down any argument based on deal or no deal. Also I see Sinn Fein supporting it which because they won't actually vote must make the passing less likely. A hardline Tory is not going to be comfortable going for a deal that is supported by Sinn Fein, and opposed by the DUP - even if other unionists support it.
-
Brexiteers? Spartans? We should all stop playing their game and call them what they are: right-wing sociopaths who've bled every penny they can out of the public purse for the last 10 years for their own benefit and are now using Brexit to game the international money markets for their own benefit while we suffer.
https://fullfact.org/economy/pound-fallen-since-brexit/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/08/brexit-latest-news-boris-johnson-no-deal-parliament-prorogation/
I picked the Telegraph because I wouldn't like to be accused of bias.
Spud's posts about nurses demonstrate nicely how some people in this country have been deceived. Don't like something? Anything? It's the EU's fault. Johnson has been telling these lies for decades. He likened it to throwing rocks over a wall and hearing glass smash.
Anyone who thinks the Barclay brothers or Rupert Murdoch or Lord Rothermere are not "the elite" hasn't been paying attention. It doesn't take Miss Marple to work out where their interests lie and it certainly isn't the same place as mine.
I heard this morning someone on R5 talking about, basically, getting rid of the BBC. Murdoch might at last get what he's always wanted. Nice going.
Of course all this pales into insignificance against the threat posed by having Jeremy Corbyn as a temporary Prime Minister.
-
Excellent.
-
It is being reported, in the Guardian live blog quoting Stella Creasy, that part of the price the government would pay to get DUP support for their EU deal would be to find a way to stop the imminent changes to abortion and SSM law in NI - if true, this would be shameful.
There is a story on this on the BBC, which suggests it is unlikely there is now enough time to prevent the changes to abortion and SSM law that are due to kick-in next week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50062998
The BBC the Guardian.
Regards, ippy.
-
The BBC the Guardian.
Regards, ippy.
Both excellent sources of information and comment in order to provide a basis for thoughtful review and assessment: you should give it a go, ippy.
-
So Juncker say there won't be an extension and Farage tweets "So an unelected, retiring bureaucrat says: No extension, take this new treaty or just leave. He is overriding the Benn Act. The EU shows itself to be a thuggocracy - power without accountability. Appalling people."
Guess it isn't the Surrender Act now.
-
Why an extension isn't ruled out.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/10/has-eu-really-ruled-out-another-article-50-extension
-
Currently trying to understand this new deal. Looks like it may be just the thing.
-
Spud,
Currently trying to understand this new deal. Looks like it may be just the thing.
Only if you think amputating just one leg rather than both legs is "just the thing".
-
Spud,
Only if you think amputating just one leg rather than both legs is "just the thing".
I only said "may". And it's the Irish border problem in particular. So instead of paying duty at the north-south border, it would be paid at ports in northern Ireland. But then they'll have to track the goods to see where they end up. Hm
-
Comment from and link to survey twitter:
"For the first time, Corbyn now trails Johnson among those aged 18-24. Who would make the best PM? Johnson 32 Corbyn 29 Among those aged over 65, Corbyn trails Johnson 62 to 8. Corbyn is now behind Johnson in every age group, and every region.
@YouGov
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_upload
-
Ah, well, great leaders don't sit on the backbenches for 36 years, bickering with their own party, before accidentally being elected party leader.
-
I heard a little bit of the BBC radio 2 Jeremy Vine show Today, 18th Oct 19, where a recording of Kier Starmer promising to carry out the wishes of the referendum whichever way it went was played; what happened?
Keir's now steering on a 180 degree course to the opposite of this promise he made pre the 2016 referendum, remainers are very good at explaining how other people are liars and I would find it interesting would the remainers out there describe this apparent lie Mr Starmer made?
Regards, ippy.
-
The sitting of Parliament tomorrow should be interesting.
-
The sitting of Parliament tomorrow should be interesting.
Yes, being glued to Parliament on tv a Saturday will be a bit weird. I'm hoping it goes to extra time and penalties.
-
Yes, being glued to Parliament on tv a Saturday will be a bit weird. I'm hoping it goes to extra time and penalties.
Absolutely. ;D
-
Heard on the radio today a droll take on Johnson's, "We've got the deal, now we need to get on with Brexit":
"As John Edward Smith (the captain of the Titanic) might have put it: "We've hit the iceberg, now we need to get on with drowning"".
-
I heard a little bit of the BBC radio 2 Jeremy Vine show Today, 18th Oct 19, where a recording of Kier Starmer promising to carry out the wishes of the referendum whichever way it went was played; what happened?
Keir's now steering on a 180 degree course to the opposite of this promise he made pre the 2016 referendum, remainers are very good at explaining how other people are liars and I would find it interesting would the remainers out there describe this apparent lie Mr Starmer made?
Regards, ippy.
I have not heard whatever you are taking as a promise, but it seems obvious that it is possible for Starmer to remain a Remainer and also to use his abilities to the full to try and "carry out the wishes of the referendum" in the way that he interprets the 52/48% vote.
As shadow Brexit minister he stated many times that he saw it as leaving the EU with a deal that would ensure the UK was not damaged economically and socially - to that end he listed 6 tests for a satisfactory deal.
Now, given that over three years later the government has still been unable to negotiate or pass a satisfactory withdrawal deal (assuming it doesn't pass tomorrow), it is entirely reasonable to request that any deal they do have should be put to a public vote.
-
The sitting of Parliament tomorrow should be interesting.
Come on ... they'll just be recycling the same old guff - a bit like searching for God.
-
Good analysis on the voting
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/10/these-are-groups-mps-i-think-will-pass-boris-johnsons-brexit-deal
-
Yes. I did actually shout "stop Brexit" outside the houses of parliament a few weeks ago (but quietly as I'm a bit shy). Back to the caller Martin: I think what he meant was that once free movement of labour ends, they'll have to invest more in training nurses, they won't have any choice. And to be honest, I think a lot of the work could be done by carers.
There are 43,000 vacancies now. The government isn't investing enough to fill even this amount. What makes you think they'll be making up the shortfall after Brexit?
-
I have not heard whatever you are taking as a promise, but it seems obvious that it is possible for Starmer to remain a Remainer and also to use his abilities to the full to try and "carry out the wishes of the referendum" in the way that he interprets the 52/48% vote.
As shadow Brexit minister he stated many times that he saw it as leaving the EU with a deal that would ensure the UK was not damaged economically and socially - to that end he listed 6 tests for a satisfactory deal.
Now, given that over three years later the government has still been unable to negotiate or pass a satisfactory withdrawal deal (assuming it doesn't pass tomorrow), it is entirely reasonable to request that any deal they do have should be put to a public vote.
If you were to listen to him via the iplayer he made a solemn promise to respect the outcome of the referendum, can't be misinterpreted.
As for another referendum If someone,anyone managed to get to the point of having another referendum I'll see the sponsors along with their referendum off with every breath I have and am able to take right to the upmost of limit of my ability to do so.
We're unlikely to have any common ground on this one Udayana.
Regards, ippy.
-
...
We're unlikely to have any common ground on this one Udayana.
...
Ippy,
You are probably right on that. However the point of the discussion is to try and clearly lay out the facts, reasoning and logic behind different arguments, so that, in the end, we are all better able to come to our own conclusions.
-
...upmost of limit of...
"...utmost limit of..."
-
Reports say that if the Letwin amendment passes, which means Johnson has to write to request an extension, the government will up sticks today and aim to come back next week. Hopefully the EU will quickly agree an extension since, I'd imagine, as soon as they do that is when a VoNC might happen.
-
Reports say that if the Letwin amendment passes, which means Johnson has to write to request an extension, the government will up sticks today and aim to come back next week. Hopefully the EU will quickly agree an extension since, I'd imagine, as soon as they do that is when a VoNC might happen.
Somehow I doubt that they would immediately agree an extension. Regime change is not on their todo list!
They need to keep the pressure on for the UK to agree to a deal.
-
Somehow I doubt that they would immediately agree an extension. Regime change is not on their todo list!
They need to keep the pressure on for the UK to agree to a deal.
Alternatively, if an extension results in another referendum they might hope that the UK changes its mind.
-
The MPs have voted to delay the Brexit deal. I wonder what Boris will do now?
-
Alternatively, if an extension results in another referendum they might hope that the UK changes its mind.
Or (and this is a dangerous game) they could back us into a corner where we have to revoke article 50 or crash out with no deal.
-
Don't understand parliament. Every deal they've rejected despite saying they would respect the referendum. There will be riots at some point, of that I'm sure.
-
John Crace's take on today's entertainment.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/19/boris-johnsons-super-saturday-bubble-bursts
-
Don't understand parliament. Every deal they've rejected despite saying they would respect the referendum. There will be riots at some point, of that I'm sure.
May's deal would have passed had it not been for the ERG
-
Don't understand parliament. Every deal they've rejected despite saying they would respect the referendum. There will be riots at some point, of that I'm sure.
That would be because the referendum was flawed and, therefore, so was the result since it is now clear that any form of Brexit is harmful: hopefully it can yet be stopped.
Some of what passes for reasoning by some Tory Brexit enthusiasts is inconsistent nonsense - we've had Tory MPs (inc Rees Mogg) suggesting that Labour MPs from 'leave' seats should be voting to accept Johnson's deal while conveniently forgetting that all 13 Tory MPs from Scotland represent 'remain' seats (since all seats in Scotland are 'remain' seats) - talk about double standards.
Ironically had those Tories now supporting Johnson's deal previously supported May, then Brexit would have happened by now.
-
That would be because the referendum was flawed and, therefore, so was the result since it is now clear that any form of Brexit is harmful: hopefully it can yet be stopped.
Some of what passes for reasoning by some Tory Brexit enthusiasts is inconsistent nonsense - we've had Tory MPs (inc Rees Mogg) suggesting that Labour MPs from 'leave' seats should be voting to accept Johnson's deal while conveniently forgetting that all 13 Tory MPs from Scotland represent 'remain' seats (since all seats in Scotland are 'remain' seats) - talk about double standards.
Ironically had those Tories now supporting Johnson's deal previously supported May, then Brexit would have happened by now.
Don't disagree with that last part.
-
Alternatively, if an extension results in another referendum they might hope that the UK changes its mind.
Or (and this is a dangerous game) they could back us into a corner where we have to revoke article 50 or crash out with no deal.
The EC have agreed a deal - they must support ratification by the UK but have no remit to interfere in our internal political processes.
-
Seems that Johnson has sent the request but refused to sign it but has also sent a second signed letter saying that he does not wish a delay - hopefully the EU will avoid getting sucked in and consider just the unsigned letter that was legally required of him. It sounds a bit childish, but then he is.
Be interesting to see what the Court of Session say about this tactic when the case resumes on Monday.
-
The MPs have voted to delay the Brexit deal. I wonder what Boris will do now?
This is being misrepresented in the media.
The Letwin amendment passed does not necessitate any delay in Brexit. Whether or not we leave on 31st Oct depends entirely on BJ's (and team's) explanatory and sales skills. We could still leave on his schedule.
In fact, if he hadn't decided to put on a display of histrionics, there was a reasonable possibility that he could have won the meaningful vote today. By Monday he will have to produce more detail on impact projections - and some Labour MPs who might have voted for the deal may have changed their minds.
ETA: Actually - as the amended motion was passed he could not have continued .. and is forced to try again on Monday or later.
-
Don't understand parliament. Every deal they've rejected despite saying they would respect the referendum. There will be riots at some point, of that I'm sure.
There will not be riots. Although feelings run high, the issue is not important enough to get elderly leavers tearing up the streets. It doesn't affect people day to day - but is a totem for other issues (imo).
-
Seems that Johnson has sent the request but refused to sign it but has also sent a second signed letter saying that he does not wish a delay - hopefully the EU will avoid getting sucked in and consider just the unsigned letter that was legally required of him. It sounds a bit childish, but then he is.
Be interesting to see what the Court of Session say about this tactic when the case resumes on Monday.
Yes, childish ... and confirms yet again that he can't be trusted.
-
There will not be riots. Although feelings run high, the issue is not important enough to get elderly leavers tearing up the streets. It doesn't affect people day to day - but is a totem for other issues (imo).
What about non elderly leavers?
-
They seem to be mostly invisible?
-
They seem to be mostly invisible?
17.4 million voted for it. Were all of them elderly?
-
There are 43,000 vacancies now. The government isn't investing enough to fill even this amount. What makes you think they'll be making up the shortfall after Brexit?
Well, there may not be many European nurses looking for work here, except for the highest paid jobs, due to restrictions, after Brexit. So the government could either make special allowance for lower paid nurses to come here, or train more of them here. I don't disagree that they could carry on with a policy of 'importing' nurses, but I think if they switched focus to making it easier to train here then many of those vacancies could be filled in the long run. My main concern is I think people are entitled to hold that view without being shouted down.
-
Boris should be forced to resign, he is behaving in a manner totally unsuited to the office he holds. >:(
-
if they switched focus to making it easier to train here
Go and study the contents of Project 2000.
-
Go and study the contents of Project 2000.
Which was a disaster: at that time I was in NHS management and had to deal directly with Project 2000 and the recruitment problems it caused. Mrs G was a nurse, now retired, and recalls just how unprepared and lacking practical experience newly qualified nurses were under P2000, compared to how she was trained.
-
Well, there may not be many European nurses looking for work here, except for the highest paid jobs, due to restrictions, after Brexit. So the government could either make special allowance for lower paid nurses to come here, or train more of them here. I don't disagree that they could carry on with a policy of 'importing' nurses, but I think if they switched focus to making it easier to train here then many of those vacancies could be filled in the long run. My main concern is I think people are entitled to hold that view without being shouted down.
You're missing the point. The could switch focus to doing training here without leaving the EU. The EU is doing nothing to stop us from training our own nurses.
-
Which was a disaster: at that time I was in NHS management and had to deal directly with Project 2000 and the recruitment problems it caused. Mrs G was a nurse, now retired, and recalls just how unprepared and lacking practical experience newly qualified nurses were under P2000, compared to how she was trained.
Do you think there is any possibility of nurses being able to tchoose to train with practical, hands-on experience from the start and then being able to qualify with the same degree or whatever it might be called as University-trained nurses do?
-
Boris should be forced to resign, he is behaving in a manner totally unsuited to the office he holds. >:(
All those MP's who said they would respect the referendum lied through their back teeth. Scum, the lot of them.
-
All those MP's who said they would respect the referendum lied through their back teeth. Scum, the lot of them.
We should have another referendum now people are beginning to realise how very damaging leaving the EU will be to the UK.
-
Yeah, another one they will lie about respecting. Scum of the earth!
-
Yeah, another one they will lie about respecting. Scum of the earth!
The 'scum of the earth' like Boris, lied about the benefits to the UK of leaving the EU before the referendum, which is why many people voted to leave.
-
Yeah, another one they will lie about respecting. Scum of the earth!
I don't really agree with that.
I think the majority of MP's are struggling with two irreconcilable facts. One being leaving the EU, and the other being causing as little harm as possible to the economy and therefore the people of the UK. The truth of the matter is you can have either of those, but you can't have both. So they have been searching for the last 3 years to find a compromise that does the least damage but still fulfils the mandate to leave. That they can't agree on that is not surprising given the make up of the HoC.
I'm sure the vast majority of them would love to move on to other issues, but they fear the damage that will be caused if they get this momentous decision wrong.
And to be clear when I say the majority of MP's I don't include Johnson, Duncan Smith, Leadsom, Rees Mogg,etc. The ministers are largely a bunch of right wing economic fundamentalists who don't give a flying fig for the ordinary people of this country. Why the areas affected so badly by Thatcher's economic policies, such as my home town Mansfield, would choose to believe this bunch of privileged, lazy under achievers is beyond me. But then the country's (England for clarity) decision on this matter baffles me totally.
-
17.4 million voted for it. Were all of them elderly?
The media are going to have to wind the spin up a lot to get the younger leavers out on the streets.
The problem is that being in or out doesn't really have an immediate effect on peoples lives - if we left overnight with a deal would anything be different tomorrow?
If we left without a deal and panic did cause the supermarkets to be emptied - then you might see riots.
-
You're missing the point. The could switch focus to doing training here without leaving the EU. The EU is doing nothing to stop us from training our own nurses.
I get your point. Thanks.
-
The media are going to have to wind the spin up a lot to get the younger leavers out on the streets.
The problem is that being in or out doesn't really have an immediate effect on peoples lives - if we left overnight with a deal would anything be different tomorrow?
If we left without a deal and panic did cause the supermarkets to be emptied - then you might see riots.
Probably tomrrow would be the same. But if it's correct that Boris is considering hefty deregulation, plus so-called Atlanticism, I.e., cuddling up to Trump, life might become very different. Working conditions worse, environmental rules diluted, more poverty, and so on. It's uncertain, but it's certain that Boris is a duplicitous shit peddling hard right solutions. Well, do you feel lucky?
-
Ippy,
You are probably right on that. However the point of the discussion is to try and clearly lay out the facts, reasoning and logic behind different arguments, so that, in the end, we are all better able to come to our own conclusions.
Udayana, if you remember when we had a referendum and leave carried the day?
Surly when the result of the referendum has been carried out it would be a good time to clearly lay out the facts reasoning and logic behind different arguments and work out the best way of utilising the advantages we'll be able to apply from then on with all of the freshly recovered freedoms and independence from the EU will give us.
Regards, ippy.
-
Udayana, if you remember when we had a referendum and leave carried the day?
Surly when the result of the referendum has been carried out it would be a good time to clearly lay out the facts reasoning and logic behind different arguments and work out the best way of utilising the advantages we'll be able to apply from then on with all of the freshly recovered freedoms and independence from the EU will give us.
Regards, ippy.
It would have been better if those promoting Brexit had ' clearly lay out the facts reasoning and logic' and the 'advantages' of Brexit before people had the opportunity to vote: of course we now know why, since there are none.
-
Udayana, if you remember when we had a referendum and leave carried the day?
Surly when the result of the referendum has been carried out it would be a good time to clearly lay out the facts reasoning and logic behind different arguments and work out the best way of utilising the advantages we'll be able to apply from then on with all of the freshly recovered freedoms and independence from the EU will give us.
Regards, ippy.
What freedoms, much higher prices, less people to man the NHS? We will be much worse off if we leave the EU, tiny little Britain needs the support of the EU, imo.
-
But remember, we'll have the protection of Trump! That should see us all right/in the mire.
-
But remember, we'll have the protection of Trump! That should see us all right/in the mire.
We would be really up the creek without a paddle then! :o
-
Probably tomrrow would be the same. But if it's correct that Boris is considering hefty deregulation, plus so-called Atlanticism, I.e., cuddling up to Trump, life might become very different. Working conditions worse, environmental rules diluted, more poverty, and so on. It's uncertain, but it's certain that Boris is a duplicitous shit peddling hard right solutions. Well, do you feel lucky?
I agree that we, however anyone voted, would be best off remaining. However, given that about half the electorate have decided to invest in beads and baubles dangled before them by cheats and liars - the remaining half need to persuade them of the value of what is being lost.
-
Udayana, if you remember when we had a referendum and leave carried the day?
Surly when the result of the referendum has been carried out it would be a good time to clearly lay out the facts reasoning and logic behind different arguments and work out the best way of utilising the advantages we'll be able to apply from then on with all of the freshly recovered freedoms and independence from the EU will give us.
Regards, ippy.
That is basically "shoot first and ask questions later".
You have declined to list the advantages and freedoms we might gain a number of times, let alone how they could be used to the better.
-
It's more like the Texas sharp shooter fallacy. You fire random shots into the side of a barn, then draw a circle round some, and claim you hit the target.
-
I agree that we, however anyone voted, would be best off remaining. However, given that about half the electorate have decided to invest in beads and baubles dangled before them by cheats and liars - the remaining half need to persuade them of the value of what is being lost.
It's too late. It's turned into a religion, beyond reason. Even if there are disasters, such as the end of the car industry, the believers will keep the faith. A new religion/cult is born!
-
Surly when the result of the referendum has been carried out it would be a good time to clearly lay out the facts reasoning and logic behind different arguments and work out the best way of utilising the advantages we'll be able to apply from then on with all of the freshly recovered freedoms and independence from the EU will give us.
These would be the "advantages" that you have repeatedly refused to articulate yourself, despite endless requests to do so? How about naming a few now?
Meanwhile, out here in the real world and assuming Boris the Liar gets his deal through, people will be dealing with never-ending Brexit debate because we will still need to finalise our relationship with the EU, together with the job losses, damage to the economy, and probably the break up of the UK. All the while the UK will be getting progressively more pro EU due to the old fools, who largely voted for it, dying off - but the Brexit cult will, no doubt, still be chanting their "will of the people" mantra...
-
2nd vote coming up on Monday for Boris deal. 2nd referendum? Sorry, not democratic.
-
I wonder how Bercow will play this - the problem May had at one point was when Bercow refused to allow her re-presenting the same motion which, iirc, isn't allowed withing the same parliamentary session, and a new session has just started.
-
So Amber Rudd said: "Our government's own assessments are that this will hurt the economy I think by 4-6 per cent a year so it's serious stuff, but I still think it's the right thing to do because we had the referendum in 2016." (source (https://www.indy100.com/article/amber-rudd-brexit-boris-johnson-vote-economy-9163571)). So, even though the leave campaign said we'd be better off, it's undemocratic to ask the people if they still really want this. You really couldn't make it up...
-
Justine Greening said it's like buying a house without looking inside. It's actually like buying a house with no floors, leaky roofs, and blocked drains, because we said we'd buy it.
-
These would be the "advantages" that you have repeatedly refused to articulate yourself, despite endless requests to do so? How about naming a few now?
Meanwhile, out here in the real world and assuming Boris the Liar gets his deal through, people will be dealing with never-ending Brexit debate because we will still need to finalise our relationship with the EU, together with the job losses, damage to the economy, and probably the break up of the UK. All the while the UK will be getting progressively more pro EU due to the old fools, who largely voted for it, dying off - but the Brexit cult will, no doubt, still be chanting their "will of the people" mantra...
I have expressed my top most reason for leaving that reason on it's own is enough reason to leave in my opinion.
Don't worry too much though I still don't think of remainers as bad people.
Regards, ippy.
-
Justine Greening said it's like buying a house without looking inside. It's actually like buying a house with no floors, leaky roofs, and blocked drains, because we said we'd buy it.
An excellent analogy.
-
I have expressed my top most reason for leaving that reason on it's own is enough reason to leave in my opinion.
You talked about the EU court and "ever closer union", which we had an opt-out from anyway, but you never said why they are a disadvantage or why getting rid of them would be an advantage - so what are these "advantages" you were talking about?
-
I have expressed my top most reason for leaving that reason on it's own is enough reason to leave in my opinion.
Don't worry too much though I still don't think of remainers as bad people.
Regards, ippy.
Assuming you mean the end of freedom of movement. However it is not at all certain that implementation of a points based immigration system will lead to a drop in immigration levels - as immigration is required to keep the economy and public services running.
For decades politicians have been happy to blame free movement and/or "illegal" immigration for many issues that they have not bothered to manage properly.
The points based system may turn out to be better than the current earnings based system for managing non-EU migration - but, even here, does not guarantee any drop in figures.
From the other side - it will almost certainly reduce the opportunities and freedoms of UK citizens to work or live in Europe.
Overall, from the UK perspective, I'd count it as a loss of freedom in exchange for uncertain gains.
-
The Dug's take on yesterday's shambles. options https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/author/weegingerdug/
-
Much as I'd like the final outcome to be that we remain in the EU, I think another referendum would be entirely the wrong way to do it.
-
Much as I'd like the final outcome to be that we remain in the EU, I think another referendum would be entirely the wrong way to do it.
Why?
The electorate is now better informed, which casts doubt on the usefulness of the 2016 referendum, and the current government are a bunch of witless, lying, manipulative fuckwits - plus there is oft trumpeted assumption that 'the people' want Brexit no matter what: this is an assumption that should at least be sanity tested.
A GE as a basis to resolve Brexit would be messy, whereas a referendum would be very specific to the issue at hand.
-
I know it's from The Guardian and Ippy will hate it for that reason alone, but he really should read it. It illustrates exactly why you cannot take Leaving the EU as one single issue entirely unconnected from the people involved and the climate of the times.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/20/catastrophic-men-theory-history-step-forward-boris-johnson?
-
I've watched several vox pops today on various new bulletins, and most of these come from 'middle England' rather than where I am, and it does seem telling that when middle-aged leave 'voters are asked comment all they seem to say are variations of 'we want out' - but with no justification given. As for Tory politicians talking about 'pulling the country together' I suspect most of them would struggle to pull curtains together.
It seems to me that 'leave' is no more than an aggregation of ignorance laced with a dash of xenophobia (or vice-versa).
-
I've watched several vox pops today on various new bulletins, and most of these come from 'middle England' rather than where I am, and it does seem telling that when middle-aged leave 'voters are asked comment all they seem to say are variations of 'we want out' - but with no justification given. As for Tory politicians talking about 'pulling the country together' I suspect most of them would struggle to pull curtains together.
It seems to me that 'leave' is no more than an aggregation of ignorance laced with a dash of xenophobia (or vice-versa).
After the last three years of burach, I very much doubt whether Labour or - God forbid - Tory Westminster politicians have a hope of pulling England together, far less doing anything which remotely bridges the yawning chasms that crack open the british union.
-
You talked about the EU court and "ever closer union", which we had an opt-out from anyway, but you never said why they are a disadvantage or why getting rid of them would be an advantage - so what are these "advantages" you were talking about?
I did however express everything I wanted to say about the EU.
Regards, ippy.
-
Wiggs,
Justine Greening said it's like buying a house without looking inside. It's actually like buying a house with no floors, leaky roofs, and blocked drains, because we said we'd buy it.
Yes, but the reason we said we'd buy it was that the seller's spec said it had been recently refurbished to the highest standards, has a lovely pool/spa combo, carbon free energy and a professional tennis court. And when we asked if it was ok to have a look first the answer was, "Oh no, we can't allow that I'm afraid. Scrutinise the place? Oh I really don't think so, after all you can trust me not to steer you wrong. Just look at all the local papers saying what a lovely place it is after all. So if you'd just sign here please..."
And guess what? Lots of people did.
-
I've watched several vox pops today on various new bulletins, and most of these come from 'middle England' rather than where I am, and it does seem telling that when middle-aged leave 'voters are asked comment all they seem to say are variations of 'we want out' - but with no justification given. As for Tory politicians talking about 'pulling the country together' I suspect most of them would struggle to pull curtains together.
It seems to me that 'leave' is no more than an aggregation of ignorance laced with a dash of xenophobia (or vice-versa).
All of the main parties gave solemn promises to enact the result of the referendum whichever way it went with no indication of how these Machiavellian remain tendencies would click in to place if we voted for their idea of the wrong way and you think Boris is underhand.
Just to repeat I'm no particular fan of Boris.
I'm more inclined to think of remainers as they've just got it wrong about leaving the EU and I'll reserve any abusive language in that direction as long as remainers aren't having any luck reversing the result of the 2016 referendum.
Regards, ippy.
-
ippy,
All of the main parties gave solemn promises to enact the result of the referendum whichever way it went with no indication of how these Machiavellian remain tendencies would click in to place if we voted for their idea of the wrong way and you think Boris is underhand.
Just to repeat I'm no particular fan of Boris.
I'm more inclined to think of remainers as they've just got it wrong about leaving the EU and I'll reserve any abusive language in that direction as long as remainers aren't having any luck reversing the result of the 2016 referendum.
Various of the leave campaigners pre-referendum made lots of "solemn promises" about what a leave decision would mean, all of which we now know to be false. Why in your view should the solemn promises to implement the decision be taken seriously, but the solemn promises on which the referendum was won should be ignored?
-
I see the Speaker has prevented Boris from having another vote on his Brexit deal.
-
All of the main parties gave solemn promises to enact the result of the referendum whichever way it went with no indication of how these Machiavellian remain tendencies would click in to place if we voted for their idea of the wrong way and you think Boris is underhand.
Just to repeat I'm no particular fan of Boris.
I'm more inclined to think of remainers as they've just got it wrong about leaving the EU and I'll reserve any abusive language in that direction as long as remainers aren't having any luck reversing the result of the 2016 referendum.
Regards, ippy.
Would those be the 'main parties' which promised that the only way Scotland could remain in the EU was as part of the UK....
Aye, right.
-
All of the main parties gave solemn promises to enact the result of the referendum whichever way it went with no indication of how these Machiavellian remain tendencies would click in to place if we voted for their idea of the wrong way and you think Boris is underhand.
The main party here is Scotland didn't.
-
The main party here is Scotland didn't.
As I understand it the referendum to leave or remain in the EU was for the UK as a whole.
Regards, ippy.
-
As I understand it the referendum to leave or remain in the EU was for the UK as a whole.
Regards, ippy.
So it was - but 2 of the 4 nations voted remain, so I'm sure you will appreciate that statements along the lines of 'the people want Brexit done' are utter nonsense: unless 'the people' is a term that applies only to leave voters, who proportionately less prevalent here in Scotland.
On the bright side though, if Brexit does happen it will aid the breakup of the UK.
-
So the possibility is that if the timetable is defeated, then the govt pulls the bill, and asks for an extension to have a General Election and then goes on strike till the other parties agree to it being held either via a 2/3 vote or a vote of no confidence.
-
So the possibility is that if the timetable is defeated, then the govt pulls the bill, and asks for an extension to have a General Election and then goes on strike till the other parties agree to it being held either via a 2/3 vote or a vote of no confidence.
It is disgusting the way Boris and his ministers are behaving. >:(
-
Peter Oborne is always worth a read.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-journalists-have-become-part-of-johnsons-fake-news-machine/
-
And this is from Prof K A Armstrong, European Law, Sidney Sussex, Cambridge as an attempted summary of some of the import of the bill - but some MPs think it isn't worth reading never mind understanding (though the second may be me wanting the noon on a stick)
https://brexittime.com/2019/10/22/reincarnation-and-resurrection-the-afterlife-of-the-european-communities-act-1972-in-the-withdrawal-bill/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
One of those odd times when I find myself in agreement with the DUP, the members of the ERG have in the main shafted them.
-
CON: 37% (+6) LAB: 24% (-4) LDEM: 19% (+2) BREX: 11% (-2) via
@DeltapollUK
, 18 - 21 Oct
-
Hmmmm.....has Johnson discovered Schrödinger's ditch?
-
John Crace, in good form.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2019/oct/22/boris-johnson-die-in-a-ditch-brexit-timetable-dead-from-a-glitch
-
Hmmmm.....has Johnson discovered Schrödinger's ditch?
It's not 31st Oct yet.
I suspect Boris' next ploy will be to bring in a bill that reduces October to 30 days and adds an extra day onto November in mitigation.
-
It's not 31st Oct yet.
I suspect Boris' next ploy will be to bring in a bill that reduces October to 30 days and adds an extra day onto November in mitigation.
Nothing would surprise me where Boris is concerned! ::)
-
So at the meeting of Corbyn and Johnson today, there was apparently 'no meeting of minds' - the jokes just write themselves
-
So at the meeting of Corbyn and Johnson today, there was apparently 'no meeting of minds' - the jokes just write themselves
Surely nobody expect anything else.
-
with all of the freshly recovered freedoms and independence from the EU will give us.
What extra freedoms can I expect from Brexit? As far as I can see, the only freedoms involved are my ability to travel and work in the EU which will be curtailed.
-
What extra freedoms can I expect from Brexit? As far as I can see, the only freedoms involved are my ability to travel and work in the EU which will be curtailed.
Being able to bend bananas, have pounds and ounces, and sell fireworks to blind three year olds
-
So it was - but 2 of the 4 nations voted remain,
Nations had no vote. People voted.
That said, it is a nonsense to say the SNP couldn't have an opinion on Brexit just because it was a UK wide vote.
I'm sure you will appreciate that statements along the lines of 'the people want Brexit done' are utter nonsense: unless 'the people' is a term that applies only to leave voters
Which is exactly what Brexiteers mean by "The People".
On the bright side though, if Brexit does happen it will aid the breakup of the UK.
I think you are right that it will lead to the destruction of the UK, but it is not a bright side. You've seen at first hand the kind of chaos that occurs when a country leaves a fairly loose union that it has been in for 45 years. Can you image how much worse it is going to be to extract Scotland from the UK?
-
Being able to bend bananas,
That was a lie invented by a young reporter for the Daily Telegraph, a certain Mr Johnson.
have pounds and ounces
Why would anybody want them back? As long as you can say "ten pints of Best" to the barman or "I would walk 500 miles and I would walk 500 more" to your girlfriend without getting arrested, everybody will be happy with metric.
and sell fireworks to blind three year olds
You got me on that one.
-
This is obviously the way for Labour to win. Not Ian Murray's biggest fan but he isn't the problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50146805
-
This is obviously the way for Labour to win. Not Ian Murray's biggest fan but he isn't the problem.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50146805
Leaving aside the obvious hypocrisy involved, this seems part of a much wider malaise in British (maybe English) politics where if you don't agree with the leaders you are out.
So the Tories are being whittled down or coerced into being swivel eyed, free market Brexit supporting, denying the evidence of your own commissioned reports zombies.
Meanwhile Labour seems to want to create some mystical version of the Labour party that they think is from it's own past but which never actually existed.
-
British politics are in a terrible mess. :o
-
I can see why there might be division in the Tories over the timing of an election - given the bill passed its second reading, then it may well be able to get through but they can't be sure of what amendments might be successful. However, going direct to an election, if they can manage to call one, will give strength to the Brexit party and may mean that we are back with similar numbers and not much moved on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50162009
-
I can see why there might be division in the Tories over the timing of an election - given the bill passed its second reading, then it may well be able to get through but they can't be sure of what amendments might be successful. However, going direct to an election, if they can manage to call one, will give strength to the Brexit party and may mean that we are back with similar numbers and not much moved on.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50162009
Where you say "Tories" I think we can take it as "Cummings"; the rest will rationalise and repeat whatever he tells them to say.
-
Where you say "Tories" I think we can take it as "Cummings"; the rest will rationalise and repeat whatever he tells them to say.
I think the media like the idea of a Svengali and while he undoubtedly has influence, I don't see it as he is portrayed.
-
Saw Jonathan Pie in Cambridge last night (very good by the way - worth seeing if you can catch his tour) but the support act (JoJo Sutherland) had quite a nice joke: "Brexit sound exactly like a joke - an Englishman, a Scotsman and an Irishman walk into a pub. The Englishman decides to leave. For some reason the Scotsman and the Irishman have to f*** off too!"
-
Not sure it is within Johnson's remit to tie the debate of the deal to the date of election. Absolutely sure that any MP that has any worth should refuse it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50174402
-
And poll held on16-17 Oct about voting intentions if leave date extended.
if "the deadline for the UK to leave the EU has been extended beyond the 31st of October 2019": LAB: 27% CON: 26% BREX: 20% LDEM: 18% GRN: 4%
-
I wonder if Boris will be found dead in a ditch, if the date is extended? ;D
-
So Queen's Speech passed. Good propaganda if we should have an election.
-
I suspect his play this evening, of agree a GE on 12th Dec and I'll let you carry on with the Brexit bill, will fail.
-
This is utterly chilling, and I don't think it matters that the numbers are a bit different dependent in side or location. Who would be a politician when the majority of people think violence against you is ok.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/24/majority-of-voters-think-violence-against-mps-is-price-worth-paying-for-brexit
ETA - I've just looked at the detail of the survey results and it says nothing like the headlines - the numbers that would see violence as worth it are about 5% - which while still scary is not what appears in the story - fake news.
-
This is utterly chilling, and I don't think it matters that the numbers are a bit different dependent in side or location. Who would be a politician when the majority of people think violence against you is ok.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/24/majority-of-voters-think-violence-against-mps-is-price-worth-paying-for-brexit
This is really very, very disturbing. Not for the first time have I thought that I must be living in some parallel universe. I either avoid the people with these thoughts or I send out a subliminal message saying please don't tell me this.
-
Let's face it: on any level Brexit is shit, and is screwing everything up.
-
Seen elsewhere
Round and round Westminster
Like a Brexit bear
one step
two step
oh fuck we're back to the start again
-
From Kevin Maguire, Labour supporting journalist on Twitter
"Labour whips threatening to resign after Nick Brown agreed with Corbyn the party's MPs would abstain in Johnson's election vote then Jezza recorded a film saying he still wanted one and the leader's office briefed the position was provisional and could change. Chaos."
-
Have to laugh at the attempts by several Tories to portray Labour as being the problem when Brexit is a mess created primarily by the Tories in the first place, and then turned into and even bigger mess thanks to the hapless efforts of two worse than useless PMs/ministers: sometimes the best way to clear up a mess, and restore order is, by making use of a bin.
-
Both Tories and Labour have big problems with their leaders, although Corbyn might be marginally better than Boris, imo.
-
I don't normally bother with polls and surveys, but the results of this one are frankly disturbing.
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1709008-future-of-england-survey-reveals-public-attitudes-towards-brexit-and-the-union?fbclid=IwAR3r30drKAZ143TWoaDP1U8Cu1x9TPXqqpTn75UFG26Enmp1sFyomi7b1UE
-
I don't normally bother with polls and surveys, but the results of this one are frankly disturbing.
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/1709008-future-of-england-survey-reveals-public-attitudes-towards-brexit-and-the-union?fbclid=IwAR3r30drKAZ143TWoaDP1U8Cu1x9TPXqqpTn75UFG26Enmp1sFyomi7b1UE
Yes, I linked to the Guardian (obviously just to wind up ippy) report on this earlier. Quite scary.
ETA - I've just looked at the detail of the survey results and it says nothing like the headlines - the numbers that would see violence as worth it are about 5% - which while still scary is not what appears in the story - fake news.
-
This is really very, very disturbing. Not for the first time have I thought that I must be living in some parallel universe. I either avoid the people with these thoughts or I send out a subliminal message saying please don't tell me this.
I've just looked at the detail of the survey results and it says nothing like the headlines - the numbers that would see violence as worth it are about 5% - which while still scary is not what appears in the story - fake news.
-
This is utterly chilling, and I don't think it matters that the numbers are a bit different dependent in side or location. Who would be a politician when the majority of people think violence against you is ok.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/24/majority-of-voters-think-violence-against-mps-is-price-worth-paying-for-brexit
ETA - I've just looked at the detail of the survey results and it says nothing like the headlines - the numbers that would see violence as worth it are about 5% - which while still scary is not what appears in the story - fake news.
Interesting.
My answer to the question would depend on exactly what the question was. If the question was "would you be still be prepared to see Brexit stopped if there was a risk of violence to MPs by Brexiteers as a consequence?" My answer is yes. If the question was "Is it acceptable for Remainers (or anyone) to commit violence to get their way?" The answer is no, for me.
I'm not going to say "let's not withdraw article 50" just because some Brexiteers are threatening violence against MPs if we do.
-
Interesting.
My answer to the question would depend on exactly what the question was. If the question was "would you be still be prepared to see Brexit stopped if there was a risk of violence to MPs by Brexiteers as a consequence?" My answer is yes. If the question was "Is it acceptable for Remainers (or anyone) to commit violence to get their way?" The answer is no, for me.
I'm not going to say "let's not withdraw article 50" just because some Brexiteers are threatening violence against MPs if we do.
What if the first question there was phrased @Would you still be prepared to see Brexit stopped if there was MPs suffered violence caused by it?'
As you say it depends on the phrasing.
-
What extra freedoms can I expect from Brexit? As far as I can see, the only freedoms involved are my ability to travel and work in the EU which will be curtailed.
Before this ever closer union came about even before the EEC I had relatives and a few people I knew of as well that lived and worked in various parts of Europe and none of this was unusual.
Although it wasn't shedloads, (unlike now many aircraft hangar-loads), of people either way.
I haven't heard of anyone from any quarter asking for a complete ban on immigration within Europe either way, have you heard something I may have missed?
Regards, ippy.
P S, have you noticed, on this thread that if it's known that someone, anyone is known to be for leaving the EU, if a leaver has the effrontery to express something like, 'it's a nice day today' or 'hello', somehow or other if there's a reply it's invariably derogatory or downbeat in some way?
-
Both Tories and Labour have big problems with their leaders, although Corbyn might be marginally better than Boris, imo.
Well not really L R, if we were unfortunate enough to have the Hamas Hugger in a position of power he'd be less likely to implement leaving the EU than Boris.
Regards, ippy.
-
Well not really L R, if we were unfortunate enough to have the Hamas Hugger in a position of power he'd be less likely to implement leaving the EU than Boris.
Regards, ippy.
Leaving the EU would be the worst mistake the UK could make, imo
-
ETA - I've just looked at the detail of the survey results and it says nothing like the headlines - the numbers that would see violence as worth it are about 5% - which while still scary is not what appears in the story - fake news.
Where did you get that? I've just looked at the results for England and the questions are:
Some have suggested that **leaving the European Union** might present challenges to the UK but others disagree, labelling this as Project Fear. For each of the following please tell us whether you think this would be a price worth paying or not worth paying for Brexit?
...
Violence directed towards Members of Parliament
For the option "I see it as a risk but it’s worth it to take back control", in the column for leave voters in 2016, the number is 71%, as stated in the article.
Similarly for the question:
Some have suggested that stopping Brexit and **remaining in the EU** might present challenges to the UK but others disagree. For each of the following please tell us whether you think this would be a price worth paying or not worth paying for stopping Brexit
...
Violence directed towards Members of Parliament
For the option "I see it as a risk but it’s worth it to remain in the EU" in the column for remain voters in 2016, the number is 58%, as stated in the article.
-
Where did you get that? I've just looked at the results for England and the questions are:
Some have suggested that **leaving the European Union** might present challenges to the UK but others disagree, labelling this as Project Fear. For each of the following please tell us whether you think this would be a price worth paying or not worth paying for Brexit?
...
Violence directed towards Members of Parliament
For the option "I see it as a risk but it’s worth it to take back control", in the column for leave voters in 2016, the number is 71%, as stated in the article.
Similarly for the question:
Some have suggested that stopping Brexit and **remaining in the EU** might present challenges to the UK but others disagree. For each of the following please tell us whether you think this would be a price worth paying or not worth paying for stopping Brexit
...
Violence directed towards Members of Parliament
For the option "I see it as a risk but it’s worth it to remain in the EU" in the column for remain voters in 2016, the number is 58%, as stated in the article.
I suspect this is being misinterpreted.
I don't think it means that violence against MPs is a price worth paying - I think if you look at the wording it is that the 'risk' of violence is a price worth paying. So that doesn't mean there would be violence, but that there is a risk of it. So people answering:
'I see it as a risk but it’s worth it to take back control'
May be thinking it is a risk, but a vanishingly small one and not something we should concern ourselves with - there is no other option that allows them to voice that opinion as the other options are:
'I want this to happen regardless of Brexit' - horrifyingly supported by 7% of people and
'Leaving the EU is not worth the risk of this happening'
So what do you answer if you don't think there is a risk of violence or that the risk is tiny - well, if you are a leaver probably 'I see it as a risk but it’s worth it to take back control'.
Frankly I think the questions are poor as they don't talk account of the believability of the claim amongst those answering the survey.
-
What if the first question there was phrased @Would you still be prepared to see Brexit stopped if there was MPs suffered violence caused by it?'
As you say it depends on the phrasing.
You mean, if the violence as a consequence was a certainty? I'd probably still have to say yes. It's my belief that the damage done to the People by Brexit will outweigh violence against MPs. I hope in that situation I would be prepared to put my own safety at risk by trying to prevent the said violence.
-
Before this ever closer union came about even before the EEC I had relatives and a few people I knew of as well that lived and worked in various parts of Europe and none of this was unusual.
Although it wasn't shedloads, (unlike now many aircraft hangar-loads), of people either way.
I haven't heard of anyone from any quarter asking for a complete ban on immigration within Europe either way, have you heard something I may have missed?
Regards, ippy.
Not answering the question I see.
P S, have you noticed, on this thread that if it's known that someone, anyone is known to be for leaving the EU, if a leaver has the effrontery to express something like, 'it's a nice day today' or 'hello', somehow or other if there's a reply it's invariably derogatory or downbeat in some way?
Given your attitude on this thread, it's not easy to stop it from affecting other threads. I try not to let it affect my posts elsewhere but, no doubt you can show me examples where I have fallen short. For that I apologise.
-
Johnson isn't putting his bill forward for scrutiny because it is just garbage and could not get through without considerable amendment.
The EU27 should be planning for a long extension and possible renegotiation - at least of the Political Declaration.
-
Not answering the question I see.
Given your attitude on this thread, it's not easy to stop it from affecting other threads. I try not to let it affect my posts elsewhere but, no doubt you can show me examples where I have fallen short. For that I apologise.
Like I have said and keep on saying I'm certain that leavers and remainers won't be agreeing with each other probably we'll never see eye to eye.
I see this disagreement as a total impasse so it's only right when we get this type of disagreement where tossing a coin wouldn't be right so the best solution is to have a referendum, we've done that.
The only thing that'll be giving me a bad taste in the mouth is if anyone or group were to manage a reversal of the vote, other than that I see this Brexit as something we are unlikely to ever agree about, the only feelings I have about fellow contributors to this forum is that it's such a shame you're not all leavers, attempted humour, and I still wish you all well, apart from that you can stick your remain wherever you like as long as we don't remain in that EU anymore.
As for giving you an example of general hostility it's more the tenor, the tone of posts I'm referring to, it's not that easy to nail down an example but it is there and not in my imagination, but there you go fire away.
Regards, ippy
-
I think another referendum is necessary, with voters being told the TRUTH about the consequences of leaving the EU, which didn't happen the last time around.
-
Like I have said and keep on saying I'm certain that leavers and remainers won't be agreeing with each other probably we'll never see eye to eye.
I see this disagreement as a total impasse so it's only right when we get this type of disagreement where tossing a coin wouldn't be right so the best solution is to have a referendum, we've done that.
Don't be silly, ippy - there was no 'disagreement' before the referendum, which happened in order for the Tory party to be seen to react to UKIP and marginalise their own lunatic fringe: they just didn't expect or prepare for some parts of electorate being naive enough to vote 'leave'.
The only thing that'll be giving me a bad taste in the mouth is if anyone or group were to manage a reversal of the vote, other than that I see this Brexit as something we are unlikely to ever agree about, the only feelings I have about fellow contributors to this forum is that it's such a shame you're not all leavers, attempted humour, and I still wish you all well, apart from that you can stick your remain wherever you like as long as we don't remain in that EU anymore.
Get used to it, ippy: attempts will be made to either stop Brexit or water it down (the former would be better). One look at the current shambles should be enough to convince you that you voted for the pig-in-a-poke fantasy that was promoted by a bunch of lying bastards, as is illustrated by the news story in FT today about workers rights.
-
Don't be silly, ippy - there was no 'disagreement' before the referendum, which happened in order for the Tory party to be seen to react to UKIP and marginalise their own lunatic fringe: they just didn't expect or prepare for some parts of electorate being naive enough to vote 'leave'.
Get used to it, ippy: attempts will be made to either stop Brexit or water it down (the former would be better). One look at the current shambles should be enough to convince you that you voted for the pig-in-a-poke fantasy that was promoted by a bunch of lying bastards, as is illustrated by the news story in FT today about workers rights.
The disagreement is mostly based on remainers not accepting the result of the referendum which was for leave or remain, I don't see remainers as a bunch of brainless twits, just wrong and fair enough you most likely think the opposite.
I don't see Europe as an enemy camp, they have their wants fine let them have them, we'll go our own way which will of course include getting along well with as many of the worlds countries as possible as well as the EU.
I don't think it's your usual way of debate to start on things like semantics, who did or didn't say something first or what was argued before or after a certain point, I usually enjoy your more usual succinct, dry approach to most subjects on the forum.
I really don't care who's for leaving the EU, I didn't want to be in it in the first place, I voted against the EEC all of those years ago and as for ever closer union, (I'm not that keen on the use of the Anglo Saxon terms), so I'll almost go with the devil if it'll take us out, (yes of course if the devil existed).
Regards, ippy.
-
The disagreement is mostly based on remainers not accepting the result of the referendum which was for leave or remain, I don't see remainers as a bunch of brainless twits, just wrong and fair enough you most likely think the opposite.
I don't see Europe as an enemy camp, they have their wants fine let them have them, we'll go our own way which will of course include getting along well with as many of the worlds countries as possible as well as the EU.
I don't think it's your usual way of debate to start on things like semantics, who did or didn't say something first or what was argued before or after a certain point, I usually enjoy your more usual succinct, dry approach to most subjects on the forum.
I really don't care who's for leaving the EU, I didn't want to be in it in the first place, I voted against the EEC all of those years ago and as for ever closer union, (I'm not that keen on the use of the Anglo Saxon terms), so I'll almost go with the devil if it'll take us out, (yes of course if the devil existed).
Regards, ippy.
What is so bad about being in the EU for pity's sake? Britain is a tiny little country and needs the support of our near neighbours, we don't have any empire anymore thank goodness. Being supported by the EU is far better than being supported by that country across the pond, now that lunatic is in charge. >:(
-
I really don't care who's for leaving the EU, I didn't want to be in it in the first place, I voted against the EEC all of those years ago and as for ever closer union, (I'm not that keen on the use of the Anglo Saxon terms), so I'll almost go with the devil if it'll take us out, (yes of course if the devil existed).
There you go with the unreasoning pseudo-religious fervour again. You seem to be doing your best to live up to the stereotypical unthinking leaver. I think we should remain for reasons that I'm perfectly happy to articulate and discuss, but I wouldn't "go with the devil" or pay any price for that end. You can't or won't say what's actually wrong, in any practical down-to-earth way, with the EU yet you're prepared, so it would seem, to sacrifice anything to get what you want.
-
ippy,
The disagreement is mostly based on remainers not accepting the result of the referendum which was for leave or remain...
You keep making the same mistake of assuming "leave vs remain" to be equivalent opposites. They're not though. "Remain" as a proposition is a set of known facts. "Leave" on the other hand was all unknowns, which is why the campaign was so important. We now know that that nothing the leave campaign said was true, and that the Johnson "deal" bears no relationship to what was promised in the prospectus (not least by Johnson himself – "there's no question of leaving the single market" etc).
That's why a second referendum is the only way out - two sets of known knowns (remain vs Johnson's deal) to decide between would be meaningful, whereas the 2016 referendum was not.
-
ippy,
You keep making the same mistake of assuming "leave or remain" to be equivalent opposites. They're not though. "Remain" as a proposition is a set of known facts. "Leave" on the other hand was all unknowns, which is why the campaign was so important. We now know that that nothing the leave campaign said was true, and that the Johnson "deal" bears no relationship to what was promised in the prospectus (not least by Johnson himself – "there's no question of leaving the single market" etc).
That's why a second referendum is the only way out - two sets of known knowns (remain vs Johnson's deal) to decide between would be meaningful, whereas the 2016 referendum was not.
I agree.
-
The disagreement is mostly based on remainers not accepting the result of the referendum which was for leave or remain, I don't see remainers as a bunch of brainless twits, just wrong and fair enough you most likely think the opposite.
...
I don't see what difference it makes whether remainers accept the result or not really. With around half the voters against staying in the EU, in the long run it won't help the EU having the UK remain in it. Although, to be fair, at least one country (us) now has vocal pro-EU supporters.
The Leave vote won, and could have easily left the EU by now if leavers had agreed between themselves what kind of leave they wanted. Now the Leaver PM has a new deal, but is playing games in parliament instead of working to get it through.
-
Udayana,
I don't see what difference it makes whether remainers accept the result or not really. With around half the voters against staying in the EU, in the long run it won't help the EU having the UK remain in it. Although, to be fair, at least one country (us) now has vocal pro-EU supporters.
The Leave vote won, and could have easily left the EU by now if leavers had agreed between themselves what kind of leave they wanted. Now the Leaver PM has a new deal, but is playing games in parliament instead of working to get it through.
The problem with that though is that you have no idea whether “around half the voters” would have voted for the Johnson deal rather than to remain. And the reason you don’t know that is that no-one – literally no-one – was asked to choose between the two. It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that some at least of the 17.4m leave voters would have voted remain instead of for that deal had the choice been put to them, and as the “win” was so tight being asked that question could well produce a different outcome.
Johnson, Cummings et al are terrified as of asking that though because they fear the answer (so much for democracy eh?), which is why they’d rather die in a ditch than agree to a second referendum…
…”die in a ditch”? Oh, hang on though…
-
Aside from being a Tory/right-wing policy, the way that the Tories have approached Brexit, in terms of their 'red-lines' of no customs union or single market arrangement with the EU, made it undeliverable, and the most obvious indication of this is the NI situation which has been an issue from as soon as they tried to negotiate a withdrawal arrangement and is now becoming seriously scary.
Of course those proposing Brexit back in 2016, had they not been indulging in fantasy, should have understood this from the outset and addressed the specific NI issues, and they didn't: the changed approach to NI in Johnson's recent 'deal' shows that the Unionist part of the Tory-party name is now a joke, especially given the recent finding that the party would be prepared to lose NI and Scotland (and some of us Scots would happy with this) so that they got their precious Brexit. I'm struggling to see how anything other than revoking A50 makes any sense now, since I can't see how NI won't descend into chaos if any form of Brexit short of a customs union goes ahead, which won't happen due to Tory 'red-lines', and of course we will all be damaged by any form of Brexit.
Cancelling Brexit and immediately reviewing options for the either the break-up or radical reconfiguration of the UK would make more sense. The GF agreement provides for a border poll in NI, so that should be sanity-checked, as should the current consensus as regards remaining in the EU in each of the 4 nations. I'd guess Scotland and NI will, just as in 2016, prefer to remain in the EU, I'm not sure about the situation in Wales, so perhaps it is only in England that there is still a majority for leaving the EU (and for the Tory party) and that might suggest that England (and possibly Wales) secedes from the UK unless the experience of the last 3 and a bit years will result in a majority for 'remain' too.
It seems to me, given the current situation, that looking again at the UK might be just as valid as thrashing about trying to square the circle of the current chaotic approach to Brexit, since it seems likely that the UK is already broken in terms of the political affiliations of the 4 nations.
-
They seem to have forgotten about the thousands on the people's vote march - if they even noticed them. Bizarre. Also bizarre is this obsession with doing our own trade deals.
-
If we all, at 12pm tomorrow, go outside and shout, STOP BREXIT, maybe our combined volume would convince them to revoke A50?
-
…”die in a ditch”? Oh, hang on though…
Well, it does a change from lying in front of the bulldozers working on the third Heathrow runway.
-
ippy,
You keep making the same mistake of assuming "leave vs remain" to be equivalent opposites. They're not though. "Remain" as a proposition is a set of known facts. "Leave" on the other hand was all unknowns, which is why the campaign was so important. We now know that that nothing the leave campaign said was true, and that the Johnson "deal" bears no relationship to what was promised in the prospectus (not least by Johnson himself – "there's no question of leaving the single market" etc).
That's why a second referendum is the only way out - two sets of known knowns (remain vs Johnson's deal) to decide between would be meaningful, whereas the 2016 referendum was not.
Blue, of course, you're entitled to your point of view.
Regards, ippy.
-
There you go with the unreasoning pseudo-religious fervour again. You seem to be doing your best to live up to the stereotypical unthinking leaver. I think we should remain for reasons that I'm perfectly happy to articulate and discuss, but I wouldn't "go with the devil" or pay any price for that end. You can't or won't say what's actually wrong, in any practical down-to-earth way, with the EU yet you're prepared, so it would seem, to sacrifice anything to get what you want.
You're a remainer your post is about what I would expect from a remainer, no surprises there.
Regards, ippy.
-
What is so bad about being in the EU for pity's sake? Britain is a tiny little country and needs the support of our near neighbours, we don't have any empire anymore thank goodness. Being supported by the EU is far better than being supported by that country across the pond, now that lunatic is in charge. >:(
We'll never agree on this one LR, I suppose in some way you're right though,.
L R, you must be right where you imply the UK is lacking in the brain power department and doesn't have the ability to survive as a tiny, little country on it's own, that is, without the big butch EU organisation holding our hand.
Regards, ippy.
-
We'll never agree on this one LR, I suppose in some way you're right though,.
L R, you must be right where you imply the UK is lacking in the brain power department and doesn't have the ability to survive as a tiny, little country on it's own, that is, without the big butch EU organisation holding our hand.
Regards, ippy.
We have a much closer liaison with the rest of Europe than we do with other countries, so it is only sensible we stay in the EU, imo.
-
Like I have said and keep on saying I'm certain that leavers and remainers won't be agreeing with each other probably we'll never see eye to eye.
I see this disagreement as a total impasse so it's only right when we get this type of disagreement where tossing a coin wouldn't be right so the best solution is to have a referendum, we've done that.
The only thing that'll be giving me a bad taste in the mouth is if anyone or group were to manage a reversal of the vote, other than that I see this Brexit as something we are unlikely to ever agree about, the only feelings I have about fellow contributors to this forum is that it's such a shame you're not all leavers, attempted humour, and I still wish you all well, apart from that you can stick your remain wherever you like as long as we don't remain in that EU anymore.
As for giving you an example of general hostility it's more the tenor, the tone of posts I'm referring to, it's not that easy to nail down an example but it is there and not in my imagination, but there you go fire away.
Regards, ippy
The trouble is that you are not even making an attempt to persuade Remainers that we are wrong. I'll take that as a tacit acceptance that we are right.
You can't even tell me what new freedoms I'll enjoy, mainly because you know that there are none.
-
The disagreement is mostly based on remainers not accepting the result of the referendum which was for leave or remain
No it's based on Leavers being fervent cultists and Remainers being right. Losing a referendum doesn't mean you have to magically change your mind. After all, the Leavers didn't change their minds after the first referendum.
I don't see Europe as an enemy camp, they have their wants fine let them have them, we'll go our own way which will of course include getting along well with as many of the worlds countries as possible as well as the EU.
Europe isn't one country. And, by the way, we are in it.
I really don't care who's for leaving the EU, I didn't want to be in it in the first place, I voted against the EEC all of those years ago and as for ever closer union
And yet, when you lost that referendum, you didn't change your mind. Why do I have to change my mind to make it easier fore you?
so I'll almost go with the devil if it'll take us out, (yes of course if the devil existed).
That's kind of scary. You'd destroy the country just because you don't trust other Europeans.
-
No it's based on Leavers being fervent cultists and Remainers being right. Losing a referendum doesn't mean you have to magically change your mind. After all, the Leavers didn't change their minds after the first referendum.
Europe isn't one country. And, by the way, we are in it.
And yet, when you lost that referendum, you didn't change your mind. Why do I have to change my mind to make it easier fore you?
That's kind of scary. You'd destroy the country just because you don't trust other Europe
Well jp, at least I've put up a bit more windmill for you to tilt at.
Regards, ippy.
-
You're a remainer your post is about what I would expect from a remainer, no surprises there.
Pointing out that I'm not as fanatical as you and that I'm prepared to discuss it and you're not?
-
Well jp, at least I've put up a bit more windmill for you to tilt at.
Regards, ippy.
If only you'd put up anything half so substantial as a windmill.
-
I can understand the SNP's desire to have an election - polls indicate they could be back over 50 seats, and it would happen before the Salmond cases go to court, add to that the optics of a Tory win, but not really sure what the LDs get out of it - while they are doing ok in opinion polls they don't currently appear likely to make a breakthrough and a Tory win for them just means Brexit. And playing about with the Fixed Term Parliament Act feels odd for the LDs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50199689
-
So flextension to 31/01/20 it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603
-
So flextension to 31/01/20 it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603
I wonder what will happen to BJ's support. He's failed on his leadership pledge.
-
I wonder what will happen to BJ's support. He's failed on his leadership pledge.
He's been preparing for that by storing up the blame stuff. There hasn't been a move to the Brexit party in the latest polls, and I think getting the 2nd reading of his bill passed has helped him.
-
Pointing out that I'm not as fanatical as you and that I'm prepared to discuss it and you're not?
I keep on referring to the fact that we're never going to agree, unless one of us capitulated and joined one or the other sides, clay pigeon season, it'd be much better to discuss once we've left the EU and when were you appointed to decide who's a fanatic and who isn't.
Regards, ippy.
-
If only you'd put up anything half so substantial as a windmill.
I did say a bit and why not save this kind of discussion for after we've left the EU.
Regards, ippy.
-
The EU has agreed that the UK can stay in the EU until the January 31st, if necessary. Hopefully there will be another referendum and sense will prevail ditching Brexit.
-
I keep on referring to the fact that we're never going to agree, unless one of us capitulated and joined one or the other sides...
So you keep saying but this is only true if neither side is open reasoning and evidence or if one side point blank refuses to give any coherent arguments, like you're doing.
...and when were you appointed to decide who's a fanatic and who isn't.
You said you'd "I'll almost go with the devil" and you've pretty much indicated leaving the EU overrides all other political choices for you and you seem indifferent to the risks of no-deal. By contrast, I want to remain but I'm not prepared to pay any price to do so - it doesn't override all other considerations.
-
So you keep saying but this is only true if neither side is open reasoning and evidence or if one side point blank refuses to give any coherent arguments, like you're doing.
You said you'd "I'll almost go with the devil" and you've pretty much indicated leaving the EU overrides all other political choices for you and you seem indifferent to the risks of no-deal. By contrast, I want to remain but I'm not prepared to pay any price to do so - it doesn't override all other considerations.
Like I said.
Regards, ippy.
-
No pigs in blankets!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50205951
-
No pigs in blankets!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50205951
I saw that on the news website a minute ago. I LIKE PIGS IN BLANKETS, BREXIT CAN'T GO AHEAD! :o
-
The Remain sides in 'perfect unity'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50206253
-
Udayana,
The problem with that though is that you have no idea whether “around half the voters” would have voted for the Johnson deal rather than to remain. And the reason you don’t know that is that no-one – literally no-one – was asked to choose between the two. It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that some at least of the 17.4m leave voters would have voted remain instead of for that deal had the choice been put to them, and as the “win” was so tight being asked that question could well produce a different outcome.
Johnson, Cummings et al are terrified as of asking that though because they fear the answer (so much for democracy eh?), which is why they’d rather die in a ditch than agree to a second referendum…
…”die in a ditch”? Oh, hang on though…
It would be interesting to see what happens in a Remain vs Boris Deal ref. but the chances of that seem to be receding. In any case, many cold argue that such a choice doesn't take into account their views: eg no deal, softer brexit and so on.
-
I can understand the SNP's desire to have an election - polls indicate they could be back over 50 seats, and it would happen before the Salmond cases go to court, add to that the optics of a Tory win, but not really sure what the LDs get out of it - while they are doing ok in opinion polls they don't currently appear likely to make a breakthrough and a Tory win for them just means Brexit. And playing about with the Fixed Term Parliament Act feels odd for the LDs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50199689
Maybe they have just calculated that it is worth trying to increase their numbers (at the expense of both Lab and Con) given that brexit itself is mostly deadlocked - and still likely to be after a GE?
-
Maybe they have just calculated that it is worth trying to increase their numbers (at the expense of both Lab and Con) given that brexit itself is mostly deadlocked - and still likely to be after a GE?
The problem is that current polling is indicating a fairly easy Tory victory, so that even with an increase in seats for each party, Brexit becomes more likely. Now on a specific impact for the SNP and independence, I can see why they might go for it but it seems likely to remove the possibility of staying in EU so don't see what the LDs achieve on current figures.
-
Meanwhile apparently no Shadow Cabinet minister is willing to talk to meeting of the PLP tonight.
-
The problem is that current polling is indicating a fairly easy Tory victory, so that even with an increase in seats for each party, Brexit becomes more likely. Now on a specific impact for the SNP and independence, I can see why they might go for it but it seems likely to remove the possibility of staying in EU so don't see what the LDs achieve on current figures.
Polls can be, and recently have been, misleading. In any case, they can't stop brexit from their current position and won't make a pact with Labour. They seem to have decided they only want no-brexit, nothing else, whereas Labour would settle for a softer one.
Ie. If brexit is going to happen anyway, better concentrate on building up their MP numbers. What are the alternatives if there is no election? Only a 2nd referendum - which would depend on scrutiny of the WAB and another extension.
-
Meanwhile apparently no Shadow Cabinet minister is willing to talk to meeting of the PLP tonight.
Seems they are having a bit of a spat.
-
Polls can be, and recently have been, misleading. In any case, they can't stop brexit from their current position and won't make a pact with Labour. They seem to have decided they only want no-brexit, nothing else, whereas Labour would settle for a softer one.
Ie. If brexit is going to happen anyway, better concentrate on building up their MP numbers. What are the alternatives if there is no election? Only a 2nd referendum - which would depend on scrutiny of the WAB and another extension.
Polls can change, they haven't in general been that misleading. Building up your MPs at the cost of Brexit which you are meant to be opposing while given Johnson the election he wants seems merely tribal and counterproductive.
-
Seems they are having a bit of a spat.
This may well be part of the LDs calculation on the other part of the thread we are discussing. Perhaps they think Labour is incapable of fighting an election and they will get a surge from that. It does make clear though that we may well be in post Brexit Britain in terms of the thoughts of the parties.
They also may just have got to the end of their patience
-
Unforeseen consequences of Brexit - Part 4,352
https://tinyurl.com/pigsblanket
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50215983
Brexit 50p coins being recycled because of the delay, what a waste of money! >:(
-
The current maundering about a date, while effectively overturning the FTPA is managing to lower my world record limbo bar expectations of the political process. No one is coming out of this well.
-
The current maundering about a date, while effectively overturning the FTPA is managing to lower my world record limbo bar expectations of the political process. No one is coming out of this well.
I'm struggling to understand the significance of the date - is it to prevent any possibility of the Brexit WA being passed before parliament is dissolved?
Also I'm struggling with the notion of a one line act, which is effectively simply a mechanism to get around the law as defined in the FTPA. I can see that you can properly amend an existing Act, or that you can repeal it, but this is neither - it is a one off temporary mechanism to get around the law. Effectively Parliament and the Government (who are bound by the law, although they can alter the law) look to be giving themselves the option of breaking the law. Bit like if parliament passed a bill to say that although stealing is unlawful that tomorrow Boris Johnson can steal your car!
Part of me wonders whether, were the one line act to be passed, it will be challenged in the courts in which case all hell might break loose.
-
I'm struggling to understand the significance of the date - is it to prevent any possibility of the Brexit WA being passed before parliament is dissolved?
Also I'm struggling with the notion of a one line act, which is effectively simply a mechanism to get around the law as defined in the FTPA. I can see that you can properly amend an existing Act, or that you can repeal it, but this is neither - it is a one off temporary mechanism to get around the law. Effectively Parliament and the Government (who are bound by the law, although they can alter the law) look to be giving themselves the option of breaking the law. Bit like if parliament passed a bill to say that although stealing is unlawful that tomorrow Boris Johnson can steal your car!
Part of me wonders whether, were the one line act to be passed, it will be challenged in the courts in which case all hell might break loose.
My understanding about the date was that it removed the WAB from the table, and that the attempt yesterday didn't actually specify a date, but yep I am with you in the rest of your confusion. Anyhoo Labour now backing December election!
-
I see Richard Tice of the Brexit Party is offering the Tories a deal if they support a 'clean break' Brexit - but I can't see that being the Tory Party position. It may though end up being a deal in those constituencies whether the Tory candidate comes out in favour of no deal, which could lead to a substantial rump of Tories against Johnson's deal. This could all continue to be very confusing.
-
I did say a bit and why not save this kind of discussion for after we've left the EU.
It'll be too late after we've left.
-
Reasons suggested for going for the 12th were giving enough time for the WAB to go through, allowing the NI budget to go through and that it was a Thursday.
PM now says he is dropping the WAB to get an early election. Not sure why the NI budget was important. Could be that they go for the 10th as it starts with a "T" ?
I think they've all fallen for one of Boris' diversion tactics and we will end up back in roughly the same place in Jan.
-
Reasons suggested for going for the 12th were giving enough time for the WAB to go through, allowing the NI budget to go through and that it was a Thursday.
PM now says he is dropping the WAB to get an early election. Not sure why the NI budget was important. Could be that they go for the 10th as it starts with a "T" ?
I think they've all fallen for one of Boris' diversion tactics and we will end up back in roughly the same place in Jan.
I think they are affected by their inability to agree and work together to get a second referendum. It's difficult to make a case for continually voting against a GE when you are the opposition as it just makes you look scared - particularly against a minority govt. It may be a way out of the problem dependent on votes but as you say we may be back in the same place in a couple of months.
-
NS,
I think they are affected by their inability to agree and work together to get a second referendum. It's difficult to make a case for continually voting against a GE when you are the opposition as it just makes you look scared -
Prediction coming on: GE happens; hung parliament; several more months of indecision; EU threatens no more extensions, they'd rather take the pain of a hard Brexit instead; Labour, Lib Dems etc plus various others panic and finally do the right thing and force through a second referendum remain vs Johnson deal; also make it binding and appoint an independent office of fact checking re the two campaigns; country realises what a shit storm has been visited upon it by the liars and chancers, remain wins; all back as we were lads albeit with legacy of globally damaged reputation; Sajid Javid retires to curate his 50p collection.
Remember folks, you read it here first!
-
The Britain Elects poll tracker gives the Conservatives a lead of 10pts: CON: 35.1% (+0.3) LAB: 25.4% (-) LDEM: 18.1% (-0.1) BREX: 11.3% (-0.1) GRN: 4.0% (-0.2) Chgs. w/ last week.
-
The Britain Elects poll tracker gives the Conservatives a lead of 10pts: CON: 35.1% (+0.3) LAB: 25.4% (-) LDEM: 18.1% (-0.1) BREX: 11.3% (-0.1) GRN: 4.0% (-0.2) Chgs. w/ last week.
Let's make the unsupported assumption that the Leavers all support Tories and Bexit and the Remainers all support Labour, Lib Dems and Greens. Tories + Brexit = 46.4%, Labour + Lib Dem + Green = 47.5%. Provided the Brexit party vote doesn't collapse (and supporters move to Tory) and given that the SNP will likely sweep the board in Scotland, I think we are headed for another hung parliament.
-
The numbers give a Tory Majority of around 60. The split in the 'remain' vote seems to be the weak spot. Unless Brexit take more votes from Tories, then I can see Johnson getting enough for his deal.
-
Meanwhile in People's Vote....
https://www.cityam.com/peoples-vote-staff-continue-revolt-as-pr-tycoon-roland-rudd-hides-out-at-the-hilton/
-
The numbers give a Tory Majority of around 60. The split in the 'remain' vote seems to be the weak spot. Unless Brexit take more votes from Tories, then I can see Johnson getting enough for his deal.
The problem with extrapolating polls into predictions of seat numbers is that most models work on an assumption of a uniform national swing.
I think in this election we are likely to see unprecedented levels of tactical voting to support the candidate most likely to secure the seat for a particular brexit position. So if the 'split' in the remain vote is uniform then you are right that Johnson is likely to secure a majority. But if it is efficient and tactical - in other words remainers swinging behind the LibDems in seats where they have the best chance of unseating a Tory (or hold on to an existing seat) and behind Labour where they are best placed to win then it could be very interesting.
-
The problem with extrapolating polls into predictions of seat numbers is that most models work on an assumption of a uniform national swing.
I think in this election we are likely to see unprecedented levels of tactical voting to support the candidate most likely to secure the seat for a particular brexit position. So if the 'split' in the remain vote is uniform then you are right that Johnson is likely to secure a majority. But if it is efficient and tactical - in other words remainers swinging behind the LibDems in seats where they have the best chance of unseating a Tory (or hold on to an existing seat) and behind Labour where they are best placed to win then it could be very interesting.
Tactical voting becomes much harder if the overall polling numbers are close and for the LDs and Labour here that's a problem. In the last election we had a flight back to the 2 main parties because of tactical voting. I think the 'efficiency' of it is going to be stretched. I think the 60 seats is too high but I think 20 is about right.
-
I wonder how many current MPs might decide not to stand - I can't think that they will have enjoyed the last couple of years and with the ongoing abuse and death threats must be tempting just to say 'Bye'
-
Tactical voting becomes much harder if the overall polling numbers are close and for the LDs and Labour here that's a problem. In the last election we had a flight back to the 2 main parties because of tactical voting. I think the 'efficiency' of it is going to be stretched. I think the 60 seats is too high but I think 20 is about right.
Tactical voting works on constituency level - so it doesn't matter whether the overall polling nationally is similar between Labour and LibDems (for example) as long as people in individual constituencies recognise who is best placed to win. And I think in most cases that is pretty clear to voters.
So I think the LibDems will do particularly well in the London fringes where there are many remain constituencies where it is pretty clear that Labour aren't going to win.
-
And now we have Barry Sheerman claiming majority of Shadow Cabinet were against election.
-
Tactical voting works on constituency level - so it doesn't matter whether the overall polling nationally is similar between Labour and LibDems (for example) as long as people in individual constituencies recognise who is best placed to win. And I think in most cases that is pretty clear to voters.
So I think the LibDems will do particularly well in the London fringes where there are many remain constituencies where it is pretty clear that Labour aren't going to win.
As already noted in the last election there was a flight back to the 2 main parties and that was part of a tactical vote. It's also difficult in a GE to avoid thinking about what govt is likely to be in for up to 5 years. This isn't a referendum, and if the @remain' parties are not aiming for widespread tactical voting then the message will become muddled.
-
More on the stramash at People's Vote, or possibly The People's Front of People's Vote, or the Popular People's Vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50221305
-
So amendments to the bill being allowed - if something like allowing EU citizens to vote was passed (Not that I think it would) not sure what would happen as practicalities would surely delay vote?
Meanwhile still unclear if Bercow will be speaker on Friday.
-
So amendments to the bill being allowed - if something like allowing EU citizens to vote was passed (Not that I think it would) not sure what would happen as practicalities would surely delay vote?
Meanwhile still unclear if Bercow will be speaker on Friday.
Doubt it would pass, but if it were I'm not convinced it would delay the vote as they are already on the electoral roll for the euro elections, so it would be straightforward to add them when creating the electoral roll for the GE.
-
So amendments to the bill being allowed - if something like allowing EU citizens to vote was passed (Not that I think it would) not sure what would happen as practicalities would surely delay vote?
Meanwhile still unclear if Bercow will be speaker on Friday.
It looks as if Bercow is staying on for the time being.
-
It looks as if Bercow is staying on for the time being.
I saw earlier that he had hinted he might if the MPs wanted him to, not seen anything after that.
-
Our vicar daughter is not happy about the idea of December as the primary schools for which she has organised Christmas activities are used as polling stations, and this could mean they don't happen. I have heard that other people are also unhappy at the prospect of an election for the same reason.
-
Just in case anyone eligible isn't registered.
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote?fbclid=IwAR3GbEGLdp7eO4HCgywGGAHnF6L6h4htvAPOaPZ6KniHFqd0J_xhs1-7pUw
-
Not sure the attempts to extend the franchise were thought out. Looked a bit desperate.
-
So 12th December it is.
-
Should be interesting on many fronts: such as, into which unlucky constituency will Johnson be parachuted?
-
Have to laugh at Johnson's 'come together to get Brexit done' quote this evening: perhaps if, hopefully, there are no Tory MPs left in Scotland on the 13th December he might realise that not all us want to 'come together to get Brexit done'.
-
Of course it means the result will be known on Friday the 13th
-
Of course it means the result will be known on Friday the 13th
Yikes!
-
So, Westminster shuts up shop on fifth November.....
-
Yikes!
MEGA YIKES. ;D
-
So looking forward to the debates about the leaders debates, and the debates themselves are just such things of joy, and fit so well into our democratic system that I may have to dance a little jig of excitement.
-
Good summary
https://davidallengreen.com/2019/10/brexit-and-the-general-election/?fbclid=IwAR29OMH9IWX1hDK3ZGFKXMnO_QJyMspq1IvI_4ounwgfRKl2HcMmajcPkBI
-
So if PMQs is to be believed, and yes I know that is a big if, then Bercow will turn into a pumpkin after tomorrow.
-
So farewell Ken Clarke
-
The Dug and the pandas...... https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/10/30/the-panda-election/
-
So farewell Ken Clarke
Clarke is one of the good guys imo. Amber Rudd is also not standing at the next election, as well as quite a few others.
-
Both Clarke and Rudd supported policies in terms of looking at ability to work that killed. Rudd suggested a register of foreign workers.
Anyway to nip back to an earlier part of the discussion on tactical voting. There is an effort coming from some on the unionist side in Scotland to have a tactical vote against the SNP. The idea that this is a simple Brexit election is not going to hold and that ruins the idea of efficient tactical voting.
-
Anyway to nip back to an earlier part of the discussion on tactical voting. There is an effort coming from some on the unionist side in Scotland to have a tactical vote against the SNP. The idea that this is a simple Brexit election is not going to hold and that ruins the idea of efficient tactical voting.
Don't see how in ruins the idea of tactical voting. Even if it does turn out to be less of a Brexit election, a lot of people don't want another Tory government for many other reasons, especially one run by Bois the Lair.
-
Don't see how in ruins the idea of tactical voting. Even if it does turn out to be less of a Brexit election, a lot of people don't want another Tory government for many other reasons, especially one run by Bois the Lair.
I was talking about 'efficient tactical voting'. If as I suspect Farage makes an arrangement with Johnson, the leave vote will be fairly solid. The differing stances on Remain, or indeed whatever we can call Labour's position, will make this harder unless there is a clear lead from the parties themselves, I don't think that is going to happen.
To take an example, a friend of mine lives in Rees-Moggs constituency and was wondering about who to vote for to get him out - now it's problematic because last time Rees-Mogg got 54%, Labour34%, LD 8%, Green 2% - so Mogg just needs to get the same vote - but there is meant to be a Brexit candidate standing so you think on that basis all get behind Labour, except there has actually been an opinion poll done in the constituency (Which won't be the case in all constituencies) and that gives Tories 44%, so in theory beatable, Labour 14% !!!, LDs 28%, Brexit 7%, Green 3%. So if there wasn't an opinion poll, the obvious vote would have been Labour tactically but that isn't the case once you see the poll. Even when you see the poll and decide to vote LD, then is there much chance of Labour voters all going to the LDs without them actually standing down? There are many Labour voters I know who would see the LDs as just yellow Tories after the coalition and will never vote for them.
And all that's not even taking into account that a good number of Labour voters are leave.
I strongly suspect there will be no Brexit candidate in this constituency
-
The EU has agreed that the UK can stay in the EU until the January 31st, if necessary. Hopefully there will be another referendum and sense will prevail ditching Brexit.
I'd prefer it if Article 50 was just cancelled without another referendum, which could happen perfectly democratically if a party put that in its manifesto and got elected to government. That's how we do things in this country; referendums are a thoroughly bad idea, and I hope there will be no more, on any issue, in my lifetime.
-
I'd prefer it if Article 50 was just cancelled without another referendum, which could happen perfectly democratically if a party put that in its manifesto and got elected to government. That's how we do things in this country; referendums are a thoroughly bad idea, and I hope there will be no more, on any issue, in my lifetime.
Whilst I would be all for that idea, I don't think it would be very popular.
-
Don't see how in ruins the idea of tactical voting. Even if it does turn out to be less of a Brexit election, a lot of people don't want another Tory government for many other reasons, especially one run by Bois the Lair.
I'll go along with you about not wanting another Tory government but if it's the price to pay for leaving so be it, I've not yet made up my mind whether the brexit party or the Tories are the best bet for leaving I'll be hanging on for a while on that one.
Outside of their leave resolve I'm not that keen on either one of them the Tories, the Brexit Party or any of the others none of them could be classified as inspiring to my mind.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
Whilst I would be all for that idea, I don't think it would be very popular.
No outcome will be popular LR - perhaps the best would be the least unpopular outcome. Not quite sure what that is, but polls asking preferred outcome between remain, leave with Boris' deal or leave with no deal typically show remain most preferred with the other 2 neck and neck.
-
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/johnson-and-cummings-under-fire-police-hand-criminal-evidence-vote-leave-prosecution-agency/
-
I'll go along with you about not wanting another Tory government but if it's the price to pay for leaving so be it,
You seem to be very keen on paying prices. Please tell us what we are getting for this price you are happy for me to pay.
The fact is that you clearly don't know what we are getting for this price and you and your stupid ignorant cohorts are going to drive this country ti destruction for something you cannot even articulate.
I absolutely despise this. I'd have some respect for you if you weren't such a fucking coward.
-
You seem to be very keen on paying prices. Please tell us what we are getting for this price you are happy for me to pay.
The fact is that you clearly don't know what we are getting for this price and you and your stupid ignorant cohorts are going to drive this country ti destruction for something you cannot even articulate.
I absolutely despise this. I'd have some respect for you if you weren't such a fucking coward.
jezza
I think you need to learn to control your emotions mate .
Spouting off like that in some of the pubs I get in would likely lead to you waking up in hospital
Just saying 👍
-
jezza
I think you need to learn to control your emotions mate .
Spouting off like that in some of the pubs I get in would likely lead to you waking up in hospital
Just saying 👍
What lovely company you keep! >:(
-
What lovely company you keep! >:(
do you actually know what a pub is?
-
jezza
I think you need to learn to control your emotions mate .
Spouting off like that in some of the pubs I get in would likely lead to you waking up in hospital
Just saying 👍
I think Brexit is inevitable unless the Tories somehow manage to screw up the general election, but still nobody will tell me what the real benefits of leaving the EU are. I'm am really angry about it.
-
I think Brexit is inevitable unless the Tories somehow manage to screw up the general election, but still nobody will tell me what the real benefits of leaving the EU are. I'm am really angry about it.
I can't see any benefits at all, the very opposite, imo.
-
I think Brexit is inevitable unless the Tories somehow manage to screw up the general election, but still nobody will tell me what the real benefits of leaving the EU are. I'm am really angry about it.
jezza
Sometimes we don't get what we really want (I know that) but getting angry about it won't make it right and if you're not careful it might dominate and cloud your thoughts
Good luck old chap
-
I can't see any benefits at all, the very opposite, imo.
from reading your posts on here, I don't think you see the benefits in anything do ya ?
-
from reading your posts on here, I don't think you see the benefits in anything do ya ?
Give it a rest Walter, you are getting very boring. ::)
-
The interesting times we live in continue
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/mcdonald-comfortable-asking-sinn-féin-voters-to-back-unionist-1.4071968?fbclid=IwAR2xP_2s_Dk7dROuHNPWlM7uFFsBSmU7fMMN5PIxto4AH0VX9Fxy_GtWOpg&mode=amp
-
And the ever brilliant Fintan O'Toole
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/05/brexiters-ireland-civil-war-troubled-past?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true
-
You seem to be very keen on paying prices. Please tell us what we are getting for this price you are happy for me to pay.
The fact is that you clearly don't know what we are getting for this price and you and your stupid ignorant cohorts are going to drive this country ti destruction for something you cannot even articulate.
I absolutely despise this. I'd have some respect for you if you weren't such a fucking coward.
The price I speak of jp, in this case is voting for a political party I really don't have much in common with, the Tories, but I well may be able to in some way vote against it in the future after we've left the EU and help get rid of them that way.
At the moment I haven't made my mind up as to which one, Tories or Brexit, I think will be the most likely to fulfil the 2016 referendum result
Regards, ippy.
-
The price I speak of jp, in this case is voting for a political party I really don't have much in common with, the Tories,
If they get in, it's a price I'll have to pay too. So it's a double whammy. Not only do we have the disaster of Brexit but we also have to put up with the Tories for five more years just so you can feel better about your Little England.
And still you will not tell us why the price is worth paying. It's obviously because you don't know. You have nothing. You are part of a cult. You and your ilk are causing more damage to my country than all the religionists combined.
-
All we can hope is that those voters, mainly in England, who were [insert synonym for naive gullibility (or worse) here] enough to vote 'Leave' in 2016 have learned enough since then to not vote for the party who are the authors of this Brexit catastrofuck, in the hope that the result of the impending GE will provide a route to to stop Brexit.
If that pisses 'leavers' off, then I for one don't give a fuck.
-
John Crace in good form, as usual.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/05/my-life-in-the-ethical-wild-west-our-sketch-writer-on-his-three-years-of-brexit-hell
-
If they get in, it's a price I'll have to pay too. So it's a double whammy. Not only do we have the disaster of Brexit but we also have to put up with the Tories for five more years just so you can feel better about your Little England.
And still you will not tell us why the price is worth paying. It's obviously because you don't know. You have nothing. You are part of a cult. You and your ilk are causing more damage to my country than all the religionists combined.
I did say I might be voting Tory or Brexit it depends on whichever one of those two I think, at the time, is most likely to implement the leave winning result of the 2016 referendum so I won't necessarily be voting Tory.
In response to the second half of your post I have told you my main reason for voting leave and I also told you that, that one reason I voted leave was, for me, enough reason on its own to vote leave, but yes I do have other reasons for wanting to vote leave then again it wouldn't matter what reason I was to tell you why I want the UK to leave the EU, do you really think we're ever likely to agree, you've even got trouble accepting the verdict of the democratic vote in 16.
I'm not your enemy anymore than you're mine I can accept we're unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this one jp.
Regards, ippy.
-
Ex Speaker Bercow has stated that Brexit is the 'biggest post war foreign policy mistake'
-
Ex Speaker Bercow has stated that Brexit is the 'biggest post war foreign policy mistake'
So what?
Regards, ippy.
-
It's an opinion, he's entitled to express it, we all are (& do if this thread is anything to go by).
-
It's an opinion, he's entitled to express it, we all are (& do if this thread is anything to go by).
I agree but it's still a so what?
Regards, ippy.
-
So what?
Regards, ippy.
I think Bercow has got that right, and there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if it goes ahead.
-
I think Bercow has got that right, and there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if it goes ahead.
I don't know if this new speaker is any better than the last let's hope he's at least completely even handed where he has any kind of dealings with brexit.
Regards, ippy
-
I don't know if this new speaker is any better than the last let's hope he's at least completely even handed where he has any kind of dealings with brexit.
Regards, ippy
Bercow didn't state his opinion about Brexit until after he stepped down as speaker.
-
Bercow didn't state his opinion about Brexit until after he stepped down as speaker.
I somehow doubt anyone would need to have a score 960 or more on any I Q test to work out his position on that one L R, nor were you a member of the born yesterday club.
Regards, ippy.
-
I somehow doubt anyone would need to have a score 960 or more on any I Q test to work out his position on that one L R, nor were you a member of the born yesterday club.
Regards, ippy.
?
-
Ex Speaker Bercow has stated that Brexit is the 'biggest post war foreign policy mistake'
I'm struggling to think of a worse prewar policy mistake.
-
nor were you a member of the born yesterday club.
Regards, ippy.
I think you might have been.
-
I'm struggling to think of a worse prewar policy mistake.
I think WW1 was one.
-
I think WW1 was one.
WW1 was a war, not a policy mistake. Clearly there must have been policy mistakes that led to it but I'm not sure how many, if any were British. You could argue we should have stayed out of it, but that would have meant stabbing our European allies in the back.
-
WW1 was a war, not a policy mistake. Clearly there must have been policy mistakes that led to it but I'm not sure how many, if any were British. You could argue we should have stayed out of it, but that would have meant stabbing our European allies in the back.
Treaty of Versailles, or appeasement? Both with 20/20 hindsight.
-
Treaty of Versailles, or appeasement? Both with 20/20 hindsight.
Treaty of Versailles was a clear mistake in retrospect. I'm not sure about appeasement. We weren't ready to go to war in 1938, but then neither was Hitler really.
-
Treaty of Versailles was a clear mistake in retrospect. I'm not sure about appeasement. We weren't ready to go to war in 1938, but then neither was Hitler really.
Agree - not sure if not following appeasement necessarily relates to being ready to go to war but it's difficult to easily suggest an obvious alternative approach, in part because of the issues of the Treaty of Versailles
-
?
No surprises there with this response of yours L R.
Regards, ippy.
-
I think you might have been.
Another, no surprises there, response jp.
Regards, ippy.
-
Another, no surprises there, response jp.
Regards, ippy.
Another no surprise with your response there, Ippy.
Regards Trent
-
Another no surprise with your response there, Ippy.
Regards Trent
Like it, it's a good one Trent, ;D ;D ;D and you're annoyingly/amusingly right!
Regards, ippy.
-
Is there any truth in the rumour I've heard that 'Our Lord Nigel Farage', is going to be or has been offered a peerage and please I genuinely don't know if there is any truth in this rumour or care either way I would appreciate any replies if any replies could posters refrain from the use of the old Anglo Saxon phraseology, thank you very much in advance?
Regards to all, ippy
-
Is there any truth in the rumour I've heard that 'Our Lord Nigel Farage', is going to be or has been offered a peerage and please I genuinely don't know if there is any truth in this rumour or care either way I would appreciate any replies if any replies could posters refrain from the use of the old Anglo Saxon phraseology, thank you very much in advance?
Regards to all, ippy
I hope they have more sense than to offer that nasty sewer rat a peerage. >:(
-
Is there any truth in the rumour I've heard that 'Our Lord Nigel Farage', is going to be or has been offered a peerage and please I genuinely don't know if there is any truth in this rumour or care either way I would appreciate any replies if any replies could posters refrain from the use of the old Anglo Saxon phraseology, thank you very much in advance?
Regards to all, ippy
Well he's said that he's twice been offered a peerage and turned it down. While he's a known liar, I don't see any specific reason to doubt him. As to being offered for a 3rd time I wouldn't be at all surprised. Maybe not make it for the New Years Honours but the birthday honours.
-
Well he's said that he's twice been offered a peerage and turned it down. While he's a known liar, I don't see any specific reason to doubt him. As to being offered for a 3rd time I wouldn't be at all surprised. Maybe not make it for the New Years Honours but the birthday honours.
Heaven help us if that is the case. >:(
-
Heaven help us if that is the case. >:(
It won't make any real difference. However, I will be able to gain childish satisfaction from ignoring his title.
-
It won't make any real difference. However, I will be able to gain childish satisfaction from ignoring his title.
Ditto any title!
Regards, ippy.
-
There was talk on radio 4 this morning of Welsh independence if Brexit happens, then it rejoins the EU. I can imagine, way down the line, England being left outside the EU, perhaps eventually rejoining.
-
There was talk on radio 4 this morning of Welsh independence if Brexit happens, then it rejoins the EU. I can imagine, way down the line, England being left outside the EU, perhaps eventually rejoining.
Wales was pretty pro-Brexit in the referendum wan't it?
-
Wales was pretty pro-Brexit in the referendum wan't it?
Sadly yes! >:(
-
There was talk on radio 4 this morning of Welsh independence if Brexit happens, then it rejoins the EU. I can imagine, way down the line, England being left outside the EU, perhaps eventually rejoining.
Am I right in thinking that what actually happens on "Brexit Day" is not the UK suddenly adrift of the EU but the gradual disentanglement of the UK from the various elements of the EU?
If that is so, then might it be possible for the process to be reversed?
-
Wales was pretty pro-Brexit in the referendum wan't it?
The person being interviewed was from Plaid Cymru, and he was arguing for the UK remaining, or else face its entire break up. Maybe it's just his party that wants Wales to be in the EU.
-
The person being interviewed was from Plaid Cymru, and he was arguing for the UK remaining, or else face its entire break up. Maybe it's just his party that wants Wales to be in the EU.
Lib Dems
-
Am I right in thinking that what actually happens on "Brexit Day" is not the UK suddenly adrift of the EU but the gradual disentanglement of the UK from the various elements of the EU?
If that is so, then might it be possible for the process to be reversed?
I don't think a Tory government would allow any independence referendums until the UK was well out of the EU.
Lib Dems
Yes, them and Plaid
"Plaid Cymru will campaign to revoke Article 50 if a no-deal Brexit remains a possibility."
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019-10-05/plaid-cymru-to-become-a-revoke-party-if-no-deal-brexit-remains-an-option/
-
I don't think the Tories would allow any independence referendums until the UK was well out of the EU.
"Plaid Cymru will campaign to revoke Article 50 if a no-deal Brexit remains a possibility."
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019-10-05/plaid-cymru-to-become-a-revoke-party-if-no-deal-brexit-remains-an-option/
And the Lib Dems and Greens want to stay in the EU as parties in Wales
-
Nigel Rotten
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/11/15/the-great-brexit-party-swindle/
-
Nigel Rotten
https://bylinetimes.com/2019/11/15/the-great-brexit-party-swindle/
I cannot stand the man, he should be prosecuted for taking the gullible for a ride and lining his own pocket. >:(
-
The person being interviewed was from Plaid Cymru, and he was arguing for the UK remaining, or else face its entire break up. Maybe it's just his party that wants Wales to be in the EU.
Well yes, that's fine and I'd consider moving to Wales if it was in the EU and England wasn't, but, since Wales was generally fairly pro-Brexit, I think he'll have a hard time getting the population to go along with his plan - unless they've since realised that the EU was giving Wales a lot of money and the government in Westminster is unlikely to do the same.
-
BJ and Corbyn debating right now. I know this sounds petty but I do wish Jeremy would put his specs on straight. Other than that (which does not affect his speech), he is speaking well. I'm not always the best judge of these things though.
I want to reach into the TV and adjust Jezza's glasses, he looks lopsided. BlowJob looks tidy for a change. P'raps better to just listen rather than watch :-).
-
I couldn't help noting the how the various links posted on this thread were for either the Guardian or the BBC so I thought I'd have a rough count up and not bother with those links that counted for ten or less, the independent newspaper was the only newspaper that was referred to more than ten times it was referred to twenty times in fact.
Surprisingly, the Guardian and the BBC took pride of place with approximately 240 links between them the BBC 140 links, ten links for The New Statesman, The spectator five, Newsthump nine, The Times five, politics.co.uk six, tinyurl.com seven, The telegraph four, The Daily Mail one, The Express three, The Daily Mirror six, nytimes.com three.
Funnily enough I know what I think I'm wondering about the thoughts of others about these figures, figures that I'll entirely accept may well be in the region of three or four percent out due to it being a bit of a marathon task.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
I couldn't help noting the how the various links posted on this thread were for either the Guardian or the BBC so I thought I'd have a rough count up and not bother with those links that counted for ten or less, the independent newspaper was the only newspaper that was referred to more than ten times it was referred to twenty times in fact.
Surprisingly, the Guardian and the BBC took pride of place with approximately 240 links between them the BBC 140 links, ten links for The New Statesman, The spectator five, Newsthump nine, The Times five, politics.co.uk six, tinyurl.com seven, The telegraph four, The Daily Mail one, The Express three, The Daily Mirror six, nytimes.com three.
Funnily enough I know what I think I'm wondering about the thoughts of others about these figures, figures that I'll entirely accept may well be in the region of three or four percent out due to it being a bit of a marathon task.
Regards to all, ippy.
2 things. I'm surprised that the BBC isn't higher - it isn't a newspaper site, it's a news site that has far more consistent and wider coverage of stories, I'm actually surprised that there is any other outlet near it.
Second, paywalls. Newspapers with paywalls will do worse in numbers. Of the broadsheets only 1 doesn't have a paywall.
-
Yes, people often cite the Guardian as it is free, ditto BBC. Times and Telegraph have a paywall, and are right wing. The Mail is free, ha ha.
-
Yes, people often cite the Guardian as it is free, ditto BBC. Times and Telegraph have a paywall, and are right wing. The Mail is free, ha ha.
The Guardian, the BBC, cheep?
Regards, ippy.
-
The Guardian, the BBC, cheep?
Regards, ippy.
Not cheap, just different business models.
-
I couldn't help noting the how the various links posted on this thread were for either the Guardian or the BBC so I thought I'd have a rough count up and not bother with those links that counted for ten or less, the independent newspaper was the only newspaper that was referred to more than ten times it was referred to twenty times in fact.
Surprisingly, the Guardian and the BBC took pride of place with approximately 240 links between them the BBC 140 links, ten links for The New Statesman, The spectator five, Newsthump nine, The Times five, politics.co.uk six, tinyurl.com seven, The telegraph four, The Daily Mail one, The Express three, The Daily Mirror six, nytimes.com three.
Funnily enough I know what I think I'm wondering about the thoughts of others about these figures, figures that I'll entirely accept may well be in the region of three or four percent out due to it being a bit of a marathon task.
Regards to all, ippy.
I couldn't help noticing that you refuse to tell us what the benefits of Brexit will be. I am pretty sure it's because you know there aren't any beyond satisfying your little Englander craving.
-
I couldn't help noticing that you refuse to tell us what the benefits of Brexit will be. I am pretty sure it's because you know there aren't any beyond satisfying your little Englander craving.
I didn't think I'm accountable to anyone in particular j p, something else I couldn't help noticing.
Don't forget to put down your copy of the Guardian and make sure you enjoy the BBC Newsnight programme later on tonight.
Regards, ippy.
-
Not cheap, just different business models.
Trent you're saying that their business model aim/direction is selling it cheep then?
Regards, ippy.
-
Trent you're saying that their business model aim/direction is selling it cheep then?
Regards, ippy.
Stop pretending to be clever.
-
Stop pretending to be clever.
I dislike the remain point of view not necessarily the people that hold that point of view nor do I see remainers as idiots and it's not my aim to denigrate any individual about this on this forum.
Regards, ippy.
-
I dislike the remain point of view not necessarily the people that hold that point of view nor do I see remainers as idiots and it's not my aim to denigrate any individual about this on this forum.
Regards, ippy.
Well why don't you pay remainers some respect and tell us what it is that makes all the Brexit trouble worth enduring?
-
Well why don't you pay remainers some respect and tell us what it is that makes all the Brexit trouble worth enduring?
I am awaiting his response with baited breath. ::)
-
Well why don't you pay remainers some respect and tell us what it is that makes all the Brexit trouble worth enduring?
There's no harm asking but I will repeat that sovereignty on its own is enough reason for me to want to leave the EU and immigration, nothing to do with who we have here, it's all about the numbers for me, I think we have taken in far too many people, I won't be altering my views on these two reasons amongst others.
Pull my two points of view to bits as much as you like I won't be joining in.
It looks like voting Conservative in my area is is the best place for me to place my vote that will hopefully enable the UK to leave the EU so on that basis alone I'll be voting for them, not that I have much in common with them but, probably like yourself somewhat visa versa, leaving the EU takes precedence over my general political point of view.
Regards, ippy.
-
There's no harm asking but I will repeat that sovereignty on its own is enough reason for me to want to leave the EU and immigration, nothing to do with who we have here, it's all about the numbers for me, I think we have taken in far too many people, I won't be altering my views on these two reasons amongst others.
Pull my two points of view to bits as much as you like I won't be joining in.
It looks like voting Conservative in my area is is the best place for me to place my vote that will hopefully enable the UK to leave the EU so on that basis alone I'll be voting for them, not that I have much in common with them but, probably like yourself somewhat visa versa, leaving the EU takes precedence over my general political point of view.
Regards, ippy.
In order to avoid a second, informed, vote on something you think is so obviously good for the country that you only need two words to justify your support, you'll vote for a party that elected a leader who talks of "watermelon smiles" and "picaninny" children. The party of the "hostile environment". That made a choice to implement austerity for the not-rich while funnelling additional billions of national debt into the pockets of the very and extremely wealthy. I'm not surprised you don't engage with arguments. You've been, to use your own word, indoctrinated.
-
I am awaiting his response with baited breath. ::)
"Bated".
-
As I have said before the those who are desperate for us to leave the EU, might not be so joyful if they discover the UK is much worse off than it was before we left. Already there are concerns that due to the idea of Brexit some medications are harder to get hold of, and some EU nationals who help to man the hospitals are leaving to go back home. The NHS is in a bad enough state as it is without make it any worse. :o
-
In order to avoid a second, informed, vote on something you think is so obviously good for the country that you only need two words to justify your support, you'll vote for a party that elected a leader who talks of "watermelon smiles" and "picaninny" children. The party of the "hostile environment". That made a choice to implement austerity for the not-rich while funnelling additional billions of national debt into the pockets of the very and extremely wealthy. I'm not surprised you don't engage with arguments. You've been, to use your own word, indoctrinated.
wow! Christine ,
The irony is strong with you today SMH !
-
In order to avoid a second, informed, vote on something you think is so obviously good for the country that you only need two words to justify your support, you'll vote for a party that elected a leader who talks of "watermelon smiles" and "picaninny" children. The party of the "hostile environment". That made a choice to implement austerity for the not-rich while funnelling additional billions of national debt into the pockets of the very and extremely wealthy. I'm not surprised you don't engage with arguments. You've been, to use your own word, indoctrinated.
Yes Christine, I can see and understand your version of logic in this post of yours and funnily enough I feel the same as yourself about all of the politicians attached to any party you might wish to name, oh yes I'm obviously not a fan of the BBC or the Guardian newspaper's indoctrination club, I suppose it does look as though the opposing side of those we disagree with may well have been indoctrinated.
Anyway I wish you well no matter how much we differ on this one, regards ippy.
-
wow! Christine ,
The irony is strong with you today SMH !
I don't know what SMH stands for, but if you are making a point that I don't engage with arguments, I'm sorry. I can access the site for short periods during working days, as I only have an I-pad at home and it refuses to either find the server or use the proxy server method. Usually I can see that others have already made the points I would have liked to have made, better than I could, so I don't see the point in repetition.
My reasons for wanting to remain in the EU are as follows:
I value my freedom of movement around and between 28 countries and the opportunity to work and live in any of them if I want to and can get a job.
I think it's a very good thing for leaders of nations to sit around the same table to discuss issues that might divide them, looking for mutually acceptable compromises.
The basic values of the EU such as no capital punishment, adherence to Human Rights and the requirement for a functioning democracy are helpful safeguards, along with some EU legislation such as the working time directive and restrictions on pesticides. I'm sure there are regulations agreed by the member nations of the EU that I wouldn't agree with as well, same as legislation passed in Westminster. I don't trust the Tories to safeguard anything that protects me and given the state of our FPTP voting system, I expect they'll be in office for the rest of my life.
One of the reasons we joined the EEC in the first place is because it confers economic benefits. As we don't need to agree to or adopt any new measures on closer co-operation that the rest of the EU might want (though I wouldn't mind that) then I fail to see what has materially changed. If you don't trust the Westminster government to veto things you disagree with in the EU, vote for a different Westminster government. Westminster governments enact laws I disagree with frequently.
Given the state of the country due to nearly a decade of the Tories extracting value from the not-rich, we aren't in a position to risk a fall in GDP, which the vast majority of economic analysts, including those preparing reports for the government, agree will be an inevitable result of leaving the EU.
There's more detail in each area, but those are the broad reasons. I would be happy to debate, albeit at a very slow pace, any particular point anyone disagrees with. Unlike ippy, I am open to rational argument and willing to revise my opinions based on facts. The idea that people can't change their minds on this is just plain wrong. My sister voted to leave the EU and would now, having been better informed, vote to remain a member.
-
I think for some people, Brexit is a religion. You can't argue some people out of it, it's their faith. Some of the Brexiter vox pops on TV are hilarious, but now I look away. I guess the English like suffering.
-
Christine
I think you've missed my point .
You appear to believe that people who don't agree with you have been indoctrinated yet when I read your post I see the same thing . It looks like you've been indoctrinated but you're not aware of it .
That's all
SMH = shake my head 😎
-
Hi Walter, if you could take the part of any one of my posts that indicates indoctrination and tell me how and why, I'll be happy to discuss the nuts and bolts of my views with you. Or ippy. You both seem committed to keeping the benefits of leaving the EU under wraps, for some reason. Thanks for explaining SMH, I'm sure it'll come in handy.
-
Hi Walter, if you could take the part of any one of my posts that indicates indoctrination and tell me how and why, I'll be happy to discuss the nuts and bolts of my views with you. Or ippy. You both seem committed to keeping the benefits of leaving the EU under wraps, for some reason. Thanks for explaining SMH, I'm sure it'll come in handy.
hi Christine
Maybe you could show me where I said I wanted to leave the EU .
-
Long time since I bought a newspaper but never thought the Times was right wing, they seemed to print all sorts of articles from different points of view on same day.
I like Guardian & the BBC, get that Guardian is somewhat left but the Beeb is neutral.
Christine your posts are so very good.
-
Long time since I bought a newspaper but never thought the Times was right wing, they seemed to print all sorts of articles from different points of view on same day.
I like Guardian & the BBC, get that Guardian is somewhat left but the Beeb is neutral.
Christine your posts are so very good.
They have a variety of columnists however you only have to read the story headlines to see they have given up any idea of balance.
-
hi Christine
Maybe you could show me where I said I wanted to leave the EU .
I couldn't be bothered to read all that lot Gonners, but I think I know where you're coming
from and yes I voted to LEAVE.
The search function is sometimes a wondrous thing.
-
That post was from three years ago, maybe Walter has changed his mind since. Plenty have.
-
The search function is sometimes a wondrous thing.
thanks Trent
I had an idea I might have said that at some time in the past .
Looking at that date , I was in hospital (again) recovering from a heart attack .
The truth of the matter is I didn't vote at all , either way .
Mainly for two reasons ;
1: I didn't know enough about it to make an informed choice
2: I wasn't registered to vote (still not)
-
I think for some people, Brexit is a religion. You can't argue some people out of it, it's their faith. Some of the Brexiter vox pops on TV are hilarious, but now I look away. I guess the English like suffering.
They might argue that the EU is a religion for many remainers. It's a standard sneer against people with strongly-held opinions you disagree with.
-
That post was from three years ago, maybe Walter has changed his mind since. Plenty have.
Indeed he might have - but all he asked was to be shown where he said he wanted to leave. He actually stated "he voted to leave". Past tense you will note.
Anyway he has offered clarification so all a bit academic now.
-
I say clarification, and then again:
what the hell is wrong with you people,you really don't get what is going on around you. Brexit and Trump is a vote against YOU.
Farage gets my vote anytime
-
This is utterly beautiful
https://youtu.be/8ZP7Z8ggJy0
-
This is utterly beautiful
https://youtu.be/8ZP7Z8ggJy0
Brilliant: hopefully the smug bastard's feet, having shot himself in both at the same time, will heal slowly and painfully.
-
There's no harm asking but I will repeat that sovereignty on its own is enough reason for me to want to leave the EU
While we are in the EU we have a small piece of sovereignty of a very large part of Europe. What's the benefits in exchanging that for complete sovereignty over an loser island containing a significant number of small minded hateful bigots?
and immigration, nothing to do with who we have here, it's all about the numbers for me, I think we have taken in far too many people
The best way to stop immigrants from coming in is to make their countries more attractive to stay in, not to run our country down to the point where everybody hates us.
Don't forget that, stopping immigration, you are also stopping emigration. People are losing their rights just because you have an irrational hatred of foreigners coming here.
I won't be altering my views on these two reasons amongst others.
You talk like a religious fanatic.
-
While we are in the EU we have a small piece of sovereignty of a very large part of Europe. What's the benefits in exchanging that for complete sovereignty over an loser island containing a significant number of small minded hateful bigots?
The best way to stop immigrants from coming in is to make their countries more attractive to stay in, not to run our country down to the point where everybody hates us.
Don't forget that, stopping immigration, you are also stopping emigration. People are losing their rights just because you have an irrational hatred of foreigners coming here.
You talk like a religious fanatic.
I agree with your post.
-
While we are in the EU we have a small piece of sovereignty of a very large part of Europe. What's the benefits in exchanging that for complete sovereignty over an loser island containing a significant number of small minded hateful bigots?
The best way to stop immigrants from coming in is to make their countries more attractive to stay in, not to run our country down to the point where everybody hates us.
Don't forget that, stopping immigration, you are also stopping emigration. People are losing their rights just because you have an irrational hatred of foreigners coming here.
You talk like a religious fanatic.
Like I said long ago we're not likely to agree about much if anything about brexit and of course you're entitled to your view on the subject.
The polls seem to be going the leave way at the mo but I wouldn't be surprised if a fly in the ointment turned up unexpectedly.
The remain side can say what they like about all of the Tories I'd probably agree with most of the criticisms but in my area Tory's the best bet for leaving at the mo so they get my vote, unless?
Regards, ippy.
-
Like I said long ago we're not likely to agree about much if anything about brexit and of course you're entitled to your view on the subject.
The polls seem to be going the leave way at the mo but I wouldn't be surprised if a fly in the ointment turned up unexpectedly.
The remain side can say what they like about all of the Tories I'd probably agree with most of the criticisms but in my area Tory's the best bet for leaving at the mo so they get my vote, unless?
Regards, ippy.
Still won't engage on the actual alleged benefits of leaving.
-
Still won't engage on the actual alleged benefits of leaving.
I agree. Does he think by leaving the EU tiny little Britain will regain its empire, which wasn't to its credit? We need the backing of the EU, without it we are up the creek without a paddle and then some. :o
-
Still won't engage on the actual alleged benefits of leaving.
jp I've just picked up this from YouTube: Simon Heffer The Great War to Brexit: a traditionalist view of Britian
The interview with Simon Heffer where is referring to Brexit is virtually to a word of how I see the whole of the brexit if you want to know my thoughts on the subject, then if you then want to discuss, discuss with him I have no intention of going into any form of an endless discussion about brexit with anyone.
Regards, ippy.
-
jp I've just picked up this from YouTube: Simon Heffer The Great War to Brexit: a traditionalist view of Britian
The interview with Simon Heffer where is referring to Brexit is virtually to a word of how I see the whole of the brexit if you want to know my thoughts on the subject, then if you then want to discuss, discuss with him I have no intention of going into any form of an endless discussion about brexit with anyone.
Regards, ippy.
Link to clip referred to below
https://youtu.be/LVM0ZFGYjTY
-
Heffer is a highly unpleasant man. >:(
-
Heffer is a highly unpleasant man. >:(
In and of itself, that doesn't make him wrong in any opinions he may express in the clip.
-
Heffer is a highly unpleasant man. >:(
He may well be a highly unpleasant man, let's assume he is, he still gives a reasonable summing up almost word for word summing up of my views about brexit, that's how it is sometimes, we both think each other has got it wrong about brexit.
Regards to you floo, ippy.
-
jp I've just picked up this from YouTube: Simon Heffer The Great War to Brexit: a traditionalist view of Britian
The interview with Simon Heffer where is referring to Brexit is virtually to a word of how I see the whole of the brexit if you want to know my thoughts on the subject, then if you then want to discuss, discuss with him I have no intention of going into any form of an endless discussion about brexit with anyone.
Regards, ippy.
Simon Heffer is a pompous oaf - Evelyn Waugh without the literary talent.
-
In and of itself, that doesn't make him wrong in any opinions he may express in the clip.
No, but he almost certainly is. I can't be arsed to watch it to find out.
-
He may well be a highly unpleasant man, let's assume he is, he still gives a reasonable summing up almost word for word summing up of my views about brexit, that's how it is sometimes, we both think each other has got it wrong about brexit.
Regards to you floo, ippy.
Yes, but you really have.
-
He may well be a highly unpleasant man, let's assume he is, he still gives a reasonable summing up almost word for word summing up of my views about brexit, that's how it is sometimes, we both think each other has got it wrong about brexit.
Regards to you floo, ippy.
His summing up is garbage, it is sad you can't see it.
Btw I prefer littleroses to floo which is why I changed my username.
-
No, but he almost certainly is. I can't be arsed to watch it to find out.
The first 10 minutes or so on Asquith are ok but the rest, his opinions on brexit, are rubbish. No reasoned case is presented, it seems to boil down to nationalist feelings or identity.
-
The first 10 minutes or so on Asquith are ok but the rest, his opinions on brexit, are rubbish. No reasoned case is presented, it seems to boil down to nationalist feelings or identity.
Thank you for watching it. There's always a problem when someone says go and listen to someone saying something, or read something because it's what I think that it makes it quite hard to engage with.
-
Thank you for watching it. There's always a problem when someone says go and listen to someone saying something, or read something because it's what I think that it makes it quite hard to engage with.
Unfortunately my main (personal) problem is that I'm too easily distracted from what I was intending to spend time on :(
-
His summing up is garbage, it is sad you can't see it.
Btw I prefer littleroses to floo which is why I changed my username.
Apologies about the 'floo' L R, it slipped me for the moment however it does illustrate our opposing view about brexit, exactly, it's sad you can't see it and you're still a remainer.
We just need to leave as soon as pos and stop shouting down megaphones at each other after all whatever you may think I think it was a fair vote I never thought we'd ever have the luck to get a referendum and I don't/can't know about yourself but I knew as much as I needed to know many years before I put X in the appropriate box.
Regards, ippy.
-
It was not a fair vote at all, politicians like Boris and the nasty Farage lied to people about the so called benefits of voting to leave the EU. I have spoken to a number of people who hadn't a clue what they were actually voting for. One person told me they voted for Brexit because their neighbour had done so. ::)
-
There is a very interesting item in this month's The Psychologist (the magazine of the British Psychological Society). It comprises the answers to a number of questions to Brian Hughes, an Irish academic, related to his new book The Psychology of Brexit: From Psychodrama to Behavioural Science.. Professor Hughes considers that Brexit is an example of "mass panic, social groupthink and tribal division" and thus can be seen as a case study concerned with the way societies function.
He considers the the general election:
'If you were a betting man, informed by psychology, what would you say happens next?'
I discuss in the book how the impasse in parliament is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma as discussed by game theorists. Neither side will work with the other
in order to reduce risk. From the point of view of game theory, it is no surprise that the system has now crashed. The forthcoming general election is an effort to reboot the government at the ballot box. However, I am not sure that switching the UK off and back on again will fix the problem.
Such logjams result from poor reasoning, irreconcileable tensions, and toxic relationships. An election is unlikely to change these conditions. Everything we know about group polarisation tells us that competitive politics will only sharpen the divide.
[/size]
-
It was not a fair vote at all, politicians like Boris and the nasty Farage lied to people about the so called benefits of voting to leave the EU. I have spoken to a number of people who hadn't a clue what they were actually voting for. One person told me they voted for Brexit because their neighbour had done so. ::)
I think it was a fair vote, politicians like Boris and Our Lord Farage are about the best we have at the moment supporting leave, I have spoken to a number of EU leavers who knew exactly what they were actually voting for.
One person told me they voted for Brexit because their neighbour had done so, (there'll always be a few like this and then again look at how many voted for remain 48% app).
Regards, ippy.
P S It just goes on L R, do you really think we're ever likely to agree on this one? I don't, anyway I wish you well.
-
There is a very interesting item in this month's The Psychologist (the magazine of the British Psychological Society). It comprises the answers to a number of questions to Brian Hughes, an Irish academic, related to his new book The Psychology of Brexit: From Psychodrama to Behavioural Science.. Professor Hughes considers that Brexit is an example of "mass panic, social groupthink and tribal division" and thus can be seen as a case study concerned with the way societies function.
He considers the the general election:
Always good to hear the opinions of others I'd refer to the General Election on the 12th as more of a referendum rather than a reboot and I'll guess it'd take a brave or foolhardy man to put all he's got on predicting the result of this one.
Regards, ippy.
-
Always good to hear the opinions of others I'd refer to the General Election on the 12th as more of a referendum rather than a reboot and I'll guess it'd take a brave or foolhardy man to put all he's got on predicting the result of this one.
Regards, ippy.
You can refer to it as that. You would be wrong.
-
'The Story of Mr Brexit'
This isn't that bad an article about Farage. I dislike him intensely but I think the argument that he is "the most influential politician of the modern era" is a strong one. In British terms I think in my lifetime it's him, Thatcher, Blair, and Salmond who are the stand-outs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50565543
-
'The Story of Mr Brexit'
This isn't that bad an article about Farage. I dislike him intensely but I think the argument that he is "the most influential politician of the modern era" is a strong one. In British terms I think in my lifetime it's him, Thatcher, Blair, and Salmond who are the stand-outs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50565543
I saw that article earlier on today. That bloke makes my skin crawl, but he does have an impact on those who see it his way. >:(
-
You remainers certainly can't resist giving the BBC Guardian, Guardian BBC links.
ippy
-
You remainers certainly can't resist giving the BBC Guardian, Guardian BBC links.
ippy
Aw! An ad hominem fallacy, how cute.
-
As ever Fintan O'Toole on form
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/15/boris-johnson-lying-ireland-withdrawal-agreement-brexit-belfast-dublin?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
-
Apologies about the 'floo' L R, it slipped me for the moment however it does illustrate our opposing view about brexit, exactly, it's sad you can't see it and you're still a remainer.
We just need to leave as soon as pos and stop shouting down megaphones at each other after all whatever you may think I think it was a fair vote I never thought we'd ever have the luck to get a referendum and I don't/can't know about yourself but I knew as much as I needed to know many years before I put X in the appropriate box.
Regards, ippy.
Doesn't matter if it was a fair vote or not. The result is a disaster for the UK and many of the people who live here.
-
I think it was a fair vote, politicians like Boris and Our Lord Farage are about the best we have at the moment supporting leave
That's a bit of an indictment of the Leave campaign.
I have spoken to a number of EU leavers who knew exactly what they were actually voting for.
How would they know?
One person told me they voted for Brexit because their neighbour had done so
And you still think it was a rational decision?
It just goes on L R, do you really think we're ever likely to agree on this one?
We're never going to agree if you aren't prepared to tell us why we'll be materially better off outside the EU.
-
Ippy
Perhaps you would like to explain what "taking back control of our country/ borders" means to you in order for me to understand the rational logic of your position that we needed to Brexit in order to control our borders.
Bearing in mind that UK has border controls and had border controls before the 2016 referendum and further, that per the European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016), Cameron had negotiated with the EU that we can prevent people from entering who are likely to [my emphasis] pose a serious threat even in the absence of previous criminal convictions:
"Host Member States may also take the necessary restrictive measures to protect themselves against individuals whose personal conduct is likely to represent a genuine and serious threat to public
policy or security. In determining whether the conduct of an individual poses a present threat to
public policy or security, Member States may take into account past conduct of the individual
concerned and the threat may not always need to be imminent. Even in the absence of a previous
criminal conviction, Member States may act on preventative grounds, so long as they are specific to
the individual concerned."
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1-2016-INIT/en/pdf#page=22
-
Ippy
Perhaps you would like to explain what "taking back control of our country/ borders" means to you in order for me to understand the rational logic of your position that we needed to Brexit in order to control our borders.
Bearing in mind that UK has border controls and had border controls before the 2016 referendum and further, that per the European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016), Cameron had negotiated with the EU that we can prevent people from entering who are likely to [my emphasis] pose a serious threat even in the absence of previous criminal convictions:
"Host Member States may also take the necessary restrictive measures to protect themselves against individuals whose personal conduct is likely to represent a genuine and serious threat to public
policy or security. In determining whether the conduct of an individual poses a present threat to
public policy or security, Member States may take into account past conduct of the individual
concerned and the threat may not always need to be imminent. Even in the absence of a previous
criminal conviction, Member States may act on preventative grounds, so long as they are specific to
the individual concerned."
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1-2016-INIT/en/pdf#page=22
I have said all I want to say about the EU previously mainly on this thread, it can't be helped if you don't like it or its not enough; that's it for me.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
I have said all I want to say about the EU previously mainly on this thread, it can't be helped if you don't like it or its not enough; that's it for me.
Regards to all, ippy.
This is the standard crap we get from you, whenever you can't answer a question about Brexit, but won't admit you're wrong.
-
Ippy is probably one of the people who will not be adversely affected by Brexit, or not much.
-
Ippy certainly isn't a person who shows any evidence of thinking for himself about Brexit. My deepest commiserations to you Ippy for your indoctrination.
-
Ippy is probably one of the people who will not be adversely affected by Brexit, or not much.
I was talking to an expert in population demographics the other day. He was saying that we need immigration because the population is ageing and we need more economically active people to support the retired people.
This is why, despite government posturing (of all political stripes), immigration remains quite high. Governments simply don't want to reduce it because it could end catastrophically.
-
I have said all I want to say about the EU previously mainly on this thread, it can't be helped if you don't like it or its not enough; that's it for me.
Regards to all, ippy.
It's not that I don't like what you say - I am indifferent. I am neither an ardent remainer nor an ardent leaver as I am financially cushioned whatever the outcome. I live in London so am happy with the cultural diversity I encounter - it would be boring for me to only encounter one nationality or culture. But I also enjoy my holidays in the less diverse green and pleasant lands of England.
I am just seeking to understand "the rational logic of your position ".
I understand if you do not want to repeat yourself. In which case please just let me know the post numbers of where you have laid out the rational logic of your position - e.g for controlling our borders - and I will read it for myself.
Kindest of regards
G
-
So looks like its happening and not a soft Brexit.
The remainers gambled the customs union for remain and some political point scoring. Worth it?
-
So looks like its happening and not a soft Brexit.
The remainers gambled the customs union for remain and some political point scoring. Worth it?
All of them?
-
All of them?
I meant remainer MP's, although it could have wider context.
e.g. Stephen Kinnock was advocating Customs Union had this been Labour's position they would have won.
-
I meant remainer MP's, although it could have wider context.
e.g. Stephen Kinnock was advocating Customs Union had this been Labour's position they would have won.
So not all remainer MPs then. And given that 'something like a customs union' was Labour policy, since the Customs Union' isn't something that is within the voting powers of the UK parliament, it's not clear if it would have any meaning were it to have passed. I think it's a mistake to attribute generalised motives here.
-
It's not that I don't like what you say - I am indifferent. I am neither an ardent remainer nor an ardent leaver as I am financially cushioned whatever the outcome. I live in London so am happy with the cultural diversity I encounter - it would be boring for me to only encounter one nationality or culture. But I also enjoy my holidays in the less diverse green and pleasant lands of England.
I am just seeking to understand "the rational logic of your position ".
I understand if you do not want to repeat yourself. In which case please just let me know the post numbers of where you have laid out the rational logic of your position - e.g for controlling our borders - and I will read it for myself.
Kindest of regards
G
I will be be, maybe, disappointing those of you that haven't read my previous posts or think I've not involved myself with your discourse enough but as I have said in my previous post: 'I have said all I want to say about the EU previously mainly on this thread, it can't be helped if you don't like it or its not enough; that's it for me'.
Please feel free to make whatever you want to make of my wish to leave the EU.
Regards to all and a merry Newton's day, regards, ippy.
-
I meant remainer MP's, although it could have wider context.
e.g. Stephen Kinnock was advocating Customs Union had this been Labour's position they would have won.
If it had been Labour's position to support Remain in 2016, including their leader, probably the referendum would have gone the other way and the entire mess of the last three years - and next 40 probably - would not have happened.
-
So not all remainer MPs then.
That was for example, I'll define terms; remainers - those that only wanted to remain and any debate/discussion was met with some of the following:-
a) This will be terrible so we should remain
b) It won't happen so we should remain
c) Ad hominem so we should remain
d) Political point score so we should remain.
And given that 'something like a customs union' was Labour policy, since the Customs Union' isn't something that is within the voting powers of the UK parliament, it's not clear if it would have any meaning were it to have passed.
Labour policy changed a lot! I'm sure they voted against at some point, then they went for customs agreement and finally was the customs union. The timing of those changes seemed opportunistic.
I think it's a mistake to attribute generalised motives here.
I was more commenting on strategy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-corbyn-defeat-support-may-brexit-deal-a9246871.html
Quote from article:-
Labour MPs cannot say they didn’t know. It was pointed out at the time that May’s withdrawal agreement was what the Labour leadership said it wanted: it was in every respect what they said a Labour government would have negotiated. The only differences between Jeremy Corbyn and May were about the non-binding political declaration setting out the government’s aspirations for the long-term trade deal.
By using those manufactured differences as an excuse to vote against May’s deal, Labour MPs more or less ensured that Boris Johnson would become prime minister and thus paved the way for him to take Britain out of the EU on his terms.
-
I will be be, maybe, disappointing those of you that haven't read my previous posts or think I've not involved myself with your discourse enough but as I have said in my previous post: 'I have said all I want to say about the EU previously mainly on this thread, it can't be helped if you don't like it or its not enough; that's it for me'.
Please feel free to make whatever you want to make of my wish to leave the EU.
Regards to all and a merry Newton's day, regards, ippy.
It's fairly obvious from the Searching for God thread, what we will make of the fact that you can't point to any post of yours that illustrates the rational logic of your position.
My deepest commiserations to you Ippy on your indoctrination. You and Alan have a lot in common.
Kindest of regards
G
-
That was for example, I'll define terms; remainers - those that only wanted to remain and any debate/discussion was met with some of the following:-
a) This will be terrible so we should remain
b) It won't happen so we should remain
c) Ad hominem so we should remain
d) Political point score so we should remain. opportunistic.
I’m sure you could find examples of b, c and d, but Remainers arguments almost entirely boil down to a and it has been terriblle so far.
Anyway, since Ippy can’t answer the question, perhaps you can. How Are you going to benefit by us leaving. How am I going to benefit?
-
I’m sure you could find examples of b, c and d, but Remainers arguments almost entirely boil down to a and it has been terriblle so far.
Anyway, since Ippy can’t answer the question, perhaps you can. How Are you going to benefit by us leaving. How am I going to benefit?
My reasons for voting leave were that the EU did not function well democratically.
You do know we are leaving? Not sure what you hope to gain with your line of questioning, is it a bit of political point scoring?
-
My reasons for voting leave were that the EU did not function well democratically.
Neither does the United Kingdom. Do you suggest we should leave that, too?
-
Neither does the United Kingdom. Do you suggest we should leave that, too?
Scotland thinks so. :)
-
My reasons for voting leave were that the EU did not function well democratically.
Was that it? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the fact that the UK does not function well democratically? Or perhaps try to fix the problems with the EU? Which, by the way, were exaggerated by thew Leave Campaign.
You do know we are leaving? Not sure what you hope to gain with your line of questioning, is it a bit of political point scoring?
I still want to know how it's going to benefit me. I'm having to give up a number of freedoms for Brexit. I want to know what the plus side is going to be. The fact that it is definitely happening now makes me more interested to find out. At the moment, the way the Brexiteers are evading answering the question makes me think that they don't know of any benefits, which leads me to the further question: why on Earth are we doing this?
-
Was that it? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the fact that the UK does not function well democratically? Or perhaps try to fix the problems with the EU? Which, by the way, were exaggerated by thew Leave Campaign.
I don't think any group or country anywhere actually functions even nearly completely democratically. However, the system that we have had here for most of the last hundred years or so works. It's not that it ain't broke so don't fix it, but the fault areas that can be fixed need to be thought through more carefully than, for example, Brexit and carried through gradually, not too quickly.
-I still want to know how it's going to benefit me. I'm having to give up a number of freedoms for Brexit. I want to know what the plus side is going to be. The fact that it is definitely happening now makes me more interested to find out. At the moment, the way the Brexiteers are evading answering the question makes me think that they don't know of any benefits, which leads me to the further question: why on Earth are we doing this?
Because of the referendum vote and the election result, I am firmly on the side now that the leaving must take place. It will mean some major setbacks, but at least in years to come when Europe is once more a unit, it will have greater stability. I shall not be here to see it, though.
-
Was that it? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on the fact that the UK does not function well democratically? Or perhaps try to fix the problems with the EU? Which, by the way, were exaggerated by the Leave Campaign.
Those were options but thought we would have a more accountable government if we left.
[/quote]
I still want to know how it's going to benefit me. I'm having to give up a number of freedoms for Brexit. I want to know what the plus side is going to be. The fact that it is definitely happening now makes me more interested to find out. At the moment, the way the Brexiteers are evading answering the question makes me think that they don't know of any benefits, which leads me to the further question: why on Earth are we doing this?
[/quote]
There might not be any benefit to you, there was a democratic vote and you lost, in a democracy the majority rules.
You can now campaign for softer Brexit or rejoin, if you can persuade the majority to your POV then that is what will happen.
I didn't find your arguments persuasive, I was trying to encourage you and others to get behind Norway+, clearly I failed to do that in time.
-
There might not be any benefit to you, there was a democratic vote and you lost, in a democracy the majority rules.
Where does democracy end and mob rule begin?
-
Where does democracy end and mob rule begin?
I voted in the 1975 referendum as to whether we continue to be part of the EC. I listened to both sides of the debate, and eventually voted 'No'. The 'nos' lost and I was willing to accept this, (although I had misgivings) because it was a democratic vote. Over the years since, I have seen many things which have led me to become disillusioned with how the EC, which later became the EU, operates. I was given no chance of another referendum after the Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon, and I was willing to accept that(albeit reluctantly) because it was our democratically elected government who decided that no referendum was called for.
Hence, when the opportunity to take part in the 2016 Referendum came along, I listened to the arguments on both sides and came to the conclusion that I should vote 'leave', mainly because, like jackswan, I see democratic inputs as having less clout within the EU than outside it. The 'remain' vote lost and I was and am willing to accept it.
Incidentally, I have never voted Conservative in my life. In this last election I took the trouble to vote, and simply put 'None of the above'.
I don't consider myself to be part of any mob, whether you think I am or not. I am happy to respect those who voted to 'remain' and accept that there are arguments that can be made in favour of remaining in the EU. For me, they simply aren't enough to convince me that I voted wrongly.
-
I am firmly on the side now that the leaving must take place. It will mean some major setbacks.
I honestly don't understand that attitude. If there was a democratic vote to wind up the NHS and make us all buy American style health insurance would you get behind it? Spoiler: it already happened.
-
There might not be any benefit to you
Finally, a Brexiteer who is prepared to be honest.
So who is going to benefit from leaving the EU?
there was a democratic vote and you lost, in a democracy the majority rules.
In a democracy there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech. In a democracy telling people to shut up because they lost is not a valid course of action.
-
There might not be any benefit to you, there was a democratic vote and you lost, in a democracy the majority rules.
I think Philomena Cunk and Billy Shitpeas have summed up the argument on that one.
-
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Enki.
My question - following the response of jakswan caused me to consider his expression "in a democracy the majority rules". We have a situation where, in an incompetently organised referendum, delivered for purely party management purposes, almost two-thirds of the electorate did not support the outcome for which a very narrow majority of those actually voting determined - and that outcome was, in effect, undefined.
In the UK, referenda are very rare. In countries which do rely on referenda for policy development an absolute majority is usually required.
The 2016 referendum did not define what it meant by withdrawal from the EU nor has this become clear since. We now have the spectacle of a prime minister - elected to this role by party activists - adopting a populist stance, aided by a popular press largely owned by a small number of very rich individuals who appear to be concerned with protecting their own wealth. The prime minister also appears to have no real understanding of the consequences of leaving the EU - he is being instructed in his actions by an unelected advisor. Shortly before the general election which ensured his majority in the House of Commons, the prime minister ejected from his party a number of MPs who did not support his approach.
To me, this behaviour appears to be departing from "democracy" and to be verging on the kind of situation that Germany enjoyed in the early 1930s.
-
Where does democracy end and mob rule begin?
You don't understand how those two differ?
-
Finally, a Brexiteer who is prepared to be honest.
All of them are dishonest?
So who is going to benefit from leaving the EU?
I think we will have a more accountable government, so we will all benefit from that.
In a democracy there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
Captain O.
In a democracy telling people to shut up because they lost is not a valid course of action.
Misrepresentation, at no point did I tell you to shut up. Being dishonest whilst suggesting that almost all Brexiteer's are not... #hypocrite :)
I encouraged you to now engage with the topic of 'EU/UK future relationship'.
-
Where does democracy end and mob rule begin?
In ancient Greece, "democracy" meant "mob rule". It was a derogatory word only.
-
delivered for purely party management purposes,
Wrong, the EU Referendum Bill passed through Parliament with support from most parties.
To me, this behaviour appears to be departing from "democracy" and to be verging on the kind of situation that Germany enjoyed in the early 1930s.
Come off it, the referendum was supported by most parties, the LibDems were the first mainstream party to campaign for one. The government spent taxpayers money saying they would act on the result.
Three years later our elected representatives could not reach a consensus on what to do next, so another election was called. That election was won and the winners were very clear on what they would do.
The remain side gambled Norway+ for another referendum, the bet lost.
-
Gabriella, you sent this lot in my direction:
'It's fairly obvious from the Searching for God thread, what we will make of the fact that you can't point to any post of yours that illustrates the rational logic of your position'.
I did give a couple of reasons on this thread, reasons where I think each one on its own, was enough for me to want to leave the EU, I doubt you would agree with me about either one of them but that's not important now and it no longer matters.
Regards and happy Newtons day to you Gabriella, ippy.
-
In ancient Greece, "democracy" meant "mob rule". It was a derogatory word only.
Tripe. In ancient Greece "democracy" was an acceptable system of government.
What were not acceptable were tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy - or mob rule.
-
All of them are dishonest?
None of them before you have been prepared to admit that I won't one better off. Just look at Ippy's posts overt the past few months. He's been assiduous in avoiding telling me that. In fact, he's been assiduous in avoiding telling anybody how they will benefit.
I think we will have a more accountable government, so we will all benefit from that.
We'll have the same government as we've always had. The major difference is that that government no longer has any say in how the largest trading bloc in the World is run.
Captain O.
Not to there Brexiteers apparently.
Misrepresentation, at no point did I tell you to shut up. Being dishonest whilst suggesting that almost all Brexiteer's are not... #hypocrite :)
Telling people they lost the referendum so suck it up is not telling people to shut up? I think it is.
'EU/UK future relationship'.
You may not have noticed, but we've destroyed that.
-
Wrong, the EU Referendum Bill passed through Parliament with support from most parties.
What's that got to do with why the Tories proposed it in the first place?
If parliament at the time had had a crystal ball to see into the next three years, it would not have passed.
The remain side gambled Norway+ for another referendum, the bet lost.
Brexiteers are gambling with our lives. We've all lost.
-
I think we will have a more accountable government, so we will all benefit from that.
I trust you have taken note of the new government particularly the PM and his advisor in chief. If you think they are going to be more accountable, then quite frankly you are one or two sandwiches short of a picnic.
-
What's that got to do with why the Tories proposed it in the first place?
If parliament at the time had had a crystal ball to see into the next three years, it would not have passed.
Brexiteers are gambling with our lives. We've all lost.
I agree with that last comment of course. However, what do you think should be said or explained to the leave voters if the decision to leave is somehow overturned?
That is the point I come down at the moment on the side of leaving, in spite of the obvious consequences. It does, of course, help to have not that many years left.
-
Regards and happy Newtons day to you
You are as wrong about this as you are about the EU, Ippy.
Isaac Newton was born in 1642 - under the JUlian calendar. Under the Gregorian calendar his birthday is 15 December.
-
I think we will have a more accountable government, so we will all benefit from that.
This is a joke, yes?
Boris the Liar is trying to make the government less accountable. Trying to stop the poor and disadvantaged from voting in the next election by introducing voter ID to "combat fraud" that is virtually non-existent. Promising the "review" human rights, judicial review, and the role of the supreme court...
-
I agree with that last comment of course. However, what do you think should be said or explained to the leave voters if the decision to leave is somehow overturned?
Democracy in action.
-
Democracy in action.
Under what circumstances though could this come about fairly - and democratically, do you think?
-
How democratic was the result of the earlier referendum, SD?
-
How democratic was the result of the earlier referendum, SD?
Impossible to answer, but in any case, the number of people who actually voted leave was greater than those who voted to remain. What excuse would there be now for simply overturning it? There would have to be a clearand acceptable reason for telling that majority they were going to be ignored.
-
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Enki.
My question - following the response of jakswan caused me to consider his expression "in a democracy the majority rules". We have a situation where, in an incompetently organised referendum, delivered for purely party management purposes, almost two-thirds of the electorate did not support the outcome for which a very narrow majority of those actually voting determined - and that outcome was, in effect, undefined.
In the UK, referenda are very rare. In countries which do rely on referenda for policy development an absolute majority is usually required.
The 2016 referendum did not define what it meant by withdrawal from the EU nor has this become clear since. We now have the spectacle of a prime minister - elected to this role by party activists - adopting a populist stance, aided by a popular press largely owned by a small number of very rich individuals who appear to be concerned with protecting their own wealth. The prime minister also appears to have no real understanding of the consequences of leaving the EU - he is being instructed in his actions by an unelected advisor. Shortly before the general election which ensured his majority in the House of Commons, the prime minister ejected from his party a number of MPs who did not support his approach.
To me, this behaviour appears to be departing from "democracy" and to be verging on the kind of situation that Germany enjoyed in the early 1930s.
Hope you had a pleasant Xmas, Harrowby. Sorry for not responding sooner, but, at last, I've had time to get to the computer!
I hear what you say but I simply do not agree with many of your assumptions.
I voted for withdrawal from the EU and because of the closeness of the result fully expect some sort of compromise but which, nevertheless, would necessarily include withdrawal from the EU.
There had been momentum building for a referendum for a long time. In my opinion it was long overdue.
Most political leaders in this country are mainly elected by party activists. I fail to see the significance of your statement therefore.
The word 'populist' for me means the idea of the 'people' in contrast to those who seek to think of themselves as the 'elite'. Indeed, for me, what is happening in Hong Kong at the moment could easily be called a populist movement. Alternatively, if you seek to use the term pejoratively, I would suggest all the main political parties were 'populist' in their messages. That is one reason why I spoilt my ballot paper in the GE. Personally I would not use such a word, because it is simply so ambiguous in its connotations.
I'm not sure why you pick out Boris Johnson as having unelected advisors. I would assume that most parliamentary leaders and prime ministers have had such advisors. How they conduct their political affairs with reference to these advisors is a matter of conjecture and debate.
Whether one agrees or not with the purging of rebels within the Tory Party, I do not see this as a reason to think that we are verging on the situation in Germany in the 1930s.
-
None of them before you have been prepared to admit that I won't one better off. Just look at Ippy's posts overt the past few months. He's been assiduous in avoiding telling me that. In fact, he's been assiduous in avoiding telling anybody how they will benefit.
So one person.
Telling people they lost the referendum so suck it up is not telling people to shut up? I think it is.
If I had said 'suck it up' then I apologise in advance. If not you are demonstrably dishonest and a hypocrite.
You may not have noticed, but we've destroyed that. (UK-EU relationship)
There will be a EU-UK relationship I'm trying to find out why people like you don't seem to want to get involved in discussing what that will be.
Currently you sound like someone who spat their dummy out and are taking their ball home.
-
What's that got to do with why the Tories proposed it in the first place?
HH claimed the EU referendum was 'delivered for purely party management purposes (Tory)', if this was the case why was it supported by many mainstream political parties?
#fake_news
If parliament at the time had had a crystal ball to see into the next three years, it would not have passed.
[/quote]
Maybe so what?
Brexiteers are gambling with our lives. We've all lost.
Yes everything is a gamble, e.g. you were gambling with the way you debated the topic, I think you felt better but you played a role in the result.
My original point remains unchallenged, many remainers gambled on another referendum and the price they paid was Norway+.
-
I trust you have taken note of the new government particularly the PM and his advisor in chief. If you think they are going to be more accountable, then quite frankly you are one or two sandwiches short of a picnic.
I've tried before with you, one last time.... if you socialist types want to win, the level of debate needs to get a little bit beyond calling people names.
-
I've tried before with you, one last time.... if you socialist types want to win, the level of debate needs to get a little bit beyond calling people names.
So I apologise for calling you names (like you've never done that), but can you address this question then. Do you think that Boris Johnson's government is going to be more or less accountable to the UK public as a result of leaving the EU?
-
You are as wrong about this as you are about the EU, Ippy.
Isaac Newton was born in 1642 - under the JUlian calendar. Under the Gregorian calendar his birthday is 15 December.
As I've often referred to where remain and leave sides of Brexit are very unlikely to ever agree about the EU.
I don't know the precise details of the 25th Dec for Newtons birthday, but I have often heard it said that the 25th Dec's not supposed to be the correct date for the birthday of your religions originator whatever it is you want to call him, but then again this is of no interest to me and when the lack of evidence makes it so unlikely to have any consequences for myself or anyone else either, come to that, it's hardly worth bothering your head about H H.
However we might as well celebrate Newtons day on the 25th Dec at least we know for certain he did exist and his work of genius he contributed to the world deserves a lot more celebration and respect, for me it certainly beats the view of those that virtually seem to enjoy pretending they're walking around on their knuckles just because they're so steeped in the mystic, magic and superstitional reaches of the past and even far more backward primitive pre bronze age times.
Regards, ippy.
-
Under what circumstances though could this come about fairly - and democratically, do you think?
Who cares about fair. We need to do what’s right.
-
If I had said 'suck it up' then I apologise in advance. If not you are demonstrably dishonest and a hypocrite.
it’s what your post implied. If you are going to be pedantic, and claim you didn’t say it, I’ll play the same game and point out I never mentioned you.
There will be a EU-UK relationship I'm trying to find out why people like you don't seem to want to get involved in discussing what that will be.
We screwed them and turned our backs on them. What do you think our relationship is going to be like?
Currently you sound like someone who spat their dummy out
Currently you sound like somebody who can’t justify his position and so are resorting to invective.
-
HH claimed the EU referendum was 'delivered for purely party management purposes (Tory)', if this was the case why was it supported by many mainstream political parties?
What makes you think something done for party management purposes can't be supported by other parties?
#fake_news
Are you seriously trying to use the Trump defence? I thought better of you.
-
I've tried before with you, one last time.... if you socialist types want to win, the level of debate needs to get a little bit beyond calling people names.
What? You mean like writing #fakenews? Is that the level of debate you aspire to?
-
I don't know the precise details of the 25th Dec for Newtons birthday, but I have often heard it said that the 25th Dec's not supposed to be the correct date for the birthday of your religions originator whatever it is you want to call him, but then again this is of no interest to me and when the lack of evidence makes it so unlikely to have any consequences for myself or anyone else either, come to that, it's hardly worth bothering your head about H H.
Regards, ippy.
This has nothing to do with the supposed birth of J. Christ. If you had bothered to read my post you might have noticed the words Julian and Gregorian, but perhaps I may have assumed that you are better informed about events in England in the 17th and 18th centuries than is the case.
Isaac Newton was born in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a few miles south of Grantham, on 25 December in 1642. In 1752 the Gregorian calendar was introduced to England. What, do you think the immediate consequence of that change was?
-
What? You mean like writing #fakenews? Is that the level of debate you aspire to?
Jezza,
if you feel so strongly why not stand for parliament . That way you can either piss or get off the fuckin pot !
-
So I apologise for calling you names (like you've never done that), but can you address this question then. Do you think that Boris Johnson's government is going to be more or less accountable to the UK public as a result of leaving the EU?
Calling my names never a problem, it just came across that only insult was in your post. I think I might have got that wrong, so I apologise.
All future UK governments will be more accountable since anything controlled by the EU will now be controlled by the UK government.
This is one of the main arguments supporters of Scottish independence use, you might not find it compelling but it is a valid argument.
-
it’s what your post implied. If you are going to be pedantic, and claim you didn’t say it, I’ll play the same game and point out I never mentioned you.
a) My post suggested you engage with the topic of future EU-UK relationship.
b) You quoted me!
We screwed them and turned our backs on them. What do you think our relationship is going to be like?
So there will still be an EU-UK relationship, but you think it is going to be bad. So wouldn't it better to campaign for a closer relationship?
Currently you sound like somebody who can’t justify his position and so are resorting to invective.
I don't need to justify my position, I've explained my position and invited you to debate the future relationship.
-
What makes you think something done for party management purposes can't be supported by other parties?
'delivered for PURELY party management purposes (Tory)',
It is a fair comment if it is written from Cameron's perspective, but I don't think opposition MP's voted for the referendum for this reason.
-
'delivered for PURELY party management purposes (Tory)',
It is a fair comment if it is written from Cameron's perspective, but I don't think opposition MP's voted for the referendum for this reason.
What do opposition MPs ever vote for? Under the UK's distortion of parliamentary democracy they are only there to provide background noise.
-
What do opposition MPs ever vote for? Under the UK's distortion of parliamentary democracy they are only there to provide background noise.
It seems to me that over the last 3 years opposition MPs have voted both for and against all sorts of motions associated with Brexit, especially when aided by rebels from the Tory Party, and with a great deal of success. The result has been a parliament which simply ceased to function properly.
-
This has nothing to do with the supposed birth of J. Christ. If you had bothered to read my post you might have noticed the words Julian and Gregorian, but perhaps I may have assumed that you are better informed about events in England in the 17th and 18th centuries than is the case.
Isaac Newton was born in Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, a few miles south of Grantham, on 25 December in 1642. In 1752 the Gregorian calendar was introduced to England. What, do you think the immediate consequence of that change was?
I'm aware of various calendar changes altering the count of time events, that would apply equally to Newton or to all sorts of other birth dates fictitious or otherwise.
Newton's birthday could be celebrated any time wished but I think it might be better to celebrate something that is a proven great works of a truly great individual that really did exist, regardless of the consequences of any passing of time measurement alterations.
Regards, ippy.
-
It seems to me that over the last 3 years opposition MPs have voted both for and against all sorts of motions associated with Brexit, especially when aided by rebels from the Tory Party, and with a great deal of success. The result has been a parliament which simply ceased to function properly.
The parliamentary model used at Westminster is probably about 200 years old. It functions because the FPTP model encourages just two blocs of interest in the House of Commons - Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The Oppositions job is merely to oppose. Because the election system practically eliminates other varying views we end up with a system that is practically totalitarian - except that every five years the opportunity is given for the other side to play dictator for a while.
Surely, the rational way for a modern state to be governed is by a representative assembly trying to achieve objectives by argument and co-operation - not by steamrolling over a single impotent opposing voice. Let us have a new Parliament building which doesn't try to imitate medieval church choir stalls and fill it by using a voting system which permits a variety of voices to be heard and decisions to be obtained by consensus.
And as for a "parliament which simply ceased to function properly" - when did we ever have one of those?
-
The parliamentary model ..
Agree it needs reform, but you have to play to the rules at the time.
My point is that if the remain side, many of whom voted for and supported a referendum, had accepted the result they had the numbers to do Norway+.
They split and some gambled on another referendum.
-
The parliamentary model used at Westminster is probably about 200 years old. It functions because the FPTP model encourages just two blocs of interest in the House of Commons - Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The Oppositions job is merely to oppose. Because the election system practically eliminates other varying views we end up with a system that is practically totalitarian - except that every five years the opportunity is given for the other side to play dictator for a while.
Surely, the rational way for a modern state to be governed is by a representative assembly trying to achieve objectives by argument and co-operation - not by steamrolling over a single impotent opposing voice. Let us have a new Parliament building which doesn't try to imitate medieval church choir stalls and fill it by using a voting system which permits a variety of voices to be heard and decisions to be obtained by consensus.
And as for a "parliament which simply ceased to function properly" - when did we ever have one of those?
Thank you for your response, Harrowby.
Just a few points:
My opinion is that any democratic system of voting has both strengths and weaknesses, whether it be FPTP, PR or whatever. You quite rightly state one of the major weaknesses of FPTP, although I would not go along with you in suggesting that we end up with a system which is 'practically totalitarian'. I have seen no sign whatever that any dominant party has been so centralised and controlling that it requires complete subservience and bans all opposition. These are, after all, the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. A huge safeguard against the above is the fact that any government can be replaced every 5 years or so by the will of the people who wish to vote.
My own personal preference would be something along the lines of AV because that at least allows MPs to be chosen who represent their constituencies while allowing the preferences of voters to be taken more into consideration than FPTP. Indeed, I voted for AV in the referendum of 2011, but, unfortunately, 2/3 of those who voted, voted against. I was quite willing to accept the result of such a democratic vote, of course.
It would be most pleasing if your idea that parties could come together in a rational and co-operative way to reflect the wishes of the voters could lead to a spirit of consensus in reaching decisions. I fear that your view is too idealistic, and would be extremely hard to achieve, as most parties seek power to pursue their ends. Even in the last 3 years, when there was opportunity for the varying groups to come together, there were clear differences which led to stultifying votes where nothing but Brexit delay was achieved.
As far as your idea of a new parliament building divest of the old trappings of antiquated power goes,I have long been in favour of such an idea. I would not have it in London however, but somewhere more central to the UK, perhaps in Manchester for instance. For me this would clearly give the signal that the seat of power did not rest in the South, but was for the whole of the U.K. something which has been lacking for a long time.
Finally, I think that you have misinterpreted my statement a'parliament which simply ceased to function properly'. I quite accept that my use of the word 'properly' is open to various interpretations, and for that I take responsibility and apologise. A much better word in the context of what I was saying would be 'effectively'. So, to answer your question, when did we have a parliament which governed effectively?, I can think of Macmillan, Blair, Thatcher to name but three.
PS.
If you haven't seen the series of Reith Lectures 2019 by Jonathan Sumption on Law and Politics, you might find them interesting.
-
Just a note to both HH and enki - really enjoying the discussion.
-
Could an Ancient Athenian Fix Britain?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000b4qp
"Comedian and classicist Jon Harvey explores modern British democracy through an ancient Athenian lens. If there's one thing we can all agree on it's that our state is in a state - could the world’s original democrats help us right the ship?"
Naturally there are any number of different systems that can be employed to try and ensure a democratic state. All have inherent flaws and helpful or unhelpful features. Within the EU, each state organises and evolves its own constitution, and the EU as a whole provides a democratic framework for its own institutions. The principles of human rights and subsidiarity ensure that state democracy is enhanced not undermined.
Although there are many flaws in the UK constitution and procedures, the electorate tends to vote against change and for a simple contention between competing interests. I think what we are seeing, and what lead to deadlock in Parliament, is not a failure of democracy but a failure of leadership.
-
Agree it needs reform, but you have to play to the rules at the time.
My point is that if the remain side, many of whom voted for and supported a referendum, had accepted the result they had the numbers to do Norway+.
They split and some gambled on another referendum.
Why should an MP that supports remaining in the EU, vote for anything other than remaining if a remain vote is an option? That they would vote for remain does not mean that they cannot vote for a referendum or even the start of withdrawal negotiations following a referendum - or for a second refendum if they think that would provide a democratic resolution.
Norway+ was not on offer in any parliamentary vote - and could not have been without prior agreement of other nations. It may well be true that it would have been best for the UK for the May WA to be passed and trade negotiations continued on a better basis - but the failure to agree it was not due to gambling by remainer MPs - but a failure of politics and leadership by both May and Corbyn, both struggling to hold together divided parties.
-
Thank you for your response, Harrowby.
Just a few points:
My opinion is that any democratic system of voting has both strengths and weaknesses, whether it be FPTP, PR or whatever. You quite rightly state one of the major weaknesses of FPTP, although I would not go along with you in suggesting that we end up with a system which is 'practically totalitarian'. I have seen no sign whatever that any dominant party has been so centralised and controlling that it requires complete subservience and bans all opposition. These are, after all, the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. A huge safeguard against the above is the fact that any government can be replaced every 5 years or so by the will of the people who wish to vote.
Thank you for your response, enki. I don't think that we are very far apart. I agree that Parliament should be taken out of London - but not to another major city. How about Milton Keynes? ::)
Somewhere - the back of my brain - I recall a senior politician (I think) describing the United Kingdom as an "elected dictatorship". You say that you have seen no"sign whatever that any dominant party has been so centralised and controlling that it requires complete subservience and bans all opposition"? Then how would you categorise Alexander Johnson's expulsion of over a score of Conservative MPs who excercised their right to represent what they considered to be in the best interests of their constituents?
-
Thank you for your response, enki. I don't think that we are very far apart. I agree that Parliament should be taken out of London - but not to another major city. How about Milton Keynes? ::)
Somewhere - the back of my brain - I recall a senior politician (I think) describing the United Kingdom as an "elected dictatorship". You say that you have seen no"sign whatever that any dominant party has been so centralised and controlling that it requires complete subservience and bans all opposition"? Then how would you categorise Alexander Johnson's expulsion of over a score of Conservative MPs who excercised their right to represent what they considered to be in the best interests of their constituents?
Cheers and a Happy New Year to you, Harrowby.
I agree, I don't think that we are too far apart. In fact I have some sympathy for your ideas. Unfortunately, the Brexit thing tends to divide people rather than bring them together.
I still think that Milton Keynes is too close to London. I would prefer somewhere more central, and I see no reason why it should not be in or close to an important city. Another suggestion I could make would be Birmingham, for instance. However this is just wishful thinking, as I cannot see it happening, at least in my lifetime.
How would I categorise Boris Johnson's 'expulsion of over a score of Conservative MPs'? Well, actually, they still represented their constituencies, they were free to express their views and vote in Parliament as they wished as independents. They had the whip withheld, meaning that they were no longer regarded as part of the Conservative Party in the HofC. Since then, 10 out of the 21 have had the whip reinstated, and many have since stood down or not been re-elected. I see no reason to think that this represents some sort of attempt to silence all opposition in the HofC. which would surely be a prerequisite for a totalitarian state. Indeed, because of Boris's weakened position, he wished to hold a General Election as soon as possible, which I would have thought is a reasonably democratic way forward, if you are unable to govern because of party splits. Futhermore, almost the same position was reached under John Major, when he withheld the whip from the party rebels who wanted Brexit(not known as that, then, of course). He too threatened an election, and put himself up for re-election as leader(which he convincingly won). I didn't see John Major as some type of totalitarian dictator! I don't see Boris Johnson in that category either.
-
I don't see Boris Johnson in that category either.
Give him time.
Lets see what he (or rather Cummings) does with the supreme Court and the Civil Service. And then watch the moves made to redraw boundaries of constituencies. Not that that last doesn't need looking at, but only imo in conjunction with a move away from FPTP.
-
I agree that Parliament should be taken out of London - but not to another major city. How about Milton Keynes? ::)
Why Milton Keynes?
-
Why Milton Keynes?
Why not?
-
Why should an MP that supports remaining in the EU, vote for anything other than remaining if a remain vote is an option? That they would vote for remain does not mean that they cannot vote for a referendum or even the start of withdrawal negotiations following a referendum - or for a second refendum if they think that would provide a democratic resolution.
Norway+ was not on offer in any parliamentary vote - and could not have been without prior agreement of other nations.
Many remain MP's went the way of Kinnock & Nick Boles and supported Norway+, if all remain MP's had joined with them then there would have been a majority. It was not on offer at this time since it can only be negotiated during transition period.
It may well be true that it would have been best for the UK for the May WA to be passed and trade negotiations continued on a better basis - but the failure to agree it was not due to gambling by remainer MPs - but a failure of politics and leadership by both May and Corbyn, both struggling to hold together divided parties.
"the failure to agree it was not due to gambling by remainer MPs", all of the failure I agree was not down to just this, they bear some responsibility.
The attitude was evident on this forum, I tried to get people into supporting Norway+ or at least discussing it, just got the usual range of replies, 'X procedure will end Brexit', 'your stupid', 'lets have another referendum', 'whataboutery', etc.
-
Many remain MP's went the way of Kinnock & Nick Boles and supported Norway+, if all remain MP's had joined with them then there would have been a majority. It was not on offer at this time since it can only be negotiated during transition period.
"the failure to agree it was not due to gambling by remainer MPs", all of the failure I agree was not down to just this, they bear some responsibility.
The attitude was evident on this forum, I tried to get people into supporting Norway+ or at least discussing it, just got the usual range of replies, 'X procedure will end Brexit', 'your stupid', 'lets have another referendum', 'whataboutery', etc.
Not from me... although I was fence sitting.
I would prefer the UK remain in the EU and, given a choice, would always vote remain but it was obvious from the day after the referendum that we could not stay in - even if another referendum resulted in 52-48 the other way, making a success of EU membership really needs a substantial majority, 60-40 say, in favour.
Our politicians have never understood this - one reason we ratified a series of treaties never put to the electorate even though most UK failures and problems were routinely blamed on Europe.
Norway+ or other EFTA type deal could only have been negotiated in a transition period after leaving - and still could be, assuming it was/is actually possible (which I doubt).
-
Given where we are my view is more pragmatic: we have to hope that Boris and his crew of Tory fuckwits make a mess of Brexit, which on form must be a possibility, so as to increase the possibility of the breakup of the UK.
It seems clear that the majority of the electorate in the the nation of England want the Tories and want Brexit - so let them have both, and if Scotland wants out then we need the option to leave them to it.
-
All future UK governments will be more accountable since anything controlled by the EU will now be controlled by the UK government.
Can you name some things that were controlled by the EU? I can think of some, but I can't think of any where it will be better after the UK has full control over them. Furthermore, I don't see the British government improving any of them with respect to people like you and me. For example, the labour laws are more likely to be changed to make it easier to exploit workers rather than harder.
Don't forget that "the EU" includes the UK until the 31st January. The UK is part of the EU law making process. Soon it will not be, but EU laws will continue to affect us unless we stop trading with them altogether.
-
So there will still be an EU-UK relationship, but you think it is going to be bad. So wouldn't it better to campaign for a closer relationship?
You voted against a closer relationship remember.
I don't need to justify my position
So it's basically "we won, so shut up"
I've explained my position and invited you to debate the future relationship.
No you haven't. I've asked you and Ippy how we will benefit and so far the closest either of you have given to an answer is your assertion that I might not benefit plus your hand wavy claim that you think we'll be better off with self determination, whatever that means. Against that, I see British people's rights to work and live anywhere in the EU suddenly curtailed and a much worse relationship with the other countries in the world's biggest trading bloc plus obstacles to trading them and a border between the mainland UK and Northern Ireland.
Brexiteers have made everybody's lives a bit worse. Frankly, I think you bloody well do need to justify yourself.
-
'delivered for PURELY party management purposes (Tory)',
Putting a word in caps does not change anything.
-
Can you name some things that were controlled by the EU? I can think of some, but I can't think of any where it will be better after the UK has full control over them. Furthermore, I don't see the British government improving any of them with respect to people like you and me. For example, the labour laws are more likely to be changed to make it easier to exploit workers rather than harder.
If labour laws were making business noncompetitive then a UK government can lower standards or vice versa. If the people are against this then they can get rid of that government.
-
You voted against a closer relationship remember.
Evasion noted.
So it's basically "we won, so shut up"
No, I do not have to justify my position to you since I'm not trying to change your mind with regard to leave/remain.
No you haven't. I've asked you and Ippy how we will benefit and so far the closest either of you have given to an answer is your assertion that I might not benefit plus your hand wavy claim that you think we'll be better off with self determination, whatever that means. Against that, I see British people's rights to work and live anywhere in the EU suddenly curtailed and a much worse relationship with the other countries in the world's biggest trading bloc plus obstacles to trading them and a border between the mainland UK and Northern Ireland.
Brexiteers have made everybody's lives a bit worse. Frankly, I think you bloody well do need to justify yourself.
This is not how democracy works, you could have changed my mind and I could then have changed the minds of others. If enough remainers did this then there may have been a different outcome.
If you were trying to change my mind then you didn't do a very good job, I got the impression you only wanted to score some points.
For what it is worth, I voted leave to have a more accountable government and thought Norway+ was a decent compromise and pretty good outcome. Norway+ now looks unlikely and the reason we won't get it is because remainers like you, didn't 'do' democracy.
-
You rabbiting on about Norway+ sounds like a political straw man that you have erected.
It is not clear how we would have arrived at that to me, given the forces that were driving the Brexit narrative.
I'm not looking for an argument I just don't see how you can posit Norway+ as having been a viable option at any time during this whole debacle.
-
...
This is not how democracy works, you could have changed my mind and I could then have changed the minds of others. If enough remainers did this then there may have been a different outcome.
If you were trying to change my mind then you didn't do a very good job, I got the impression you only wanted to score some points.
For what it is worth, I voted leave to have a more accountable government and thought Norway+ was a decent compromise and pretty good outcome. Norway+ now looks unlikely and the reason we won't get it is because remainers like you, didn't 'do' democracy.
I'm not getting this... how can you change someone's mind? All you can do is put forward arguments that you see as correct, if the other side are not listening to those there is not much that can be done, at least in a democratic system.
By your logic if remainers did not compromise and back N+ it is your fault as you didn't change their minds.
If May didn't go for N+ it is your fault for not changing her mind.
Now that the brexiters are in power if they don't opt for N+ it s your fault for not changing their minds.
If we don't agree that N+ is possible, it is your fault for not changing our minds!
-
I'm not getting this... how can you change someone's mind? All you can do is put forward arguments that you see as correct, if the other side are not listening to those there is not much that can be done, at least in a democratic system.
They might not find the arguments compelling, so come up with better arguments?
By your logic if remainers did not compromise and back N+ it is your fault as you didn't change their minds.
If May didn't go for N+ it is your fault for not changing her mind.
Now that the brexiters are in power if they don't opt for N+ it s your fault for not changing their minds.
If we don't agree that N+ is possible, it is your fault for not changing our minds!
Yes I take some responsibility for us not getting Norway+, I could have written to my MP, put a more compelling case forward on twitter. I could have persuaded some on this forum to do the same.
What else is there to do, blame everyone else? - I'm not Jeremy! :)
-
You rabbiting on about Norway+ sounds like a political straw man that you have erected.
Not seeing how it is a straw man?
It is not clear how we would have arrived at that to me, given the forces that were driving the Brexit narrative.
I'm not looking for an argument I just don't see how you can posit Norway+ as having been a viable option at any time during this whole debacle.
Many Tory MP's would have supported Norway+.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/12/nick-boles-demolishing-five-myths-about-norway-plus.html
-
Many Tory MP's would have supported Norway+.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/12/nick-boles-demolishing-five-myths-about-norway-plus.html
Norway+ (whatever that even means) was never on offer so we cannot know whether MPs would have supported it as we are in the world of at least double (more likely triple) hypotheticals.
I suspect it unlikely that May's government would ever have supported this, or negotiated it, as it clearly broke pretty well all of her stated 'red lines'. Without government support there is no way it could ever have been proposed as the only deals that could have been formally put before parliament were ones negotiated and supported by the government.
-
They might not find the arguments compelling, so come up with better arguments?
I don't think there were any compelling arguments on either side. It was a question of priorities and trade-offs. Once the referendum had been held any proposals by those who had argued for or supported Remain were dismissed as attempts to thwart "real brexit".
Yes I take some responsibility for us not getting Norway+, I could have written to my MP, put a more compelling case forward on twitter. I could have persuaded some on this forum to do the same.
...
The debates and votes in Parliament were on the withdrawal agreement (3 votes) and political declaration (2 of the 3)
N+ was not debated and could not be promised as an outcome of trade negotiations - especially once May had committed to resign as PM if the WA was passed - it had not even been suggested by the government as a possible destination.
-
N+ was not debated and could not be promised as an outcome of trade negotiations - especially once May had committed to resign as PM if the WA was passed - it had not even been suggested by the government as a possible destination.
It was debated and rejected.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/01/brexit-what-are-the-indicative-votes-mps-will-vote-on
Think of it this way possible outcomes were
1. WTO
2. Free Trade
3. Norway+
4. Another referendum
The outcome now looks like (2), those supporting (1) compromised to (2), (3) was never an option as not enough supporters of (4) were prepared to compromise.
If (4) supporters had been willing to compromise they had Boris like a puppet on a string they could have got that outcome, instead they supported an election and hoped for a hung parliament which would have meant another referendum.
-
It was debated and rejected.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/01/brexit-what-are-the-indicative-votes-mps-will-vote-on
Think of it this way possible outcomes were
1. WTO
2. Free Trade
3. Norway+
4. Another referendum
The outcome now looks like (2), those supporting (1) compromised to (2), (3) was never an option as not enough supporters of (4) were prepared to compromise.
If (4) supporters had been willing to compromise they had Boris like a puppet on a string they could have got that outcome, instead they supported an election and hoped for a hung parliament which would have meant another referendum.
Sorry, had overlooked the indicative vote - but in any case it was entirely academic. MPs could vote both for Norway and 2nd ref. if they felt the outcomes were acceptable - at least Parliament would have been able to legislate for a ref. whereas for Norway+ would have had to pass the WA first. There was no guarantee that the government and whoever was PM would want and be able to arrange a N+ deal.
-
It was debated and rejected.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/01/brexit-what-are-the-indicative-votes-mps-will-vote-on
Think of it this way possible outcomes were
1. WTO
2. Free Trade
3. Norway+
4. Another referendum
The outcome now looks like (2), those supporting (1) compromised to (2), (3) was never an option as not enough supporters of (4) were prepared to compromise.
If (4) supporters had been willing to compromise they had Boris like a puppet on a string they could have got that outcome, instead they supported an election and hoped for a hung parliament which would have meant another referendum.
Presuming that Common Market 2.0 is the equivalent of Norway+ then it was rejected overwhelmingly by Tory MPs:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes
So that hardly supports your notion that 'Many Tory MP's would have supported Norway+'
And MPs could vote for any or none of the options - so the notion that they voted against Common Market 2.0 because they couldn't compromise is nonsense - they could have vote for both second referendum AND Common Market 2.0.
But as we have discussed many times EFTA was not, and could not have been, on the table. Why - because the negotiations were between the UK and the EU and neither have the authority to grant EFTA membership. Only the EFTA countries could do that and it was pretty clear that they wouldn't grant the UK membership as it would completely unbalance their alliance of small countries.
-
Presuming that Common Market 2.0 is the equivalent of Norway+ then it was rejected overwhelmingly by Tory MPs:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes
So that hardly supports your notion that 'Many Tory MP's would have supported Norway+'
I rephrase to 'some Tory MPs'.
I don't think you are disagreeing, it was not an option because there was not enough support for it. At the time it was a majority remain parliament.
But as we have discussed many times EFTA was not, and could not have been, on the table. Why - because the negotiations were between the UK and the EU and neither have the authority to grant EFTA membership. Only the EFTA countries could do that and it was pretty clear that they wouldn't grant the UK membership as it would completely unbalance their alliance of small countries.
You may have asserted that EFTA could not have been possible I'm fairly sure I refuted this at the time. However...
As per https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/12/nick-boles-demolishing-five-myths-about-norway-plus.html
"Some have claimed that Norway is opposed to British membership of EEA/Efta. This is not true. A recent headline in Norway’s Nationen newspaper read “Solberg sier britene er velhomne i EFTA.” In the piece, Erna Solberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, confirmed “if that is what they [UK] really want then we will find a solution in the future.” We would need to negotiate a derogation to the Efta Convention so we could be part of a customs arrangement with the EU. But this is something that could be negotiated by December 2020 as part of our Efta accession."
I'm assuming you now accept that we are leaving, as I recall you would prefer EFTA, why are you talking it down?
-
Sorry, had overlooked the indicative vote - but in any case it was entirely academic. MPs could vote both for Norway and 2nd ref. if they felt the outcomes were acceptable - at least Parliament would have been able to legislate for a ref. whereas for Norway+ would have had to pass the WA first. There was no guarantee that the government and whoever was PM would want and be able to arrange a N+ deal.
Valid points except they had Boris dangling on a string, so Parliament was calling the shots and could have forced things through. As well as the EFTA compromises there were other options, if the LibDems had compromised we could have had Corbyn as PM, if Corbyn had compromised we could have had a Ken Clarke as PM.
You are right it is now academic, Boris gambled on an election and won.
-
Valid points except they had Boris dangling on a string ...
The indicative votes took place long before Boris became PM.
-
Thought I'd have a read through some of the posts on this thread and mainly noticed two things overall one was the differing ideas about democracy.
My idea about democracy is if we, the general public, were offered a referendum where all of the political parties present in The House of Commons agreed the ref would be binding whichever way it went and say the referendum was to either fix the price of a 415 gram tin baked beans at ten pence a tin for the next ten years or not, yes or no.
For the sake of argument lets say yes won this referendum there would have to be something seriously wrong with how Parliament was working if there was anything other than this fixed price of baked beans for the next ten years, regardless of anything else.
The other thing I was more reminded of was Baron Niel Kinnock and his misses Baroness Glenys Kinnockn can anyone tell me if they're going to loose their cushy little numbers somewhere or somehow connected with the Brussels gasworks building or have they now retired with some sort of meagre pension, if anyone knows the answer only I've been so worried about these two poor souls.
ippy.
-
...
My idea about democracy is if we, the general public, were offered a referendum where all of the political parties present in The House of Commons agreed the ref would be binding whichever way it went and say the referendum was to either fix the price of a 415 gram tin baked beans at ten pence a tin for the next ten years or not, yes or no.
...
The Commons cannot (and did not) agree that a referendum be binding unless they legislate that it is. And that is not possible unless there is a precise and exact definition of the action to be taken: "leave" does not cut it as there was no fixed interpretation - unlike your beans example.
They informally agreed that it would be binding - but there were also plenty of assurances that we would not leave if a suitable trading agreement, avoiding damage to the UK, could not be put in place.
-
The Commons cannot (and did not) agree that a referendum be binding unless they legislate that it is. And that is not possible unless there is a precise and exact definition of the action to be taken: "leave" does not cut it as there was no fixed interpretation - unlike your beans example.
They informally agreed that it would be binding - but there were also plenty of assurances that we would not leave if a suitable trading agreement, avoiding damage to the UK, could not be put in place.
You must need to visit 'Specsavers', I'm not going to go through all of it with you Udayana, save just to say we got there in the end in spite of.
ippy.
-
You must need to visit 'Specsavers', I'm not going to go through all of it with you Udayana, save just to say we got there in the end in spite of.
ippy.
If you can show me where it says "binding" I'll happily take my specs back to be fixed.
Anyway, happy that you are satisfied that the withdrawal agreement is enough to be seen as leaving.
-
If you can show me where it says "binding" I'll happily take my specs back to be fixed.
Anyway, happy that you are satisfied that the withdrawal agreement is enough to be seen as leaving.
I can't imagine for one moment that you haven't had or still have exactly similar access to the media that most of us here on the forum have.
Therefore unless we're going into a splitting hairs or some obscure form of semantics Udayana, 'Specsavers'!
ippy.
-
My idea about democracy is if we, the general public, were offered a referendum where all of the political parties present in The House of Commons agreed the ref would be binding whichever way it went and say the referendum was to either fix the price of a 415 gram tin baked beans at ten pence a tin for the next ten years or not, yes or no.
Nope - the referendum was advisory only, so it was not mandatory that the result be enacted. It might have been politically difficult for some, but not all, to ignore the result but it would not be legislatively difficult to ignore the result. Moreover it was not the case that all parties in the HoC agreed that the referendum was binding: the SNP (who are the dominant party in Scotland) didn't, they still don't, and the Scottish Parliament voted just yesterday to reject the Brexit legislation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51026014
-
And of course there was Farage and unfinished business
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-eu-referendum_uk_576e6585e4b08d2c56393f12
-
Thought I'd have a read through some of the posts on this thread and mainly noticed two things overall one was the differing ideas about democracy.
My idea about democracy is if we, the general public, were offered a referendum where all of the political parties present in The House of Commons agreed the ref would be binding whichever way it went and say the referendum was to either fix the price of a 415 gram tin baked beans at ten pence a tin for the next ten years or not, yes or no.
For the sake of argument lets say yes won this referendum there would have to be something seriously wrong with how Parliament was working if there was anything other than this fixed price of baked beans for the next ten years, regardless of anything else.
The other thing I was more reminded of was Baron Niel Kinnock and his misses Baroness Glenys Kinnockn can anyone tell me if they're going to loose their cushy little numbers somewhere or somehow connected with the Brussels gasworks building or have they now retired with some sort of meagre pension, if anyone knows the answer only I've been so worried about these two poor souls.
ippy.
Bad spelling and laboured, leaden sarcasm are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments.
-
The other thing I was more reminded of was Baron Niel Kinnock and his misses Baroness Glenys Kinnockn can anyone tell me if they're going to loose their cushy little numbers somewhere or somehow connected with the Brussels gasworks building or have they now retired with some sort of meagre pension, if anyone knows the answer only I've been so worried about these two poor souls.
That's a really poor argument when you consider the lengths Farage has gone to get money out of the EU. Not to mention getting his kids to hang on to those all important EU passports.
-
That's a really poor argument when you consider the lengths Farage has gone to get money out of the EU. Not to mention getting his kids to hang on to those all important EU passports.
Why would I in particular be bothered about Farage, other than he was actually successful with his political aim?
What exactly have the Kinnocks been particularly successful about politically.
ippy.
-
Why would I in particular be bothered about Farage, other than he was actually successful with his political aim?
What exactly have the Kinnocks been particularly successful about politically.
ippy.
Clearly you are quite happy to treat those agree with you more favourably than those that don't.
-
Why would I in particular be bothered about Farage, other than he was actually successful with his political aim?
What exactly have the Kinnocks been particularly successful about politically.
ippy.
The Kinnocks are decent people, Farage is a racist sewer rat.
-
The Kinnocks are decent people, Farage is a racist sewer rat.
I feel more or less neutral about Mr Farage but you have to admit he did however achieve his aim, I don't think whatever anyone might feel about him, sewer rat or not, I can't see he could be justifiably accused of being a hanger on, such as those two virtually useless nonentities the Kinnocks, even if they are as you say very decent people.
Regards, ippy.
-
I have just read about Glenys Kinnock. Interesting, if only all our politicians were so rational and thought along the same lines as you. I refer of course to her membership of Humanist UK and the National Secular Society.
I suspect everybody who hold those views and affiliations of being useless nonentities.
-
I have just read about Glenys Kinnock. Interesting, if only all our politicians were so rational and thought along the same lines as you. I refer of course to her membership of Humanist UK and the National Secular Society.
I've been thinking of joining 'Humanists UK', even though I'm a practising Anglican*, and I read 'New Humanist' magazine. Th NSS, though, is rather extreme, the atheistical equivalent of extreme fundy Christians. HUK and NH are nice, reasonable types, equivalent to the moderate, rational wing of Christianity, as represented by Rowan Williams.
*I hope to get the hang of it one day.
-
I have just read about Glenys Kinnock. Interesting, if only all our politicians were so rational and thought along the same lines as you. I refer of course to her membership of Humanist UK and the National Secular Society.
I suspect everybody who hold those views and affiliations of being useless nonentities.
Yes I dare say we also breathe in a similar way too.
ippy.
-
I've been thinking of joining 'Humanists UK', even though I'm a practising Anglican*, and I read 'New Humanist' magazine. Th NSS, though, is rather extreme, the atheistical equivalent of extreme fundy Christians. HUK and NH are nice, reasonable types, equivalent to the moderate, rational wing of Christianity, as represented by Rowan Williams.
*I hope to get the hang of it one day.
There's quite a few believers of various religions that are Humanists as well so I doubt very much that you would find yourself alone within the Humanist organisation.
ippy.
-
Just reading estimates that the UK economy will be 3% smaller because of Brexit, or roughly £200 billion by next year. But note, these are remainer lies.
-
Just reading estimates that the UK economy will be 3% smaller because of Brexit, or roughly £200 billion by next year. But note, these are remainer lies.
Not one remainer has ever told a lie about anything connected with brexit?
ippy
-
Not one remainer has ever told a lie about anything connected with brexit?
ippy
No, I am saying that the idea that the economy is shrinking because of Brexit is obviously fake news.
-
No, I am saying that the idea that the economy is shrinking because of Brexit is obviously fake news.
Does that in some way mean that this obviously fake news about the UK's shrinking economy due to brexit, you mention, effect the not so fake news that the UK will be regaining its sovereignty.
ippy.
-
Does that in some way mean that this obviously fake news about the UK's shrinking economy due to brexit, you mention, effect the not so fake news that the UK will be regaining its sovereignty.
ippy.
We never lost our soverignty, as you know perfectly well.
-
We never lost our sovereignty , as you know perfectly well.
OK O C, you say we never lost our sovereignty, what word is it that you would prefer to use to describe the freedoms we will be gaining when we leave the EU on the 31st.
(It would be appreciated if you could confine yourself to answering just about the word you would use to describe the freedoms we'll be gaining when the UK leaves the EU preferably without some long diatribe of how much whatever it is you wish to say plainly or allude to about leaving the EU you personally don't like).
That is if you have any intention of answering my post of course.
ippy.
-
Just reading estimates that the UK economy will be 3% smaller because of Brexit, or roughly £200 billion by next year. But note, these are remainer lies.
Do you mean 3% smaller than it otherwise would have have been had it not been for remainers dragging out the process for nearly four years?
-
Do you mean 3% smaller than it otherwise would have have been had it not been for remainers dragging out the process for nearly four years?
Sounds about right to me.
ippy
-
In fact, nearly all negative things are the fault of remainers, surely? Delays to HS2, Meghan wearing the wrong tights, the Iran conflict, is there anything they haven't fucked up?
-
OK O C, you say we never lost our sovereignty, what word is it that you would prefer to use to describe the freedoms we will be gaining when we leave the EU on the 31st.
Just to remind you ippy, you have been asked multiple times what the advantages of leaving the EU would be that in any way afftects your life and you've totally refused to answer.
How about, now that we know it's going to happen, you tell us one thing that leaving the EU will do to make anybody's life better? One "freedom" that will allow the UK government to do something positive that it couldn't do before?
-
* tumbleweed *
-
Just to remind you ippy, you have been asked multiple times what the advantages of leaving the EU would be that in any way afftects your life and you've totally refused to answer.
How about, now that we know it's going to happen, you tell us one thing that leaving the EU will do to make anybody's life better? One "freedom" that will allow the UK government to do something positive that it couldn't do before?
How many times do I have to repeat myself why I have no intention to put up clay Pigeons for anyone it's all there if you look back far enough, I have left you lot alone after the election, surly that merits a brownie point or two?
Funny enough seeing that Labour, sailors cap, leader twerp buried was more amusing to me than the rest.
ippy.
-
How many times do I have to repeat myself why I have no intention to put up clay Pigeons for anyone it's all there if you look back far enough, I have left you lot alone after the election, surly that merits a brownie point or two?
You are exhibiting astounding hypocrisy. You just asked somebody to be specific about a subject that you yourself have constantly refused to be specific about yourself.
-
You are exhibiting astounding hypocrisy. You just asked somebody to be specific about a subject that you yourself have constantly refused to be specific about yourself.
I asked without an ounce of hostility, or splitting hairs about the terms used.
ippy
-
I asked without an ounce of hostility, or splitting hairs about the terms used.
As you were asked before you decided to constantly comment on a subject you then refused to go into details about. Now you want others to be specific about something you refused to be specific about yourself. Can you seriously not see the double standards?
-
As you were asked before you decided to constantly comment on a subject you then refused to go into details about. Now you want others to be specific about something you refused to be specific about yourself. Can you seriously not see the double standards?
I did specify two reasons why I'm a leaver those two reasons alone were enough for me to want to leave the EU, I have many more reasons I look forward to leaving the EU for but the thread was such a hostile territory where hostility isn't a reason to remain or leave it was and apparently is still a factor on that thread and I am not going to join in with that hostility.
I suppose any of this kind of forum will inevitably have its fare share of semanticists that's the why for, for the previous attempt to nail down a posting on all four corners whilst at the same time making an attempt to go around the hostility of that particular thread.
No doubt any response to this post as well will have some of the leave/remain hostility incorporated somewhere in its text.
ippy
PS I don't see remainers as the enemy I do however think they've got it wrong and that's all, I wish there were a few more contributors to this thread from either side of the fence could see things in this way.
-
OK O C, you say we never lost our sovereignty, what word is it that you would prefer to use to describe the freedoms we will be gaining when we leave the EU on the 31st.
Non-existent?
Is that freedom of movement across Europe? Or freedom to move capital and goods across Europe? Or freedom to work across Europe? To study across Europe?
To be clear, what 'freedoms' do you think 'we' (another term that probably needs to be defined carefully) will gain when we remove ourselves from the most valuable social and economic agreement we currently have?
O.
-
Non-existent?
Is that freedom of movement across Europe? Or freedom to move capital and goods across Europe? Or freedom to work across Europe? To study across Europe?
To be clear, what 'freedoms' do you think 'we' (another term that probably needs to be defined carefully) will gain when we remove ourselves from the most valuable social and economic agreement we currently have?
O.
We obviously don't have any common ground to start with like I have said before I can't see this EU is something most of us have any area where we're likely to agree, I feel probably as strongly as you about leaving Outlander I won't be changing my pov and you can shoot at that statement as much as you like I expect we both think of each other as blind as a bat to whatever we think is right, can't see that's going to alter.
ippy
-
I did specify two reasons why I'm a leaver ...
But you wouldn't or couldn't say why those things were in any way bad for people in the UK or how removing them would do anybody in the UK any good.
I have had my rights as an EU citizen - which I value far, far more than my UK citizenship, doubly so in nasty, inward-looking, xenophobic Brexit Britain - taken away from me by people like you who can't even say why it was a good idea.
Then you have the audacity to tell people that we will be gaining some freedoms that you can't or won't actually articulate either.
I'll tell you: the government will now have the "freedom" to trash workers rights, to "review" people's human rights, to lower food, safety, and environmental standards, and so on. Great. And we've elected a rich lying racist with no morality as PM, who doesn't give a fuck about anybody but himself. Hurrah!
-
I'll tell you: the government will now have the "freedom" to trash workers rights, to "review" people's human rights, to lower food, safety, and environmental standards, and so on. Great. And we've elected a rich lying racist with no morality as PM, who doesn't give a fuck about anybody but himself. Hurrah!
Indeed, Stranger. And someone who not only likes to fuck women but also to fuck business.
-
But you wouldn't or couldn't say why those things were in any way bad for people in the UK or how removing them would do anybody in the UK any good.
I have had my rights as an EU citizen - which I value far, far more than my UK citizenship, doubly so in nasty, inward-looking, xenophobic Brexit Britain - taken away from me by people like you who can't even say why it was a good idea.
Then you have the audacity to tell people that we will be gaining some freedoms that you can't or won't actually articulate either.
I'll tell you: the government will now have the "freedom" to trash workers rights, to "review" people's human rights, to lower food, safety, and environmental standards, and so on. Great. And we've elected a rich lying racist with no morality as PM, who doesn't give a fuck about anybody but himself. Hurrah!
Most of my post 5588 to Outlander would equally apply to you Stranger, however I must admit I would have felt as aggrieved as you about Brexit had the Brexit opposition succeeded in turning over the 2016 referendum result, but even then I would have still found it easy to agree or not with you on various other topics regardless of our differences on Brexit.
ippy.
-
No doubt the hard of thinking will be rejoicing on 1st Feb that Brexit is 'done' - I give it until the end of March before reality starts to dawn on them, and by the summer the impending folly will become clearer when the soundbytes and lame promises are exposed as a sham.
Hard to say what the first major problems will be: my guess is that goods to and from NI will be exposed as problematic, as will the prospect of travel problems, where the biggie will be the prospect of 'no deal' at the end of the calendar year.
-
No doubt the hard of thinking will be rejoicing on 1st Feb that Brexit is 'done' - I give it until the end of March before reality starts to dawn on them, and by the summer the impending folly will become clearer when the soundbytes and lame promises are exposed as a sham.
Hard to say what the first major problems will be: my guess is that goods to and from NI will be exposed as problematic, as will the prospect of travel problems, where the biggie will be the prospect of 'no deal' at the end of the calendar year.
They won't change their minds - they'll contrive to blame all the problems on remainers.
-
No doubt the hard of thinking will be rejoicing on 1st Feb that Brexit is 'done' - I give it until the end of March before reality starts to dawn on them, and by the summer the impending folly will become clearer when the soundbytes and lame promises are exposed as a sham.
Hard to say what the first major problems will be: my guess is that goods to and from NI will be exposed as problematic, as will the prospect of travel problems, where the biggie will be the prospect of 'no deal' at the end of the calendar year.
Whatever happens we will no longer be a part of that ever closer union, the EU anymore, the UK, as far as I know, isn't exactly known for being brain dead or incapable of doing trade with the world and why shouldn't we continue to get along with the EU in all sorts of ways without being tied to them politically.
By the way, I cannot stand that noise that's often referred to as country music either, if you enjoy music why listen to that stuff?
ippy.
-
Leave.EU wanted churches to ring their bells on Feb.1st, but the national bell-ringing organisation has said it doesn't support the idea. Churches which refuse should get a no-bell prize.
-
Leave.EU wanted churches to ring their bells on Feb.1st, but the national bell-ringing organisation has said it doesn't support the idea. Churches which refuse should get a no-bell prize.
Jocelyn Bell Burnell got in before you there with the no-bell prize statement O E, the two men Messrs Hewish and Kyle managed to get the Nobell prize for the discovery of Pulsars when she should have been included at the same time quite a while back, I think it was about two years ago she too was recognised as an equal partner with the two blokes, justice served in the end.
ippy.
PS on a more serious side the brexit argument's over now why don't we drop it and try to get along with each other.
-
We obviously don't have any common ground to start with like I have said before I can't see this EU is something most of us have any area where we're likely to agree, I feel probably as strongly as you about leaving Outlander I won't be changing my pov and you can shoot at that statement as much as you like I expect we both think of each other as blind as a bat to whatever we think is right, can't see that's going to alter.
If you aren't bothered with engaging, why post? Isn't that pretty much the definition of trolling?
O.
-
If you aren't bothered with engaging, why post? Isn't that pretty much the definition of trolling?
O.
So I can't even say separation from the EU politically is enough reason for me, on its own, it's reason enough for me to want to leave the EU, I'm sure there wasn't anything abusive or troll like in that statement, I don't like the remain point of view on brexit nor can I remember being abusive about the remain view of brexit either.
-
Leave.EU wanted churches to ring their bells on Feb.1st, but the national bell-ringing organisation has said it doesn't support the idea. Churches which refuse should get a no-bell prize.
On that theme - I have to laugh at the jingoistic notion of getting Big Ben to chime for Brexit via being funded by the public: not only won't we hear it here in Scotland, or indeed in deepest Hertfordshire, but this is another London-centric idea that doesn't travel well.
No wonder some of us regard Brexit with contempt.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51107646
-
No doubt the hard of thinking will be rejoicing on 1st Feb that Brexit is 'done' - I give it until the end of March before reality starts to dawn on them, and by the summer the impending folly will become clearer when the soundbytes and lame promises are exposed as a sham.
Hard to say what the first major problems will be: my guess is that goods to and from NI will be exposed as problematic, as will the prospect of travel problems, where the biggie will be the prospect of 'no deal' at the end of the calendar year.
There's also the issue of harmonization of regulations. Of course, UK regs run in parallel with EU regs. So what now? Do you set up separate production lines with separate regs? Rather expensive. Or you could switch to US regs, possibly choking off trade with the EU. Still, Liz Truss has the answers.
-
Brexit will have soon cost the UK more than all its payments to the EU over the past 47 years put together (https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T)
-
Thank you Tories, and Tory voters: especially those in parts of England who switched sides to support the Tories. See what you've done - and it will get worse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51161808
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/18/savid-javid-warns-there-will-be-no-alignment-on-eu-regulations-after-brexit
-
Thank you Tories, and Tory voters: especially those in parts of England who switched sides to support the Tories. See what you've done - and it will get worse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51161808
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/18/savid-javid-warns-there-will-be-no-alignment-on-eu-regulations-after-brexit
No-deal is fine with Johnson. It was only because parliament made leaving with no deal last year impossible that he got off his backside and into any negotiation at all. He is using the same methods, impossible red lines and deadline, to get to WTO rules now.
-
My understanding is that the only countries trading solely on WTO rules are Palau and Mauritania. North Korea trades largely on WTO rules.
What company we shall be keeping.
-
Thanks for that link Gordon:
Javid once said the UK’s best economic place was to remain in the EU and the single market. In May 2016, a month before the referendum he said the only thing guaranteed about leaving the bloc was a decade of “stagnation and doubt”.
“Just like the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, and IMF head Christine Lagarde, I still believe that Britain is better off in. And that’s all because of the single market.
“It’s a great invention, one that even Lady Thatcher campaigned enthusiastically to create. The world’s largest economic bloc, it gives every business in Britain access to 500 million customers with no barriers, no tariffs and no local legislation to worry about,” he said in an article in the Daily Telegraph.
So that would be Javid the lying, duplicitous shit talking, presumably.
-
Brexshitters bang on about us being able to trade on WTO rules, as though that's fine, but as I understand it, WTO rules are the default, which a country is reduced to if it hasn't got anything better in place.
-
Brexshitters bang on about us being able to trade on WTO rules, as though that's fine, but as I understand it, WTO rules are the default, which a country is reduced to if it hasn't got anything better in place.
My understanding, too.
See my earlier post.
-
All the inside news - from the Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902843/Ministers-secretly-restart-No-Deal-plans-amid-fears-trade-talks-Brussels-collapse.html
What they want is a free trade deal without the backing of a level playing field. I expect excluding tax evasion and money laundering provisions also play a big part.
Whatever happens, anything bad can be blamed on the EU or Remainers trying to undermine progress.
-
All the inside news - from the Mail:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7902843/Ministers-secretly-restart-No-Deal-plans-amid-fears-trade-talks-Brussels-collapse.html
What they want is a free trade deal without the backing of a level playing field. I expect excluding tax evasion and money laundering provisions also play a big part.
Whatever happens, anything bad can be blamed on the EU or Remainers trying to undermine progress.
I'm pretty sure it will be No Deal. I can't believe the Brexiteers have brought this country so low.
-
D'oh!
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/june-mummery-tweet-about-brexit-and-fisheries-committee-1-6474994?fbclid=IwAR2N2Jre3H_tU-RYAkVGBlwtrSteR_pxPgkOjedKOVD6dfJR7Jto8hiPRfQ
-
As if confirmation that the UK is irrevocably broken was still needed, the Welsh legislature has now joined Holyrood and Stormont in not consenting to the Brexit legislation. Since the Tories will proceed anyway (so much for 'bringing the country together'), the sooner the UK implodes the better since Brexit is primarily an English disease.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-51181641
-
As if confirmation that the UK is irrevocably broken was still needed, the Welsh legislature has now joined Holyrood and Stormont in not consenting to the Brexit legislation. Since the Tories will proceed anyway (so much for 'bringing the country together'), the sooner the UK implodes the better since Brexit is primarily an English disease.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-51181641
Except that more Welsh people voted for Brexit than Remain. Please stop trying to make this about regions. It's not. There are plenty of people in England who are just as fucked off with this as you are, just as there are plenty of people in Scotland who voted Leave.
-
Except that more Welsh people voted for Brexit than Remain. Please stop trying to make this about regions. It's not. There are plenty of people in England who are just as fucked off with this as you are, just as there are plenty of people in Scotland who voted Leave.
Scotland isn't a region though: it is a nation that has its own parliament, which is being ignored by Westminster, with separate legal and educational systems etc. Therefore the views of its parliament regarding the Brexit legislation are important since the Scottish parliament is considered to reflect the views of its electorate and one aspect of this is a rejection in Scotland of both the Tory party and Brexit in both Holyrood and in current Scottish representation in Westminster.
FPP elections and referenda, where the 2016 result in Scotland was notable, are crude methods but by any standard the 2019 GE result, bearing in mind the context, indicates that Brexit is happening because it was the desire of the majority of the English electorate in 2016 to the extent that last year a substantial number of voters in England switched allegiance in order to support Brexit - and in Scotland, where the Tories campaigned on the basis that a vote for them was a vote against Indyref2/independence, lost substantial ground. Therefore the 'United Kingdom' isn't 'united' at all and the political mismatch between Scotland, and to a lesser extent NI, and England & Wales, seems to me to be firmly established now to the extent that the UK is untenable in the longer term if the electorate in England continue to support the Tories.
My hope, for what it is worth, is that Brexit (which won't be 'done' this month) will be the monumental fuck-up it promises to be, and that perhaps as 2020 progresses and the risk of 'no deal' in December grows, that this reality will force the political agenda in ways that encourages the break-up of the UK: food shortages and price rises, negative effects on jobs and employee rights and problems with goods moving to and from NI all look like potential problems - and that is without the risks of a closer trade relationship with the US.
Perhaps it may even be that the very people in the English regions who were naive enough to jump on the Tory bandwagon last year so as to let Brexit happen will be the very ones making the most noise once the penny eventually drops. For things to change so as to either get Brexit into safer hands and/or break-up the UK we are now dependent on the incompetence and intransigence of the Tory government - so we at least have a chance.
-
Congratulations on Brexit, guys! All the best for the future!
Don't worry...everything will be just fine..! :)
-
Congratulations on Brexit, guys! All the best for the future!
Don't worry...everything will be just fine..! :)
I fear you may have been taken in by some bollocks our PM has been spouting about "coming together" and "healing". I would suggest you just keep out of it. You don't generally congratulate people on cutting off their own limbs.
-
Scotland isn't a region though:
Yes it is.
it is a nation
It's that too.
that has its own parliament, which is being ignored by Westminster
The current government is ignoring pretty much everybody. Don't feel bad.
Brexit is happening because it was the desire of the majority of the English electorate in 2016
It's happening because a small majority of the people who bothered to vote in Britain voted for it. There were not separate referendums for the separate nations of the UK. The only reason we know that a majority of the people in Scotland who voted, voted Remain is because of the way the counting was done.
My hope, for what it is worth, is that Brexit (which won't be 'done' this month) will be the monumental fuck-up it promises to be
It is my conclusion that the only way to persuade the Brexiteers that they have made a mistake is to show them the damage that is being done. Unfortunately, at this point Brexit is a cult, so even that might not work.
Anyway, as of tomorrow, I am no longer a Remainer, I am a Rejoiner.
-
Congratulations on Brexit, guys! All the best for the future!
Don't worry...everything will be just fine..! :)
Today is the darkest day of British history that has occurred in my lifetime. It will take decades to repair the damage that Brexit has done.
-
Congratulations on Brexit, guys! All the best for the future!
Don't worry...everything will be just fine..! :)
Out of the frying pan... (https://tinyurl.com/roldlem)
-
The Brexit party all but pulled moonies in their last day in the EU parliament. Strange bunch.
-
Well ok.... but there must be someone here who is happy with Brexit, surely...... :-\
It can't be that bad...! A majority of the British cannot be wrong about what is good for them.
Cheer up, guys! :)
-
Well ok.... but there must be someone here who is happy with Brexit, surely...... :-\
It can't be that bad...! A majority of the British cannot be wrong about what is good for them.
Cheer up, guys! :)
It wasn't a 'majority' of the British, it was a small majority of those who bothered to vote in the referendum.
-
Well ok.... but there must be someone here who is happy with Brexit, surely...... :-\
It can't be that bad...! A majority of the British cannot be wrong about what is good for them.
Cheer up, guys! :)
The only bright side is that the Tories, being Tories, will be exposed as presiding over an emerging disaster and that as the predictable shambles unfolds in various ways more and more of the Scottish electorate will be convinced that we need to jettison the UK, and that the opportunity to do so will present itself in due course.
Brexit, and this Tory government, are primarily owned by the England and Wales electorate, and the various pictures of them joyfully waving the butcher's apron last night was the end on the phoney Brexit: reality will be along directly.
-
It can't be that bad...! A majority of the British cannot be wrong about what is good for them.
Cheer up, guys! :)
37% of the electorate (a little more than one third) voted to leave the EU. The vote was legally advisory not mandatory. The referendum campaign was poorly organised and the "No" campaign was largely in the hands of a group of millionaires concerned with protecting their wealth from reasonable taxation.
The incompetent prime minister who organised the referendum for purely party management reasons promptly took the cowards way out. His successor was clueless and she has been followed by a self-interested man who has spent many years courting popularity by appearing to be an amiable buffoon on television programmes.
A possible consequence is that membership of the largest free-trade, openly democratic, group of countries in the world may be jettisoned in favour of becoming the unofficial 51st state of the right-wing, religiously fundamental, gun-toting USA.
-
Well ok.... but there must be someone here who is happy with Brexit, surely...... :-\
It can't be that bad...! A majority of the British cannot be wrong about what is good for them.
Cheer up, guys! :)
I'm really pleased with the result Sriram, now have a read of the shower of abuse that's very likely to follow this post.
Both sides of the Brexit dispute seem to think the other side have lost their marbles and I can't see that altering for some considerable time.
In my experience Brexit's a subject that's not polite to speak about within a family environment I've only heard coded messages referring to who the leavers or remainers are in the family and there's a need to tread lightly with anything to do with the dreaded subject.
I suppose at age 77 years I can be firmly be included among the 'old gits' section of society perhaps that's why I have difficulty understanding why there appears to be so much overuse of the old Anglo Saxon four letter expletives these days, I find its use more disappointing than shocking, Brexit seems to be pulling out so much of this language, a shame.
Regards, ippy.
-
37% of the electorate (a little more than one third) voted to leave the EU. The vote was legally advisory not mandatory. The referendum campaign was poorly organised and the "No" campaign was largely in the hands of a group of millionaires concerned with protecting their wealth from reasonable taxation.
The incompetent prime minister who organised the referendum for purely party management reasons promptly took the cowards way out. His successor was clueless and she has been followed by a self-interested man who has spent many years courting popularity by appearing to be an amiable buffoon on television programmes.
A possible consequence is that membership of the largest free-trade, openly democratic, group of countries in the world may be jettisoned in favour of becoming the unofficial 51st state of the right-wing, religiously fundamental, gun-toting USA.
What were the percentages of the recent general election, I don't know the figures, should it be turned over for any reason?
ippy.
-
Brexit seems to be pulling out so much of this language, a shame.
Yes get really upset about a four letter word. So much easier to get enraged about that, than about the killing of an elected representative of the people by a Brexiteer.
-
What were the percentages of the recent general election, I don't know the figures, should it be turned over for any reason?
ippy.
For the hard of thinking our democracy is not representative. My vote as a Labour voter was not worth as much as your vote as a Conservative (at this election) voter. We need a system that reflects more accurately the split of votes in this country. In other words we need to ditch first past the post.
That the Tories achieved 45% of the vote should tell any thinking person that they should not have a majority, let alone a huge one that in no way reflects the make up of the UK. This continued electoral deficit has the effect of distorting political thinking in this country. It is wrong. It is undemocratic and it leads to governments that pay lip service to the will of the people.
-
And how do you think the good people of Northern Ireland will feel about that - or d
on't they count?
Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland takes pride of place above the needs and wants of England, Scotland and Wales?
They did take part in the vote and like the rest of those voting knew that the most voted for is the outcome of the vote to go ahead,, didn't they?
Anchormaan this is not about one country or their particular wants. This is about the wants of the united nations as a whole. Brexit was voted for and that is is what is happening. It is the many not the few which is the deciding vote.
-
12 3/4 hours into the brave, bright, exciting new future for our great country! (Sarcasm alert.)
I've got an indelible marker ready, to deface any of those hypocritically-messaged 50p pieces that come my way.
-
Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland takes pride of place above the needs and wants of England, Scotland and Wales?
They did take part in the vote and like the rest of those voting knew that the most voted for is the outcome of the vote to go ahead,, didn't they?
Anchormaan this is not about one country or their particular wants. This is about the wants of the united nations as a whole. Brexit was voted for and that is is what is happening. It is the many not the few which is the deciding vote.
I'm suggesting that, in this corrupt, moribund farcwe of a union, the overweening influence of one of the four nations as opposed to others, festers and serves to undermine any unity Boris the liar excpects as a dividend from his policies.
-
For the hard of thinking our democracy is not representative. My vote as a Labour voter was not worth as much as your vote as a Conservative (at this election) voter. We need a system that reflects more accurately the split of votes in this country. In other words we need to ditch first past the post.
That the Tories achieved 45% of the vote should tell any thinking person that they should not have a majority, let alone a huge one that in no way reflects the make up of the UK. This continued electoral deficit has the effect of distorting political thinking in this country. It is wrong. It is undemocratic and it leads to governments that pay lip service to the will of the people.
This point has been discussed on the BBC's Radio 4 'Any Questions' programme this week, 31st Jan 20, it's a difficult one whether we go for PR or a first past the post system they're both very debatable have a listen Trent.
I don't think you can justifiably accuse this government of only paying lip service to the application of Brexit, no matter how much you may dislike the end product.
ippy.
-
A taste of things to come, perhaps.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-trade-talks-eu-to-back-spain-over-gibraltar-claims
-
Yes get really upset about a four letter word. So much easier to get enraged about that, than about the killing of an elected representative of the people by a Brexiteer.
Like I said 'disappointed', certainly not upset or enraged, believe it or not I probably like you live in the real world.
I've never mentioned anything about that horrendous murder of Joe Cox, so it's a bit of a jump from that to where you seem to be accusing me of going along with this murder committed by an obviously commitable nutter that happened to mumble something about Brexit, where does all of that lot come from Trent? Surly it can't be that bad?
ippy
-
A taste of things to come, perhaps.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-trade-talks-eu-to-back-spain-over-gibraltar-claims
The Guardian again, no BBC link?
Regards, ippy.
-
The Guardian again, no BBC link?
Regards, ippy.
The Guardian is a reputable source, ippy.
-
Ippy:- I suppose at age 77 years I can be firmly be included among the 'old gits' section of society perhaps that's why I have difficulty understanding why there appears to be so much overuse of the old Anglo Saxon four letter expletives these days, I find its use more disappointing than shocking, Brexit seems to be pulling out so much of this language, a shame.
...
I doubt it will affect you much ippy, neither would it had we 'Remained'.
-
Like I said 'disappointed', certainly not upset or enraged, believe it or not I probably like you live in the real world.
I've never mentioned anything about that horrendous murder of Joe Cox, so it's a bit of a jump from that to where you seem to be accusing me of going along with this murder committed by an obviously commitable nutter that happened to mumble something about Brexit, where does all of that lot come from Trent? Surly it can't be that bad?
ippy
You were the one who brought up things that Brexit had pulled out, namely bad language. I was just suggesting that bad language was perhaps the least of things it had pulled out, that you or I should be concerned with. But if you are content with seeing yourself as an 'old git' with added snowflake so be it.
-
Ippy:- I suppose at age 77 years I can be firmly be included among the 'old gits' section of society perhaps that's why I have difficulty understanding why there appears to be so much overuse of the old Anglo Saxon four letter expletives these days, I find its use more disappointing than shocking, Brexit seems to be pulling out so much of this language, a shame.
...
I doubt it will affect you much ippy, neither would it had we 'Remained'.
Like so many remainers I too like to think I know what's best for our future generations the only difference is how we see what we think is best and that's why we both voted according to our own individual opinions.
The thought of Brussels handing down their laws to us alone is bad enough amongst many other reasons that are in my opinion equally as bad for the UK's future.
Regards, ippy.
-
You were the one who brought up things that Brexit had pulled out, namely bad language. I was just suggesting that bad language was perhaps the least of things it had pulled out, that you or I should be concerned with. But if you are content with seeing yourself as an 'old git' with added snowflake so be it.
How about if I say or write, 'Tea Bag', see what you can wring out of that.
ippy.
-
But it's more than that, isn't it. The BBC is possibly the best known and most generally respected broadcasting organisation in the world. It is certainly the UK's best known brand (I don't count royalty)- bringing respect and admiration from all parts of the planet. What kind of government is willing to trash such a valuable asset?
Yes H H, you're not on your own there are a lot of people that think the BBC doesn't have a bias of any kind?
ippy.
-
Hmmm - obviously this is the sort of thing that has brought the country together.
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/racist-poster-put-up-in-norwich-tower-block-1-6494242
-
The thought of Brussels handing down their laws to us alone is bad enough amongst many other reasons that are in my opinion equally as bad for the UK's future.
Name one law "handed down by Brussels" which has caused you to be personally disadvantaged. You clearly have no idea about the process by which law is developed in the EU.
And by the way, I am older than you and I am not "an old git",
-
...
The thought of Brussels handing down their laws to us alone is bad enough amongst many other reasons that are in my opinion equally as bad for the UK's future.
Regards, ippy.
This is what I don't get ... which terrible laws have they handed down to us?
And who are you thinking of when you say "Brussels"? I take it you don't mean the Belgians?
-
Yes H H, you're not on your own there are a lot of people that think the BBC doesn't have a bias of any kind?
ippy.
Perhaps, then, you will enlighten me. And while you're at it, why don't you read my post again and see if you can make a comment about it which is actually relevant?
-
Name one law "handed down by Brussels" which has caused you to be personally disadvantaged. You clearly have no idea about the process by which law is developed in the EU.
And by the way, I am older than you and I am not "an old git",
The fact that the EU court used to be able to over rule our courts was enough on it's own for me to say goodbye to the EU, not that that's all I found unacceptable about the EU, but hay we've escaped all of that, I can't help it you're not that keen on the result, we did, both of us had a vote.
ippy.
-
Perhaps, then, you will enlighten me. And while you're at it, why don't you read my post again and see if you can make a comment about it which is actually relevant?
Have a listen to Lord Pearson speaking in the House of Lords about the figures relating to the BBC's output on its coverage of brexit.
It's quiet easy to locate on YouTube.
Regards, ippy.
PS We obviously don't agree about brexit and most likely never will, why does there seem to be so much aggression directed toward those that after all are only taking a differing viewpoint to any one that wished to remain, we all had an exactly similar opportunity to have a vote due to the large gulf between the two camps? I didn't see you or any other remainer as a bunch of idiots because you wanted to remain, quiet obviously, I thought you had got it wrong and that was about it.
Regards, ippy.
-
The Lord Pearson that is a member of UKIP.
Obviously entirely unbiased in anyway. Ever. Whatsoever. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
A majority of the British cannot be wrong about what is good for them.
Why not?
-
This is about the wants of the united nations as a whole.
Do the nations look united you?
-
The Lord Pearson that is a member of UKIP.
Obviously entirely unbiased in anyway. Ever. Whatsoever. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Yes Lord Pearson's for U K I P, yes that would be the same man and just as the BBC and the Guardian are the remainers main source of support and information, I'm willing to admit, that doesn't automatically make the BBC or the Guardian wrong every time they convey some information about Brexit, so you must know where I'm going by now, just because Lord Pearson is a supporter of leaving the EU, you on the contrary seem to be unable to admit that, it doesn't automatically make Lord Pearson, an anti EU Peer, wrong every time he says anything about Brexit.
Regards, ippy
Lord Pearson's referred to the following points in the House of Lords around September October, time last year 2019, I may be a month or so out on this, he also named the professional survey firm he used to supply this appraisal, I can't quiet remember the name of this firm for the moment but however I wrote down the following from his speech in the House.
BBC interviewees since the referendum, out of 4275 guests 132 were supporters of the withdrawal from the EU or in fact amounted to 3.2% of this guest list.
They're such an exemplary lot there at the BBC :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
.
ippy
-
There is evidence that the BBC has been biased on EEC/EU issues over the years.
This document makes interesting reading:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf
It was written by the people that run news-watch (from whom the statistics it relies on were sourced) and includes the figures that Ippy quotes, out of context, above:
" Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on the Today
programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2
per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal
from the EU. "
News-watch: http://news-watch.co.uk/about-us/
May I suggest that the BBC discussion be split from the Huawei thread as they are two different issues that could do with separate discussions?
-
There is evidence that the BBC has been biased on EEC/EU issues over the years.
This document makes interesting reading:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/brusselsbroadcastingcorporation.pdf
It was written by the people that run news-watch (from whom the statistics it relies on were sourced) and includes the figures that Ippy quotes, out of context, above:
" Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on the Today
programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2
per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal
from the EU. "
News-watch: http://news-watch.co.uk/about-us/
May I suggest that the BBC discussion be split from the Huawei thread as they are two different issues that could do with separate discussions?
The figures I quoted were as stated by Lord Pearson in the House of Lords, as an individual wasn't trying to mislead in any way.
ippy.
-
Hmmmm.....Civitas.
From wiki:
The think tank describes itself as "classical liberal" and "non-partisan". However The Times and The Daily Telegraph have described it as a "right-of-centre think-tank".[3][4] Its director David G. Green writes occasionally in The Daily Telegraph and its deputy director Anastasia de Waal frequently contributes to The Guardian's "Comment is free" section.[5]
The Times has described Civitas as an ally of former Education Secretary Michael Gove.[3] It is opposed to green regulations, to legislation designed to reduce climate change, and to greater reliance on renewable energy.[6][7][8]
No agenda there then ::)
-
And, of course, we can all find figures to support our pov:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nigel-farage-set-record-question-time-appearances-century-155615416.html
So why is the BBC so pro-brexit?
-
The fact that the EU court used to be able to over rule our courts was enough on it's own for me to say goodbye to the EU, not that that's all I found unacceptable about the EU, but hay we've escaped all of that, I can't help it you're not that keen on the result, we did, both of us had a vote.
ippy.
Can you name any examples of the EU courts (of which the UK was part on Friday) overruling our own courts in a bad way?
-
The fact that the EU court used to be able to over rule our courts was enough on it's own for me to say goodbye to the EU...
Why can't you ever provide any rational reason why that was a bad idea? You seem to be suffering just as much from blind faith as the theists you so often criticise...
-
The figures I quoted were as stated by Lord Pearson in the House of Lords, as an individual wasn't trying to mislead in any way.
ippy.
If Pearson gave the figures as interviewees since the referendum then he was just wrong.
-
Hmmmm.....Civitas.
From wiki:
No agenda there then ::)
Of-course they have an agenda, as does News-watch which seems to be set up to prove that the BBC shows bias on certain issues. And the BBC itself has an agenda.
And, of-course, the idea that you can demonstrate bias just by counting statements for or against on a topic is wrong. It's a complex issue that needs an in-depth discussion. Without one, I suspect the BBC will be trashed as HH suggested.
-
" Of 4,275 guests talking about the EU on the Today
programme between 2005 and 2015, only 132 (3.2
per cent) were supporters of the UK’s withdrawal
from the EU. "
And what proportion of news items about NATO during that period involved guests in support of the UK leaving NATO?
And come to that how many guests talking about the Rugby 6 Nations are supporters of England withdrawing from the tournament?
-
And what proportion of news items about NATO during that period involved guests in support of the UK leaving NATO?
And come to that how many guests talking about the Rugby 6 Nations are supporters of England withdrawing from the tournament?
I was trying to make the context of Pearson's figures clearer.
There are people collecting evidence on that basis - that numbers of guests or statements for or against on an issue indicate "bias".
Separately, the latest attack is by Andrew Neil, a journalist broadcast by the BBC, criticizing the BBC for being anti-British for broadcasting a satirical song!
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/01/andrew-neil-attacks-bbc-over-anti-british-horrible-histories-song
-
I was trying to make the context of Pearson's figures clearer.
There are people collecting evidence on that basis - that numbers of guests or statements for or against on an issue indicate "bias".
All I was doing was making it clear that the nature of the 'evidence' is non-sense in the context of alleged bias. Over the period 2005-2015 most of the news items linking to the EU would have nothing whatsoever to do with the UK's continued membership of the EU.
They might have been discussions about EU parliamentary elections, or EU response to climate change, or discussions about potential trade deals, or about response to the migrant crisis etc, etc. In that context the Brexit position of an interviewee would be entirely irrelevant. Indeed I suspect in most cases their position on the UK's membership of the EU would be entirely unknown.
-
Of course the Tory party itself manipulates the 'message' - John Crace, the Guardian's political sketchwriter, has been banned from Boris the Liar's Brexit speech this morning.
From the Guardian Live/Twitter 'Day 3 in the Big Brexit Household. Number 10 refuses to allow some sketch writers to Boris Johnson event while letting in others. Oh Brave New World...
-
A taste of things to come, perhaps.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/01/brexit-trade-talks-eu-to-back-spain-over-gibraltar-claims
Indeed - losing Gibraltar would be one in the eye for the little-Englanders who voted leave. I don't give a shit personally, but seeing them infuriated might be amusing.
-
Can you name any examples of the EU courts (of which the UK was part on Friday) overruling our own courts in a bad way?
Which part of the fact that the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts, what is it that you're not getting, the EU had the ability to over rule our topmost court.
They used to have that ability, they no longer can exercise that ability to over rule out topmost court
This is enough reason alone or on its own, however you wish to put it, it was enough reason for me to want to leave the EU, good bad or indifferent I found their ability to over rule our courts totally/entirely unacceptable as the referendum and the recent election underlined much the same thing, the EU can go join the Foreign Office as they have done, thank goodness.
ippy
-
Which part of the fact that the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts, what is it that you're not getting, the EU had the ability to over rule our topmost court.
...
I feel sure this must have been discussed earlier, but it was not true that the "the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts".
The ECJ was responsible for ruling on EU law not national law. It was not possible to appeal against the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, However, national courts could refer questions of EU law to the ECJ.
EU laws are the laws that all the EU member states have agreed should be applicable between the member states.
-
Never mind, what's a few lies over the EU? Add them to the great pile in the right wing press, straight bananas, etc.
-
This is enough reason alone or on its own, however you wish to put it, it was enough reason for me to want to leave the EU...
The fact that you can't or won't give any rational reason for this makes it appear to be irrational, bind, unthinking, xenophobic prejudice.
What exactly was wrong with EU-wide laws and a court to make judgements relating to them? What did they ever do that was in any way harmful to anybody?
-
The fact that you can't or won't give any rational reason for this makes it appear to be irrational, bind, unthinking, xenophobic prejudice.
What exactly was wrong with EU-wide laws and a court to make judgements relating to them? What did they ever do that was in any way harmful to anybody?
It doesn't matter what is said by a leaver, anything any EU leaver says on this forum with reference to the EU is only seen as yet another clay pigeon that remainers feel a need to shoot down immediately, not so much a me no understandie more a me no want to understandie!
I have never wanted to be a part of an ever closer union with the EU, even though my point of view on this appears to be so outrageous to most that write in to this forum, so outrageous that my wishing to leave point of view won the referendum and played a not so insignificant part in swinging the result of the recent election, how strange, this leave the EU idea appears to have won the day twice in the end?
By the way a special thanks to Jeremy for the massive and selfless contribution he made for the leaving side during the recent election.
There you are, there must be plenty there for you remainers to get on with for a while.
ippy
-
It doesn't matter what is said by a leaver...
How the fuck would you know when you haven't even tried to give a rational justification? All you do is endlessly repeat how you don't like the EU and don't want closer union or the EU court. You're just like a theist endlessly repeating their blind faith position without ever offering a rational basis.
Leaving has already cost the country dearly and it's not likely to get better given what Boris the Lair is saying about the trade talks and you can't give us a single solitary reason except for your (apparent) blind, irrational prejudice.
-
Which part of the fact that the EU court had the ability to over rule our courts, what is it that you're not getting, the EU had the ability to over rule our topmost court.
Which part of “how is that bad?” Are you not getting?
This is enough reason alone or on its own,
It’s not a reason, it’s just a statement of fact. Are you against the UK Supreme Court simply because it can overrule decisions in your local county court?
-
It doesn't matter what is said by a leaver, anything any EU leaver says on this forum with reference to the EU is only seen as yet another clay pigeon that remainers feel a need to shoot down immediately, not so much a me no understandie more a me no want to understandie!
I have never wanted to be a part of an ever closer union with the EU, even though my point of view on this appears to be so outrageous to most that write in to this forum, so outrageous that my wishing to leave point of view won the referendum and played a not so insignificant part in swinging the result of the recent election, how strange, this leave the EU idea appears to have won the day twice in the end?
By the way a special thanks to Jeremy for the massive and selfless contribution he made for the leaving side during the recent election.
There you are, there must be plenty there for you remainers to get on with for a while.
ippy
I assume you mean Jeremy Corbyn not JeremyP. But you are right, his actions have done as much to get us into this mess as anybody else’s except David Cameron.
-
To follow on from my earlier post (#5662) about John Crace being sidelined it looks like the journalists are sticking together. From Rowena Mason in the Guardian Politics Live blog.
Political journalists walked out of No 10 Downing Street this afternoon in protest at the government planning to give a briefing on the EU only to selected reporters – banning The Mirror, i, Huffington Post, PoliticsHome, Independent and others from attending.
Reporters on the invited list were asked to stand on one side of a rug in the foyer of No 10, while those not allowed in were asked by security to stand on the other side.
After one of Boris Johnson’s most senior advisers, Lee Cain, told the banned reporters they must leave the building, the rest of the journalists decided to walk out rather than allow Downing Street to choose who scrutinises and reports on the government.
Among those who refused the briefing and walked out included the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, ITV’s Robert Peston and political journalists from the Daily Mail, Telegraph, the Sun, Financial Times, and Guardian.
-
To follow on from my earlier post (#5662) about John Crace being sidelined it looks like the journalists are sticking together. From Rowena Mason in the Guardian Politics Live blog.
...
Good - well done journos!
-
...
What exactly was wrong with EU-wide laws and a court to make judgements relating to them? What did they ever do that was in any way harmful to anybody?
Well there were/are all sorts of things wrong with EU laws and the institutions and people, individuals and groups, have been harmed along the way.
I wouldn't want to trawl through and relive those as I feel, overall, they are not relevant to brexit. The 27 will be best served by the perseverance and gradual progressive reform of the EU constitution, laws and institutions - as the UK would have also been.
However, even though we are leaving it does not mean that the UK is now somehow doomed.
-
However, even though we are leaving it does not mean that the UK is now somehow doomed.
The UK is doomed. Scotland will press for independence and get it eventually. Then it's over. That doesn't mean the individual countries or people in them are doomed, but the UK as an entity is finished.
-
John Crace on being excluded from Boris the Liar's speech today (see #5662) and on just how politically perverse he is. As the shambles rolls on I suspect many Tory and Brexit voters will come to regret their naivety.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/03/shapeshifter-world-king-the-pm-boris-johnson-could-be-seriously-unwell
-
John Crace on being excluded from Boris the Liar's speech today (see #5662) and on just how politically perverse he is. As the shambles rolls on I suspect many Tory and Brexit voters will come to regret their naivety.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/03/shapeshifter-world-king-the-pm-boris-johnson-could-be-seriously-unwell
I can't believe how much BoJo looks like Trump in the photo in your link.
-
I can't believe how much BoJo looks like Trump in the photo in your link.
You do know that they both were born in New York City ....
-
You do know that they both were born in New York City ....
But I have seen them in the same room together.
-
Utterly bizarre
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/04/no-more-deal-or-no-deal-no-10s-brexit-diktat-to-foreign-office?__twitter_impression=true
-
Utterly bizarre
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/04/no-more-deal-or-no-deal-no-10s-brexit-diktat-to-foreign-office?__twitter_impression=true
I have had feelings, occasionally, that the United Kingdom is in a similar condition to that of Germany in the early 1930s. I'm clearly wrong - this is closer to 1984.
-
I do hope the poor saps who voted for Brexit, and then for the Tories last year, are noting this kind of thing: this is what happens when you listen to liars.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51453189
-
I do hope the poor saps who voted for Brexit, and then for the Tories last year, are noting this kind of thing: this is what happens when you listen to liars.
Unlikely, as a distant cousin of mine said to me yesterday, Brexit means we leave. When I asked her "but how do we leave", she said we just leave. I argued about the effects on jobs and the economy. I was told it was a price worth paying. Leave means leave. There you have it.
Lemmings.
-
I see those Tory-voting northerners are likely to have their local authority support grants cut so that the leafy shires can benefit:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/25/former-red-wall-areas-could-lose-millions-in-council-funding-review
Unfortunately, we in the north won't have EU funding to mitigate the effects of Conservative economic policy on us in future.
But not to worry, the magic money tree is in bloom, so at least some of those leafy shires will be losing ancient woodland and picturesque villages to HS2. Or, should I say, to the most efficient way to get our tax money into the off-shore accounts of billionaires friendly to the Conservative Party. No doubt some big consultancy firms will be hired to look into the feasibility of a bridge between Ireland and Scotland as well, that should relieve us of a few more millions before it's quietly abandoned for the lunacy it so obviously is.
The new trains on routes around Manchester (don't know if they're still called Northern after the emergency nationalisation that was Stalinist when proposed by Labour) are less reliable than the old bus-style rolling stock. Two days running there have been failed (new) trains causing cancellations and delays.
-
Unlikely, as a distant cousin of mine said to me yesterday, Brexit means we leave. When I asked her "but how do we leave", she said we just leave. I argued about the effects on jobs and the economy. I was told it was a price worth paying. Leave means leave. There you have it.
Lemmings.
Well, Gove is talking about increasing friction on trade with the EU, via border checks, and there will be extra paperwork, for customs checks, also more staff needed, e.g., vets, for any goods with animal products. I am not an economist, but I thought trade was meant to be frictionless? This was Thatcher's spiel about the single market, so what has changed?
-
I get the sense not many people want to notice the repercussions of Brexit. It's a bit like having a good shit. You've created the stinking thing and nurtured it and kept it warm, but the moment it's out and blocking the U-bend there's the impulse to cry 'That's not mine - I haven't been since the weekend.'
-
I suppose the Brexiter argument is that we want to get out of the grip of the EU, therefore trade has to be made more difficult, via border checks, customs, veterinary checks, etc. This will cause an economic hit, but will be compensated via new trade with rest of the world. It sounds a huge gamble to me.
Also, the right wing are in charge, so it is feeding off English nationalist fantasies, but really England is for old white people, and is in decline.
-
I get the sense not many people want to notice the repercussions of Brexit. It's a bit like having a good shit. You've created the stinking thing and nurtured it and kept it warm, but the moment it's out and blocking the U-bend there's the impulse to cry 'That's not mine - I haven't been since the weekend.'
The best way to deal with a blocked toilet is to fill a large bucket with water, then tip it all in very fast. The pressure of the water pushes it through, works every time.
-
The best way to deal with a blocked toilet is to fill a large bucket with water, then tip it all in very fast. The pressure of the water pushes it through, works every time.
Useful for a toilet, not so much for Brexit.
Unless you are suggesting a mass drowning as in The Bible.
-
Well, Gove is talking about increasing friction on trade with the EU, via border checks, and there will be extra paperwork, for customs checks, also more staff needed, e.g., vets, for any goods with animal products. I am not an economist, but I thought trade was meant to be frictionless? This was Thatcher's spiel about the single market, so what has changed?
We've got lying shits running the country.
-
We've got lying shits running the country.
It's this Dominic Cummins that I find quite creepy. what do you think of him and his tactics, principles, and so on?
-
It's this Dominic Cummins that I find quite creepy. what do you think of him and his tactics, principles, and so on?
I refer you to my previous reply. Except I might add "devious" into the mix.
-
The best way to deal with a blocked toilet is to fill a large bucket with water, then tip it all in very fast. The pressure of the water pushes it through, works every time.
Not always. Sometimes you have to stick your arm in the shit and gently push with your fingers round the bend. Bloody awful show! I don't know how to expand on this metaphor, but applying the Jeyes fluid to oneself afterwards is probably appropriate.
-
We need to flush away this shitty Brexit along with the assorted shits that comprise the lunatic fringe of the Tory party (which covers most of them).
-
www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/impartialityatthebbc.pdf
ippy.
-
www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/impartialityatthebbc.pdf
ippy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas_(think_tank)
I'll help you out with a quote from the link, rather than just posting a link with no explanation or commentary:
"Civitas, originally based at 77 Great Peter Street, is now based at 55 Tufton Street, in the same premises as Business for Britain and where Vote Leave was originally registered."
And "Business for Britain is a eurosceptic campaign group".
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas_(think_tank)
I'll help you out with a quote from the link, rather than just posting a link with no explanation or commentary:
"Civitas, originally based at 77 Great Peter Street, is now based at 55 Tufton Street, in the same premises as Business for Britain and where Vote Leave was originally registered."
And "Business for Britain is a eurosceptic campaign group".
OK, has it got everything wrong in the link I've posted?
If the mood takes you tell me which bits.
To be fair the BBC had a rather obvious pro remain bias and more than likely still has, but there has to be some truth in there somewhere between the two, I doubt the possible Civitas bias for leave was needed as much as the BBC taking the remain side was, well it certainly looks that way to me when you see the end result in spite of all the BBC's wasted efforts.
The referendum was for leave or remain as far as I'm concerned arguments for remain or leave were for pre the referendum and rather pointless after the day whichever side was taken by any individual.
ippy.
-
Not always. Sometimes you have to stick your arm in the shit and gently push with your fingers round the bend. Bloody awful show! I don't know how to expand on this metaphor, but applying the Jeyes fluid to oneself afterwards is probably appropriate.
I found that wasn't necessary. Usually the poo is still reachable with a stick, which you can use to break it up. Then the bucket trick will work.
I used to have to use this trick with the local Homebase store's customer loos, when I was the cleaner there.
-
OK, has it got everything wrong in the link I've posted?
If the mood takes you tell me which bits.
To be fair the BBC had a rather obvious pro remain bias and more than likely still has, but there has to be some truth in there somewhere between the two, I doubt the possible Civitas bias for leave was needed as much as the BBC taking the remain side was, well it certainly looks that way to me when you see the end result in spite of all the BBC's wasted efforts.
The referendum was for leave or remain as far as I'm concerned arguments for remain or leave were for pre the referendum and rather pointless after the day whichever side was taken by any individual.
ippy.
I was simply helping out with some background information about your source, ippy. You're so exercised about the bias you've decided infests the BBC, I was surprised you posted a link to a paper from 2014 produced by an organisation with an obvious bias.
Civitas is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016.
I've got no intention of spending any time researching claims you make by proxy, since you don't engage with discussion or provide any evidence worth the name for your views. Your link reminds me of Spud quoting the Bible as support for his views.
-
I was simply helping out with some background information about your source, ippy. You're so exercised about the bias you've decided infests the BBC, I was surprised you posted a link to a paper from 2014 produced by an organisation with an obvious bias.
Civitas is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016.
I've got no intention of spending any time researching claims you make by proxy, since you don't engage with discussion or provide any evidence worth the name for your views. Your link reminds me of Spud quoting the Bible as support for his views.
It's just as easy to say: 'The BBC is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016', as it is to say, 'Civitas is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016',perhaps with the exception of BBC funding.
ippy.
-
It's just as easy to say: 'The BBC is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016', as it is to say, 'Civitas is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016',perhaps with the exception of BBC funding.
ippy.
You do know you are contradicting yourself here?
-
I worked with somebody who was in Civitas, quite a gruesome mix of right wing ideas, anti-BBC, anti-NHS, pro-Brexit, and all the usual right wing stuff, e.g., capital punishment, wogs begin at Calais. I didn't imagine we would have a government like this, next step eugenics. It's not fascist yet, but how long?
-
You do know you are contradicting yourself here?
You do know you are missing something here Trent?
ippy.
-
I worked with somebody who was in Civitas, quite a gruesome mix of right wing ideas, anti-BBC, anti-NHS, pro-Brexit, and all the usual right wing stuff, e.g., capital punishment, wogs begin at Calais. I didn't imagine we would have a government like this, next step eugenics. It's not fascist yet, but how long?
Try to come away from the BBC/Guardian for a while, try the Russian English language T V news channel quiet often surprisingly to me it shows far less bias than or the BBC/Guardian.
ippy.
-
Try to come away from the BBC/Guardian for a while, try the Russian English language T V news channel quiet often surprisingly to me it shows far less bias than or the BBC/Guardian.
ippy.
I can read the words that you wrote, but I'm buggered if I can see a connection with what I wrote about fascism.
-
I worked with somebody who was in Civitas, quite a gruesome mix of right wing ideas, anti-BBC, anti-NHS, pro-Brexit, and all the usual right wing stuff, e.g., capital punishment, wogs begin at Calais. I didn't imagine we would have a government like this, next step eugenics. It's not fascist yet, but how long?
It is certainly very worrying to know that there was an adviser at No. 10 who was not ejected immediately his eugenics views were mentioned. Adam Rutherford was interviewed yesterday on Radio 4 and, being a professional geneticist, he knows exactly what he is talking about.
-
It is certainly very worrying to know that there was an adviser at No. 10 who was not ejected immediately his eugenics views were mentioned. Adam Rutherford was interviewed yesterday on Radio 4 and, being a professional geneticist, he knows exactly what he is talking about.
English politics is moving to the right, and the hard right. You can see it in Brexit, the anti-BBC attacks, and hiring a eugenicist. Where next?
-
It is frightening. When I think back even five years, there was less fear and discrimination. It crept up on us and is now showing itself boldly. I can't bear to think where it will all go and hope the tide turns.
-
English politics is moving to the right, and the hard right. You can see it in Brexit, the anti-BBC attacks, and hiring a eugenicist. Where next?
Who's the eugenicist?
BTAIM, eugenics isn't necessarily an idea of the right. In the early 20th century, before the Nazis gave it as bad name, it was a popular idea with msny people on the left: Julian Huxley and G.B. Shaw, to name but two.
-
You do know you are missing something here Trent?
ippy.
What?
Something kike you are willing to support a racist government to get your Brexit done
And further you are willing to dismantle the bbc because iyo it was biased. You then provide a report from a biased organisation to prove your accusation of bias.
I am not the one missing something here.
-
Try to come away from the BBC/Guardian for a while, try the Russian English language T V news channel quiet often surprisingly to me it shows far less bias than or the BBC/Guardian.
Can I invoke Poe's law on this one?
O.
-
I can read the words that you wrote, but I'm buggered if I can see a connection with what I wrote about fascism.
That's a fair enough and I can imagine how you feel.
ippy.
-
What?
Something kike you are willing to support a racist government to get your Brexit done
And further you are willing to dismantle the bbc because iyo it was biased. You then provide a report from a biased organisation to prove your accusation of bias.
I am not the one missing something here.
I try to make up my own mind on all sorts of things I don't think there are to many lessons to be picked up from the BBC/Guardian the same thing both of them.
It seems to me that it's never likely that convinced remainers will never get the leaver point however approached, that's why I don't see any point trying to explain.
You mention bias, if we don't agree on anything else surely anyone would accept there is bias on any side of an argument whatever the argument happens to be about.
I'm not a particular fan of the Tories save they got us out of the EU and I'll probably not vote for them again, Thatcher finished me with the Tories years ago, I absolutely hated her, something I didn't want to experience but had it forced on me.
-
It's just as easy to say: 'The BBC is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016', as it is to say, 'Civitas is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016',perhaps with the exception of BBC funding.
ippy.
Obviously BBC funding is 100% transparent - which is why the Tories can strangle it, or threaten to. It might be nice to have more transparency about where the money goes, maybe.
-
Who's the eugenicist?
BTAIM, eugenics isn't necessarily an idea of the right. In the early 20th century, before the Nazis gave it as bad name, it was a popular idea with msny people on the left: Julian Huxley and G.B. Shaw, to name but two.
Andrew Sabisky. Home schooled and religious.
-
It's just as easy to say: 'The BBC is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016', as it is to say, 'Civitas is not transparent about its sources of funding and hasn't updated its sketchy summary of where its money comes from on its website since 2016',perhaps with the exception of BBC funding.
ippy.
It's easier to say what you write above about the BBC, as it's not true. On the other hand, I had to do some research to find out about Civitas and what I wrote is true. Spot the difference.
Come up with any benefits of leaving the EU yet? Oh, don't tell me, just like all that evidence for the existence of God, no point posting it...
-
It's easier to say what you write above about the BBC, as it's not true. On the other hand, I had to do some research to find out about Civitas and what I wrote is true. Spot the difference.
Come up with any benefits of leaving the EU yet? Oh, don't tell me, just like all that evidence for the existence of God, no point posting it...
Don't be daft. Crack down on immigrants and the poor, what more do you want?
-
Don't be daft. Crack down on immigrants and the poor, what more do you want?
Yup, opens up great opportunities for the 8m economically inactive to make loadsamoney in the car washing jobs they have been waiting for.
-
Hang on .. I'm confused now .. surely the points based immigration scheme should be encouraging people in to do the jobs noone here wants to do, and stopping immigrants getting the high-skilled jobs, so Brits can do those?
Ippy, help!
-
It's easier to say what you write above about the BBC, as it's not true. On the other hand, I had to do some research to find out about Civitas and what I wrote is true. Spot the difference.
Come up with any benefits of leaving the EU yet? Oh, don't tell me, just like all that evidence for the existence of God, no point posting it...
We've left and that's good enough for me, try someone else if you feel the need to argue about it and would be difficult to persuade me the that the BBC was full of as many shining halo wearers working for BBC as it appears to me that you seem to think there are.
If I were to spend from now till doomsday arguing about Brexit with any remainer I very much doubt it'd make a jot of difference, surely that was why there was a referendum, not just you and I but over the whole spectrum of leavers and remainers we, both sides, think the other side was potty and probably still do.
The in out arguments I would have thought were for the pre Brexit referendum era.
ippy.
-
Welcome to Fascism R us.
-
We've left and that's good enough for me, try someone else if you feel the need to argue about it and would be difficult to persuade me the that the BBC was full of as many shining halo wearers working for BBC as it appears to me that you seem to think there are.
If I were to spend from now till doomsday arguing about Brexit with any remainer I very much doubt it'd make a jot of difference, surely that was why there was a referendum, not just you and I but over the whole spectrum of leavers and remainers we, both sides, think the other side was potty and probably still do.
The in out arguments I would have thought were for the pre Brexit referendum era.
ippy.
I never thought that the remainers or the leavers en masse were 'potty', Ippy, to use your word, and still don't, so please don't tar everybody with the same brush.
-
I never thought that the remainers or the leavers en masse were 'potty', Ippy, to use your word, and still don't, so please don't tar everybody with the same brush.
I wasn't aware I was trying to single anyone out, I was referring to leavers or remainers in general terms which I would have thought was obvious
You've just underlined this consistent, apparent wish to keep on arguing after the event by one faction or the other, perhaps you'd prefer one of the following words or expressions: wrong, silly, daft, not quiet there, a bit over the top, is there anything there you would like to use in place of my use of the word potty, please be my guest and use any word or expression you like that means something similar in general terms, of course.
Perhaps you could use something like bloody tiresome, as a substitute, be sure to please yourself enki.
ippy.
-
I wasn't aware I was trying to single anyone out, I was referring to leavers or remainers in general terms which I would have thought was obvious
You've just underlined this consistent, apparent wish to keep on arguing after the event by one faction or the other, perhaps you'd prefer one of the following words or expressions: wrong, silly, daft, not quiet there, a bit over the top, is there anything there you would like to use in place of my use of the word potty, please be my guest and use any word or expression you like that means something similar in general terms, of course.
Perhaps you could use something like bloody tiresome, as a substitute, be sure to please yourself enki.
ippy.
So Farage and you had the chance to moan on and on for decades about the great ogre that is the EU, but now we can't moan on and on about the ill effects of leaving.
I don't think you've got the hang of people.
-
I wasn't aware I was trying to single anyone out, I was referring to leavers or remainers in general terms which I would have thought was obvious
You've just underlined this consistent, apparent wish to keep on arguing after the event by one faction or the other, perhaps you'd prefer one of the following words or expressions: wrong, silly, daft, not quiet there, a bit over the top, is there anything there you would like to use in place of my use of the word potty, please be my guest and use any word or expression you like that means something similar in general terms, of course.
Perhaps you could use something like bloody tiresome, as a substitute, be sure to please yourself enki.
ippy.
Oh Ippy,
My response seems to have gone straight over your head. Firstly, it was you who suggested that both sides are inclined to think the other side is'potty'. Indeed, you used the pronoun 'we' in suggesting this. Well, as a person who voted for Brexit, not to remain, please do not include myself in your 'we', or, better still, next time use language with a little more clarity.
In my opinion, it does no good to label one side or the other as 'potty', or any of the other demeaning adjectives you suggest that I should use. It just has the effect of entrenching people in their positions. I have no wish to argue about Brexit at all now and would hope that a spirit of moving forward might prevail. Unfortunately, you, as well as others, seem to need to use such unpleasantries as 'potty' or 'not quite there' to continue the argument.
Well, so be it.(shrugs shoulders).
-
Oh Ippy,
My response seems to have gone straight over your head. Firstly, it was you who suggested that both sides are inclined to think the other side is'potty'. Indeed, you used the pronoun 'we' in suggesting this. Well, as a person who voted for Brexit, not to remain, please do not include myself in your 'we', or, better still, next time use language with a little more clarity.
In my opinion, it does no good to label one side or the other as 'potty', or any of the other demeaning adjectives you suggest that I should use. It just has the effect of entrenching people in their positions. I have no wish to argue about Brexit at all now and would hope that a spirit of moving forward might prevail. Unfortunately, you, as well as others, seem to need to use such unpleasantries as 'potty' or 'not quite there' to continue the argument.
Well, so be it.(shrugs shoulders).
You wrote: 'In my opinion, it does no good to label one side or the other as 'potty', I'll assume you were referencing the following: 'both sides, think the other side was potty and probably still do.
Looks like we both think something is going over the heads of each other, I hope you find the information I've passed on to your good self, above, is conveyed to you without a built in grammar lesson or any hint of patronising and at the same time void of any unpleasantness!
ippy.
-
We've left and that's good enough for me, try someone else if you feel the need to argue about it and would be difficult to persuade me the that the BBC was full of as many shining halo wearers working for BBC as it appears to me that you seem to think there are.
Have you got any evidence that I think the BBC is full of 'many shining halo wearers'? You seem quite keen on evidence in other discussions, but not this one. I think I know why :)
-
Have you got any evidence that I think the BBC is full of 'many shining halo wearers'? You seem quite keen on evidence in other discussions, but not this one. I think I know why :)
I wouldn't have thought anything other than the fact the BBC is run by human beings therefore.
Much the same would apply to anything that's a sport of us wonderful, good looking, exemplary and deep thinking leave supporters too.
I've got my tin hat on in readiness!!
Wouldn't that observation be somewhat obvious.
-
You wrote: 'In my opinion, it does no good to label one side or the other as 'potty', I'll assume you were referencing the following: 'both sides, think the other side was potty and probably still do.
Looks like we both think something is going over the heads of each other, I hope you find the information I've passed on to your good self, above, is conveyed to you without a built in grammar lesson or any hint of patronising and at the same time void of any unpleasantness!
ippy.
As regards your first paragraph. I did say that, yes. It was in response to these words of yours:
not just you and I but over the whole spectrum of leavers and remainers we, both sides, think the other side was potty and probably still do.
Notice it includes the word 'we'.
I have no reason to change my opinion.
As regards your second paragraph, I don't find you at all patronising so please don't think it for one moment. As for the grammar lesson idea, what's that all about? And, to put your mind at ease, I don't find anything you have said in the post to which I am replying to be particularly unpleasant at all.
:)
-
As regards your first paragraph. I did say that, yes. It was in response to these words of yours:
Notice it includes the word 'we'.
I have no reason to change my opinion.
As regards your second paragraph, I don't find you at all patronising so please don't think it for one moment. As for the grammar lesson idea, what's that all about? And, to put your mind at ease, I don't find anything you have said in the post to which I am replying to be particularly unpleasant at all.
:)
(we), referring to both sides, myself included.
(probably), not definitely.
Patronising but yes only mildly patronising, I wasn't referring to my own post.
Misunderstanding my use of (we) probably think each other potty' (PROBABLY THINK).
I only refer to these things where you seem to have misunderstood me, but if you did wish to be patronising, a semanticist, or anything else unpleasant please fire away the world is your oyster.
Regards, ippy.
-
(we), referring to both sides, myself included.
(probably), not definitely.
Patronising but yes only mildly patronising, I wasn't referring to my own post.
Misunderstanding my use of (we) probably think each other potty' (PROBABLY THINK).
I only refer to these things where you seem to have misunderstood me, but if you did wish to be patronising, a semanticist, or anything else unpleasant please fire away the world is your oyster.
Regards, ippy.
Just to say that, as I have already stated, 'we' doesn't include myself, whether you think it was 'probable' or not that it should.
I didn't think your post was patronising, angry perhaps, but not patronising. I cerainly have not meant to be at all, but, if it helps you, then I apologise for anything that I have said which has suggested to you that I have taken a patronising attitude.
As regards your last sentence, whether you wish me to be or not, I certainly do not wish to be any of these things that you suggest, and that also includes your idea that I might use such words as 'wrong, silly, daft, not quiet there, a bit over the top' to label the other side ,instead of 'potty'. I leave that to others. :)
-
Yay! We've spent more than £4 billion on Brexit so far.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51762243
Just to clarify, this is just actual administrative costs, not the cost to the country in trade opportunity and influence. That's going to be hundreds of billions.
-
Hang on .. I'm confused now .. surely the points based immigration scheme should be encouraging people in to do the jobs noone here wants to do, and stopping immigrants getting the high-skilled jobs, so Brits can do those?
Ippy, help!
I think many of those who voted leave just did not like the idea that EU rules meant that the British government had to pay towards EU political policies they disagreed with - the EU telling the less socialist-minded British what they could or could not do - you know - the whole sovereignty argument, especially when it came to uncontrolled immigration.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigration
The entrepreneurial leave-supporters still want access to and to exploit foreign markets but do not agree on the price they are being charged for that access and are trying to negotiate with the EU for a lower price for access. Much like they negotiate/ bargain/ exploit (?) workers to keep labour costs down to maximise profit and return on capital investment.
The entrepreneurial leave voters (focused on economics) seem to have found a way to exploit the sense of nationalism and conservatism of large parts of the population by persuading them to vote leave e.g. there was a Brexit argument that Britain can set its own VAT rates or abolish VAT and replace it with something else once it leaves the EU...even though it is highly unlikely that the government will abolish the lucrative VAT since they kept it at 20% even though EU VAT minimum rate is set at 15% and it would be an administrative nightmare to get rid of VAT.
Regarding the economically inactive, I think the calculation that many Brexiters may have made is that the economically inactive are a cost to the economically active. Taxes are spent on supporting the economically inactive that could instead be spent more productively on private sector contracts that grow the economy e.g. hiring private companies (with vastly inflated fees designed to maximise profits for directors and shareholders who will then spend that money in the economy). This does not really solve inequality but there will probably be a rise in real wages in certain industries as EU labour supply shrinks due to Brexit, which may tempt some of the economically inactive to retrain/ go back to work, which then frees up taxes to spend on those who really can't work.
If, as seems likely, the significant wage rise is in more skilled jobs where there are shortages, the private firms will either have to spend money investing heavily in training schemes for local unskilled workers or hire from abroad or invest heavily in AI and technology whereby they can maximise profits and economise on labour costs (in which case those local unskilled economically inactive will not reduce and will still need funding).
I heard someone on the radio the other day saying she is a supply teacher with a seriously compromised immune system who is scared that catching the coronavirus will mean she will have no income. The radio presenter said, given her medical condition, she should retrain as schools are known for spreading germs, and she replied that she can't retrain, that teaching is all she knows and it's in her bones.
That's a moral and therefore political question - what percentage of the population favours financially supporting people to maximise their personal happiness at the cost of economic productivity?
-
...
Really, anyone might think brexit leaders were only looking out for their own pockets and have just conned half the country into helping fill them!
-
Really, anyone might think brexit leaders were only looking out for their own pockets and have just conned half the country into helping fill them!
I don't know how much if it is a con.
If people don't want political union and want immigration controlled and the only way of doing it was to vote for Brexit, is it a con? Even if certain people will profit financially from giving voters what many of them seem to want? Maybe it's a temporary alignment of interests. If there had been other ways of achieving their aims maybe voters would have taken it.
Entrepreneurs make money from identifying wants and exploiting opportunities - the possibility of eventually making profits is their incentive for taking risks with capital that may generate losses as well as profits. Maybe Brexit leaders saw an opportunity to exploit, and maybe some of them actually genuinely believed that political union and uncontrolled immigration was undesirable.
-
I don't know how much if it is a con.
If people don't want political union and want immigration controlled and the only way of doing it was to vote for Brexit, is it a con? Even if certain people will profit financially from giving voters what many of them seem to want?
...
It is the "mark's" desires that allow them to be hooked. People didn't want political union or immigration but now that "brexit is done", they will find that they don't get the changes to their lives they might have been expecting from it.
-
It is the "mark's" desires that allow them to be hooked. People didn't want political union or immigration but now that "brexit is done", they will find that they don't get the changes to their lives they might have been expecting from it.
We don’t know what changes they expect. Ippy, for example, refuses to tell us. I suspect it’s just a warm glow from the rebirth of the empire.
-
I cannot see how we can complete Brexit this year. Wasn't convinced we could do it before Covid 19 but not now.
-
I cannot see how we can complete Brexit this year. Wasn't convinced we could do it before Covid 19 but not now.
It seems to me that a consequence of Covid-19 is some kind of downscaling of Global trading. Perhaps countries will have to consider trying to do mass-production manufacturing themselves instead of relying on China. Perhaps this kind of activity could become regional rather than world-wide. Individually, European countries would not be capable of doing all the manufacturing activity to maintain their own economies but co-operation with neighbours would be feasible.
The framework already exists in Europe. Why not just stop the ludicrous Brexit process and work out a way of making Europe self-sufficient?
-
It seems to me that a consequence of Covid-19 is some kind of downscaling of Global trading. Perhaps countries will have to consider trying to do mass-production manufacturing themselves instead of relying on China. Perhaps this kind of activity could become regional rather than world-wide. Individually, European countries would not be capable of doing all the manufacturing activity to maintain their own economies but co-operation with neighbours would be feasible.
The framework already exists in Europe. Why not just stop the ludicrous Brexit process and work out a way of making Europe self-sufficient?
This seems unrealistic. Given the world economy needs rebooting, we need to participate in any global, not European, solutions/systems.
Given that we have left the EU it doesn't make sense to continue or rejoin in their, most likely defunct, systems rather than set out on our non-EU or fresh path.
-
It seems to me that a consequence of Covid-19 is some kind of downscaling of Global trading. Perhaps countries will have to consider trying to do mass-production manufacturing themselves instead of relying on China. Perhaps this kind of activity could become regional rather than world-wide. Individually, European countries would not be capable of doing all the manufacturing activity to maintain their own economies but co-operation with neighbours would be feasible.
The framework already exists in Europe. Why not just stop the ludicrous Brexit process and work out a way of making Europe self-sufficient?
That sounds horrendously protectionist, and problematic. There has been some discussion of 'near sourcing' in terms of using Eastern Europe more rather than China but it would need a very controlled approach, and could lead to many shortages both in near and mid term. I'm not sure the current EU structure is uo to it, and it would lead to lots of tensions as it would remove freedoms govts currently have.
I think we need to up the investment in 3d printing which is still somewhat of a sleeping tiger as a technology.
-
It seems to me that a consequence of Covid-19 is some kind of downscaling of Global trading. Perhaps countries will have to consider trying to do mass-production manufacturing themselves instead of relying on China. Perhaps this kind of activity could become regional rather than world-wide. Individually, European countries would not be capable of doing all the manufacturing activity to maintain their own economies but co-operation with neighbours would be feasible.
The framework already exists in Europe. Why not just stop the ludicrous Brexit process and work out a way of making Europe self-sufficient?
China is going to be one of the first countries to come back on line. by the time we are ready to start buying stuff again, China will be the easiest place to get it.
-
China will be the easiest place to get it.
Is it possible that the environmental cost of long distance delivery may become a factor?
-
Is it possible that the environmental cost of long distance delivery may become a factor?
They weren't before. Why would they be after?
-
Meanwhile the madness that is Brexit rumbles along in the background.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/02/row-over-eu-office-in-belfast-threatens-to-derail-brexit-talks
-
Boris the liar promised there would be no checks on UK goods crossing the Irish Sea into NI - guess what.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/13/brexit-will-mean-checks-on-goods-crossing-irish-sea-government-admits
-
Wish he'd died before he got old. (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/the-who-front-singer-roger-daltrey-on-coronavirus-confusion-1-6657534?fbclid=IwAR1TTmEcN7bLr7WmomkOzqF_ZxbtEJqxooiooEqK1Gg9z3w0oeaLnjgWKfg)
-
Is it right that now the French and the Italians are going a bit anti EU?
Don't seem to hear that much about it on our media T V and Radio but apparently it is happening, come to that there's not that much of a mention about it in the press either?
ippy
-
Is it right that now the French and the Italians are going a bit anti EU?
Don't seem to hear that much about it on our media T V and Radio but apparently it is happening, come to that there's not that much of a mention about it in the press either?
ippy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52666870
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52666870
Surely that's not the BBC broadcasting news that Ippy says they don't broadcast?
Pass the smelling salts.
-
In addition from your very favourite paper Ippy from way back in April reporting on Italy's dissatisfaction with the EU:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/european-union-italy-unity-failure-debt-germany-netherlands
You really are behind the curve.
-
Wonder of more will follow GB out of the EU?
-
Wonder of more will follow GB out of the EU?
If the three devolved authorities are continually ignored, the so-called UK will be a very weakened state,k and quite rightly so.
-
Freedom of movement for dogs
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/bob-stewart-on-pet-passport-scheme-after-brexit-1-6703548
-
This move probably is worth watching: the Scottish Parliament propose legislation to ensure that environmental standards in Scotland, which are devolved to Holyrood, can be kept in line with EU standards after the transition period ends.
Since, iirc, the UK government have said that environmental standards won't be weakened after transition ends then I can't possibly imagine that this will in any way whatsoever upset Boris et al ;) Sounds like it would allow Holyrood to make sure that, for instance, they can deal with any attempts to sell the likes of chlorinated chicken from the USA, if it is adjudged to be sub-standard, from being sold in Scotland.
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/parliament-asked-to-back-european-union-continuity-legislation
-
People who were prepared to unleash herd immunity on its public are not going to bat an eyelid unleashing economic ruin on them. Conservatives are harbingers, ministers and angels of disaster......or people who just keep voting for 'em.
-
Freedom of movement for dogs
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/bob-stewart-on-pet-passport-scheme-after-brexit-1-6703548
If I can't move freely through Europe, I don't see why Bob Stewart's dog should be able to either.
The stupidity of some of these Brexiteers amazes me.
-
4 years ago I was at London City airport with lots of delays. I was meant to be on the 5pm to Glasgow but it was cancelled. I had placed on the 7.15 - still time to vote but in the end that was delayed so that I arrived in Glasgow at 9.35,ran to get a taxi and made it with 4 minutes to spare.
-
An item published yesterday commenting on the findings of a YouGov survey:
https://nation.cymru/news/half-of-conservative-voters-in-england-support-english-independence-poll/ (https://nation.cymru/news/half-of-conservative-voters-in-england-support-english-independence-poll/)
... so ... will the next policy announcement from a prime minister who is better at following his party than leading it be to echo the ambition of the SNP?
It would complement Brexit beautifully. England could claim its place at the head of the Third World.
-
If Liz Truss (hardly the sharpest chisel in the toolbox) is worried - then we should be worried.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/08/liz-truss-warns-boris-johnson-over-brexit-border-plans
-
We're f***ed.
-
Can't see this idea, if true, going down well here in Scotland.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/boris-johnson-accused-of-plan-emasculate-uk-devolution
On the bright side though, given that Brexit will hopefully be the disaster it promises to be, it may be a useful contribution towards the break-up of the UK.
-
Brilliant as ever from Fintan O'Toole
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson?fbclid=IwAR1besnPPJjmrU0BbdIN3BnJkxU4Wsx_c3ujvsqrZyxmtsE8_xf5ikhMKAI
-
Brilliant as ever from Fintan O'Toole
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson?fbclid=IwAR1besnPPJjmrU0BbdIN3BnJkxU4Wsx_c3ujvsqrZyxmtsE8_xf5ikhMKAI
Good article.
Johnson is an arse of the first magnitude leading a party of lesser magnitude arselets: I'll refrain from applying an epithet to those who voted for the Tories or for Brexit.
-
Failure to spot how low the tories were going.
Poor intelligence from Corbyn's labour.
Monumental stupidity on the part of the Lib Dems and stupidity from the SNP.
Should have either gone for May's deal or held out until another six month reprieve to scupper Johnson but giving him an election?
-
Failure to spot how low the tories were going.
Poor intelligence from Corbyn's labour.
Monumental stupidity on the part of the Lib Dems and stupidity from the SNP.
Should have either gone for May's deal or held out until another six month reprieve to scupper Johnson but giving him an election?
Corbyn was a twat. He had Johnson by the balls but then let him off. Brexit could have been stopped but stupidity and personal ambition got in the way. Still, it's done now and we'll have to make the best of it until more rational people in the next generation take us back into the EU.
-
I reckon if Starmer had been leader of the Labour party, instead of Corbyn, Brexit would have bitten the dust.
-
Corbyn was a twat. Tick
He had Johnson by the balls but then let him off. Swinson and the SNP destroyed the coalition that was keeping Johnson suppressed.
Brexit could have been stopped but stupidity and personal ambition got in the way. Maybe, Still, it's done now and we'll have to make the best of it until more rational people in the next generation take us back into the EU.
-
I reckon if Starmer had been leader of the Labour party, instead of Corbyn, Brexit would have bitten the dust.
“You'll never get anywhere if you go about what-iffing like that.” R. Dahl
-
I'm going to be prime minister, I'm going to do or die
Coz' Corbyn canna dae it coz he disnae qualify!
Hey, Were on the March wi' Swinson's army.......
We're marchin' wi'the SNP
And we'll really shake 'em up when we've fucked it all right up
and handed it all over tae Johnson's team.
With apologies to Andy Cameron.
-
Simon Jenkins on the lunacy of Brexit as regards the lie of 'frictionless' trade.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/13/the-tories-latest-brexit-plans-expose-frictionless-trade-as-a-fiction
-
Hmmm...
https://news.sky.com/story/care-workers-do-not-qualify-for-health-visa-in-new-post-brexit-immigration-plans-12027646
-
John Crace on Gove's announcement today regarding customs arrangements. Brexit is shaping up to be even more disastrous than I'd hope for.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/13/gove-delivers-lorry-load-of-oven-ready-brexit-with-no-ingredients
-
Brexit is well under way (assumption). This will lead to the UK making favourable agreements with all our important trading partners. We know this is the case because our highly intelligent and much admired prime minister has told us so (so it must be true). We can create a trading partnership with China, the world's dominant manufacturing nation, which will be far more advantageous than the current EU partnership.
Our extremely competent government, at the urging of our greatest friend on the planet, the articulate and intellectual giant POTUS Donald J Trump, has decided that any equipment in our digital telecommunications systems must be stripped out as quickly as possible.
China has warned us that the consequences of this action could be serious ...
Having walked away from the world's largest trading bloc, the UK is now sticking two fingers (and more) at China.
Are we set to be the leader of the Third World?
-
Are we set to be the leader of the Third World?
Up against the productivity of Brazil, most of Africa, Malaysia... leader is, I think, optimistic. Watch as we cling to that automatic Security Council seat at the UN as though our credibility depended on it.
O.
-
Brexit is well under way (assumption). This will lead to the UK making favourable agreements with all our important trading partners. We know this is the case because our highly intelligent and much admired prime minister has told us so (so it must be true). We can create a trading partnership with China, the world's dominant manufacturing nation, which will be far more advantageous than the current EU partnership.
Our extremely competent government, at the urging of our greatest friend on the planet, the articulate and intellectual giant POTUS Donald J Trump, has decided that any equipment in our digital telecommunications systems must be stripped out as quickly as possible.
China has warned us that the consequences of this action could be serious ...
Having walked away from the world's largest trading bloc, the UK is now sticking two fingers (and more) at China.
Are we set to be the leader of the Third World?
Worth watching the discussion on Dateline: London about this and other aspects of what is happening with China and the US. We couldn't really form a close trading relationship without selling Hong Kong down the river.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006m93g
-
What a surprise! Govt reneging on promises.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/gove-branded-liar-as-mps-vote-down-animal-welfare-amendment/21/07/?fbclid=IwAR16ucRbZJMp-fd66d-Yn0a93zarR5tDTxitBu9jjve_YTTN7Nq1mkHu76A
-
What a surprise! Govt reneging on promises.
Same thing with the NHS. We will never put it up for sale says Boris. Then votes to allow it to be put up for sale.
Depressing thing is it will not make a whit of difference due to the indifference of a largely apathetic voting population who just consider these lies (and oh so many lies) are business as usual. Allowed by a largely compliant, or do I mean complicit, fourth estate.
-
One wonders how long it will take before the poor saps who voted for both Brexit and the Tories will realise just how naive (I could use a stronger adjective) they have been.
I have come to the view now that we should welcome the most catastrophic Brexit that it is possible to imagine: I suspect that is what the Brexit enthusiasts actually want anyway, in that it might be the quickest route to Scottish independence or, failing that, the demise of the current UK government/Tory party at the earliest opportunity.
-
To some posters on here we will no doubt get through Brexit on our Blitz mentality alone. To those of us who think a little more deeply we should be extremely concerned that the best and the brightest of us are heading elsewhere to work. That alone should get alarm bells ringing in heads, I doubt it will though. After all, Brexit means Brexit, even if you do end up sitting in a shithole third world country.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/brexit-fuels-brain-drain-as-skilled-britons-head-to-the-eu
-
One wonders how long it will take before the poor saps who voted for both Brexit and the Tories will realise just how naive (I could use a stronger adjective) they have been.
I have come to the view now that we should welcome the most catastrophic Brexit that it is possible to imagine: I suspect that is what the Brexit enthusiasts actually want anyway, in that it might be the quickest route to Scottish independence or, failing that, the demise of the current UK government/Tory party at the earliest opportunity.
Unless you have a well stocked bunker or are cannibalistic a no deal Brexit is to be feared not gleefully expected.
Johnson has already shown us he is freaked when uncontrollable (for him) disaster stares him in the
face.
It looks as if he’d only budgeted for one disaster where he could rely on his bullshitting skills to oil his way out. Co vid hasn’t read Dom’s memos on how things should play out.
I think Johnson will need to go begging. To ameliorate no deal Brexit.
-
All going well....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53854730
-
All going well....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53854730
What a shame there isn't an oven ready deal. Still I've never heard of such a thing, no politician has ever uttered that phrase.
-
Even better
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8665557/amp/Boris-Johnson-hires-Brexit-backing-ex-Australian-PM-Tony-Abbott-help-lead-global-trade-push.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Even better
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8665557/amp/Boris-Johnson-hires-Brexit-backing-ex-Australian-PM-Tony-Abbott-help-lead-global-trade-push.html?__twitter_impression=true
Saints preserve us - Abbott is an even bigger buffoon than Johnson!
-
Saints preserve us - Abbott is an even bigger buffoon than Johnson!
That is probably as bad as making Tony Blair envoy for peace in the Middle East.
Let's hope Trump wins in November or he'll be our next Foreign Secretary.
-
It is all going swimmingly
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deal-uk-talks-latest-germany-cancels-eu-summit-a9690911.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR1SELSPWuwbxxqvL81rBYzM4iGmxcanwXo2QcKLjFCNG0VB4-u3jkJlgdU#Echobox=1598538251
-
Hancock's Half Baked
https://news.sky.com/story/tony-abbott-matt-hancock-defends-misogynist-ex-australia-pm-over-possible-trade-role-12062211
-
Possibly not the most important element of Brexit on most peoples' minds, but, my mobile phone bill for August in France now includes a £2.50 data roaming charge.
-
Possibly not the most important element of Brexit on most peoples' minds, but, my mobile phone bill for August in France now includes a £2.50 data roaming charge.
Trouble is that there will be hundreds of little things like that being taken away that people never realised were thanks to the EU. The Brexiteers will blame it all on evil Europe, of course.
-
Bunch of lying dangerous fuckwits.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54051933
-
Bunch of lying dangerous fuckwits.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54051933
He's playing chicken with the EU to try to get them to move on the negotiations. Trouble is, he's driving a Boris bike and they are in a 40 tonne artic.
-
He's playing chicken with the EU to try to get them to move on the negotiations. Trouble is, he's driving a Boris bike and they are in a 40 tonne artic.
And it's putting the Good Friday Agreement at risk. Even trying this as a tactic in chicken pisses away any good reputation the govt has.
-
And it's putting the Good Friday Agreement at risk. Even trying this as a tactic in chicken pisses away any good reputation the govt has.
What good reputation?
-
What good reputation?
Residual from UK govts sticking to international agreements.
-
Residual from UK govts sticking to international agreements.
ah.
It's a depressing sign of the times that sticking to an international agreement is considered good rather than simply taken for granted.
-
All going swimmingly
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-09-08/head-of-governments-legal-department-quits-over-boris-johnsons-brexit-backtrack-plan
-
I'm really surprised to hear about the pushing and shoving going on at the final stages of our negotiations with the EU?
-
All ok that we are going to break the law - It's only in a specific and limited way.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54073836
-
Breaking the law the Barnard Castle way.
-
If Brandon gets caught breaking International law they can take away his diet of Lard as a punishment.
-
I read a piece yesterday saying stop referring to this government as inept or useless or incompetent.
Use the correct words.
Utterly corrupt.
-
Suella Braverman and Liz Truss, down the Slug and Lettuce on friday after leaving the Number Ten typing pool. Meet up with Isobel Oakeshott. Bit of Karaoke, Mohito, Margueritas, Long slow screws up against the wall, snog with Dom, sick up in the bathroom, leave it.......what's not to like about Brexit?
-
I read a piece yesterday saying stop referring to this government as inept or useless or incompetent.
Use the correct words.
Utterly corrupt.
Those for adjectives are not mutually exclusive.
-
I read a piece yesterday saying stop referring to this government as inept or useless or incompetent.
Use the correct words.
Utterly corrupt.
It is both corrupt and incompetent, and also heartless.
-
It is both corrupt and incompetent, and also heartless.
Seems quite competent at the corruption.
-
The signs were there. This has been deliberate all along. This is a govt with no moral compass.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/09/johnson-intended-to-break-the-withdrawal-agreement-even-before-he-signed-it/?fbclid=IwAR03UkS6s5wN2BCr8gEbWVHIhAXMXPbo6z7ORtuLdS_hGMc7AWe7lF2cW08
-
And in related news, yes we are agreeing to tighter state aid restrictions with Japan than the EU are demanding:
https://todayheadline.co/japan-trade-deal-commits-uk-to-stricter-state-aid-curbs-than-in-eu-talks/
Head meet wall.
-
This
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-ex-law-chief-joins-rebellion-and-hits-out-at-pms-unconscionable-plan-12071438
-
And in related news, yes we are agreeing to tighter state aid restrictions with Japan than the EU are demanding:
https://todayheadline.co/japan-trade-deal-commits-uk-to-stricter-state-aid-curbs-than-in-eu-talks/
Head meet wall.
That's not what the article says. It says that we have agreed tighter restrictions with Japan than we are proposing to the EU. The EU wants to continue its even tighter restrictions.
It's still pretty bad and it undermines our negotiations with the EU. I think they are probably pissing themselves laughing.
-
This
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-ex-law-chief-joins-rebellion-and-hits-out-at-pms-unconscionable-plan-12071438
My lawyer tells me I only need to go to prison if I break the law in a way that I find unacceptable. This is great.
-
Ed Milliband on why Johnson and this govt are a disgrace
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-54152055
-
'This Gov could become the first ever Gov to strip the whip from MPs for voting both for and against the WA.'
-
Ed Milliband on why Johnson and this govt are a disgrace
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-54152055
Who is this new Ed Milliband?
He obviously came to leadership too early.
-
Of course
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-kent-54158100?__twitter_impression=true
-
And another law officer gone. To lose one....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54179745?__twitter_impression=true
-
Our trade negotiator showing his cunning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-australia-54193764?__twitter_impression=true
-
This is hugely problematic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-54204967?__twitter_impression=true
-
This is hugely problematic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-54204967?__twitter_impression=true
Surely there were similar problems except EU wide when we were in the EU single market.
-
Do you call permits to enter Kent, kermits?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-kent-internal-border-police-patrol-lorries-b552680.html
-
Do you call permits to enter Kent, kermits?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-kent-internal-border-police-patrol-lorries-b552680.html
Possible: given that Gove et al could reasonably be described as Muppets.
-
Seen elsewhere:
Brexit was supposed to turn the UK into an economic Superman, but all we have ended up with is more clerks in Kent.
-
Seen elsewhere:
Brexit was supposed to turn the UK into an economic Superman, but all we have ended up with is more clerks in Kent.
Like that: I do hope the residents of Kent, the majority of whom voted for both this madness and the Tories, won't moan too loudly when their county turns into a lorry park. They may think they have 'taken back control' even if getting around becomes a bit more problematic.
I also hope the residents of the counties bordering Kent, through which lorries bound for the ferry-ports travel, are suitably sanguine as regards the alleged benefits of Brexit when they too become gridlocked.
-
I also hope the residents of the counties bordering Kent, through which lorries bound for the ferry-ports travel, are suitably sanguine as regards the alleged benefits of Brexit when they too become gridlocked.
Unlikely to happen: Kent is plenty big enough to park all the lorries in. You might not even need to tarmac all of it.
-
Isn't it going well!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/01/brexit-eu-launches-legal-action-against-uk-for-breaching-withdrawal-agreement
-
Laughable
https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1169711/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Laughable
https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1169711/?__twitter_impression=true
Yep - best example of Orwellian doublethink I've seen for a while.
-
And of course
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-chlorinated-chicken-eu-mps-boris-johnson-b914047.html
-
But will no one think of the fishes
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-fish-johnson-macron-barnier/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
But will no one think of the fishes
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-fish-johnson-macron-barnier/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
So, as we are preparing for a "no deal", does this mean that less fish will caught? With a "calamitous" effect on both UK and EU fishing does it mean that it won't be profitable to fish the North Sea? Or is it just that prices will rise?
-
So as the building of a huge lorry park in Kent takes place, the search to find a suitable name is on.
At the moment it looks like it will be called the "Farage Garage."
-
Huge defeat in the Lords for the govt
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/house-of-lords-defeats-johnson-breaking-international-law-brexit_uk_5fa9980ac5b66009569d45be/?__twitter_impression=true
-
A thread from Howard Goodall about the difficulties musicians and other performing artists will have performing in the EU with a no deal Brexit
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1326554078256656389.html
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54986195
Well done Sunderland.
Turkeys/Christmas
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54986195
Well done Sunderland.
Turkeys/Christmas
But nowhere does the article state what the referendum result was in Sunderland. I can make an educated guess as to what it was, but - as it stands - the absence of this piece of information renders the article bland.
Perhaps this is an example of BBC neutrality.
-
But nowhere does the article state what the referendum result was in Sunderland. I can make an educated guess as to what it was, but - as it stands - the absence of this piece of information renders the article bland.
Perhaps this is an example of BBC neutrality.
At the time the Sunderland result was the first that indicated we were likely to leave. Not sure why it would be mentioned in the article on this.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-sunderland-result-vote-brexit-leave-live-latest-remain-a7098776.html
-
But nowhere does the article state what the referendum result was in Sunderland. I can make an educated guess as to what it was, but - as it stands - the absence of this piece of information renders the article bland.
Perhaps this is an example of BBC neutrality.
No I don't think it's an example of BBC neutrality, I think they were just reporting on what would happen to Nissan. I made the connection to Sunderland being a "Vote Leave" area, which I thought everybody had heard about. My apologies if it wasn't clear.
-
But nowhere does the article state what the referendum result was in Sunderland. I can make an educated guess as to what it was, but - as it stands - the absence of this piece of information renders the article bland.
Perhaps this is an example of BBC neutrality.
You don't have to make an educated guess. It was 69% to 31% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#North_East_England).
-
Never hear anything of or about Anna Soubry these days?
ippy.
-
Never hear anything of or about Anna Soubry these days?
ippy.
And your point?
-
And your point?
I'm sure I included a question mark, after: Never hear anything of or about Anna Soubry these days?
ippy.
P S Come to think of it, never hear anything of or about Ken Clark either?
-
I'm sure I included a question mark, after: Never hear anything of or about Anna Soubry these days?
ippy.
The statement was a non sequitur.
Anyway how are those sunlit uplands looking?
A bit dark and foreboding, perhaps?
-
Still at least the New Years diet is taken care of:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/17/british-government-food-shortage-uk-fresh-europe-ports-storage-space
-
The statement was a non sequitur.
Anyway how are those sunlit uplands looking?
A bit dark and foreboding, perhaps?
Doesn't the question mark make my post a question rather than a non sequitur, your response would be more of a non sequitur.
Anyway you still don't hear much about those Anna and Ken anymore?
ippy.
-
No, you made a statement and the question mark looked like a typo.
"Why do we hear nothing of Anna Soubrey these days?", is a question.
-
No, you made a statement and the question mark looked like a typo.
"Why do we hear nothing of Anna Soubrey these days?", is a question.
We obviously don't agree, surly there's no need to write a thesis about question marks before we can come anywhere near some sort of compromise on what is meant when placing a question mark.
Incidentally you don't hear or see much of Ken Clark or Anna Soubry these days do you? If you take a look at text of the text messages the youngsters send each other well?
Regards and have a good rest of trhe day Robbie, ippy.
Is that better? (Couple more ?'s for you to deal with!
P S Suppose I was within your eyesight and I spoke the words of my original post in a questioning tone or manner; not that much of a difference you'd have to admit, unless, of course, it was something you'd rather not hear?
-
Doesn't the question mark make my post a question rather than a non sequitur, your response would be more of a non sequitur.
Anyway you still don't hear much about those Anna and Ken anymore?
ippy.
That last sentence is not a question even though you put a question mark on the end?
You clearly had another reason for posting it?
See what I did there?
-
That last sentence is not a question even though you put a question mark on the end?
You clearly had another reason for posting it?
See what I did there?
I'll refer you back to post 5846 of mine, if you wish to continue please do, I don't think I'll be bothering?
ippy.
-
I'll refer you back to post 5846 of mine, if you wish to continue please do, I don't think I'll be bothering?
ippy.
I will leave it , but as I'm feeling pedantic I'll finish with saying that sticking a question mark at the end of a statement does not make that statement a question.
-
Ippy: P S Suppose I was within your eyesight and I spoke the words of my original post in a questioning tone or manner; not that much of a difference you'd have to admit, unless, of course, it was something you'd rather not hear?
______________________
It would remind me of how a lot of young (and some not so young), people spoke in the late 1990s to 'noughties' with practically every sentence! I remember talking to someone on the telephone at work once with a woman who was doing that and I said a couple of times, "You don't sound terribly sure", which made no difference. That habit has now, thankfully, gone out of fashion.
By the way, I am not surly ;).
-
I will leave it , but as I'm feeling pedantic I'll finish with saying that sticking a question mark at the end of a statement does not make that statement a question.
You're right you were!
Oh yes I nearly forgot, you don't hear much of or about Anna Subury or Ken Clark these days?
ippy.
-
Ippy: P S Suppose I was within your eyesight and I spoke the words of my original post in a questioning tone or manner; not that much of a difference you'd have to admit, unless, of course, it was something you'd rather not hear?
______________________
It would remind me of how a lot of young (and some not so young), people spoke in the late 1990s to 'noughties' with practically every sentence! I remember talking to someone on the telephone at work once with a woman who was doing that and I said a couple of times, "You don't sound terribly sure", which made no difference. That habit has now, thankfully, gone out of fashion.
By the way, I am not surly ;).
You'd probably be quiet difficult to have a conversation with then, especially as you seem to be saying you're not that good at listening to tone of voice or interpreting body language.
This has nothing to do with times past present or future, the language does move on and it seems to you the tone of voice and body language doesn't figure in the same way any more?
Yes and by the way you don't hear much from or about Anna Subury or Ken Clark any more?
-
You're right you were!
Oh yes I nearly forgot, you don't hear much of or about Anna Subury or Ken Clark these days?
ippy.
Well Ken Clarke now sits in the HoL, and has been quite vocal there of late in pointing out criticisms of the current bunch of Tory fuckwits who are posing as a government as regards their attempts to force through legislation that subverts devolution and breaks international law.
Maybe you haven't been paying sufficient attention, ippy.
-
Well Ken Clarke now sits in the HoL, and has been quite vocal there of late in pointing out criticisms of the current bunch of Tory fuckwits who are posing as a government as regards their attempts to force through legislation that subverts devolution and breaks international law.
Maybe you haven't been paying sufficient attention, ippy.
Where's Chuka Amunna gone as well as those other two heroes don't see or hear much about him either.
Can't say I didn't like Chuka other than the his point of view on where we obviously don't see eye to eye.
I couldn't help noticing the vultures up there circling looking over waiting for, from the minutest of, or any other larger scale hiccups we're bound to have after the 31st.
There you are something for the remainer pack to jump on, enjoy!
ippy.
-
Where's Chuka Amunna gone as well as those other two heroes don't see or hear much about him either.
Can't say I didn't like Chuka other than the his point of view on where we obviously don't see eye to eye.
I couldn't help noticing the vultures up there circling looking over waiting for, from the minutest of, or any other larger scale hiccups we're bound to have after the 31st.
There you are something for the remainer pack to jump on, enjoy!
ippy.
You were wrong about Ken Clarke, ippy, and I'm not sure that pulling other names out of a hat compensates for your error.
Brexit will be a disaster of course: in that it is being 'masterminded' by a bunch of corrupt idiots. On the bright side though, it should aid the breakup of the UK in due course.
-
You were wrong about Ken Clarke, ippy, and I'm not sure that pulling other names out of a hat compensates for your error.
Brexit will be a disaster of course: in that it is being 'masterminded' by a bunch of corrupt idiots. On the bright side though, it should aid the breakup of the UK in due course.
I suppose because I'm not a Guardian reader and am unable to take the BBC seriously either on this subject any more, even the RT English language news has less bias on this subject, I suppose because I've written those two off for good, the BBC/Guardian, I suppose it stands to reason I wouldn't have heard much about Ken.
ippy
-
I suppose because I'm not a Guardian reader and am unable to take the BBC seriously either on this subject any more, even the RT English language news has less bias on this subject, I suppose because I've written those two off for good, the BBC/Guardian, I suppose it stands to reason I wouldn't have heard much about Ken.
ippy
Daily Express and ITV
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1359228/brexit-news-ken-clarke-boris-johnson-latest-internal-market-bill-donald-trump-update-vn
-
Soubry in Daily Express
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1356533/brexit-news-anna-soubry-twitter-no-deal-brexit-transition-period-delay-negotiations-latest
-
Oh and as for Umunna, his new role may betaking up his time
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2020-11-18/umunna-the-government-is-taking-the-green-economy-seriously
-
Quiet obviously this one extreme or the other that divides us about brexit won't be going away anytime soon.
You can call me as illogical as you like, I really don't mind, but the thought of that E U Supreme court, or whatever is its correct title is, overruling the U K in the smallest of any decision in any way will never be acceptable to me, this isn't the only reason I voted to leave but it is the main and most important reason for me.
Regards to all, ippy.
-
Quiet obviously this one extreme or the other that divides us about brexit won't be going away anytime soon.
You can call me as illogical as you like, I really don't mind, but the thought of that E U Supreme court, or whatever is its correct title is, overruling the U K in the smallest of any decision in any way will never be acceptable to me, this isn't the only reason I voted to leave but it is the main and most important reason for me.
Regards to all, ippy.
What makes you think British courts are any better at protecting your freedoms than European ones?
-
What makes you think British courts are any better at protecting your freedoms than European ones?
Like I say, leavers and remainers are polls apart on this issue and I dare say it'll be staying that way for a mighty long time, so even if I described my reasons for not wanting that foreign institution, as I see it, looming over the UK, I doubt whatever reason spelled out to you, trying to explain why they're welcome to their court, would there be any point?
All it means is were never likely to agree here, it is an enormously large divide, however it does not mean either side of this dispute is composed of irreversibly bad people as quiet a few remainers seem to want to convey in the direction of those of us that prefer leaving.
ippy.
-
I don't think those that voted leave are "irreversibly bad" - I just think they have been fed a load of lies by malign people who have no interest in the ordinary people of this country and have agreed to make themselves poorer as part of that process.
Unfortunately due to the way these things work they have decided to make me poorer, which is really irritating.
-
Like I say, leavers and remainers are polls apart on this issue and I dare say it'll be staying that way for a mighty long time, so even if I described my reasons for not wanting that foreign institution, as I see it, looming over the UK, I doubt whatever reason spelled out to you, trying to explain why they're welcome to their court, would there be any point?
All it means is were never likely to agree here, it is an enormously large divide, however it does not mean either side of this dispute is composed of irreversibly bad people as quiet a few remainers seem to want to convey in the direction of those of us that prefer leaving.
ippy.
I'd have thought that the bulk of Brexit enthusiasts fall into two classes:
1. Those who told lies about it: for either political reasons and/or the prospect of exploitation (such as by reducing standards and business costs, thereby increasing profits).
2. The gullible.
I do hope that all Brexit enthusiasts will be 'taking [back] control' of the chaos that will commence on 1/1/2021 - after all it will be what they voted for.
-
Brexit will be a disaster, imo. Its supporters will soon start moaning when some things are in short supply.
-
Like I say, leavers and remainers are polls apart on this issue and I dare say it'll be staying that way for a mighty long time, so even if I described my reasons for not wanting that foreign institution, as I see it, looming over the UK, I doubt whatever reason spelled out to you, trying to explain why they're welcome to their court, would there be any point?
All it means is were never likely to agree here, it is an enormously large divide, however it does not mean either side of this dispute is composed of irreversibly bad people as quiet a few remainers seem to want to convey in the direction of those of us that prefer leaving.
ippy.
Sorry, this is just drivel. Portraying those on either side of this as homogenous is incredibly simplistic.
-
I don't think those that voted leave are "irreversibly bad" - I just think they have been fed a load of lies by malign people who have no interest in the ordinary people of this country and have agreed to make themselves poorer as part of that process.
Unfortunately due to the way these things work they have decided to make me poorer, which is really irritating.
I'd have thought that the bulk of Brexit enthusiasts fall into two classes:
1. Those who told lies about it: for either political reasons and/or the prospect of exploitation (such as by reducing standards and business costs, thereby increasing profits).
2. The gullible.
I do hope that all Brexit enthusiasts will be 'taking [back] control' of the chaos that will commence on 1/1/2021 - after all it will be what they voted for.
As with ippy's post I find these sort of takes about 17 million people way too simplistic.
-
I don't think those that voted leave are "irreversibly bad" - I just think they have been fed a load of lies by malign people who have no interest in the ordinary people of this country and have agreed to make themselves poorer as part of that process.
Unfortunately due to the way these things work they have decided to make me poorer, which is really irritating.
My view of your post Trent is, as near as dammit, the complete reverse of yours, it wont happen, the two sides on Brexit are just as I say, we'll never agree!
ippy.
-
I'd have thought that the bulk of Brexit enthusiasts fall into two classes:
1. Those who told lies about it: for either political reasons and/or the prospect of exploitation (such as by reducing standards and business costs, thereby increasing profits).
2. The gullible.
I do hope that all Brexit enthusiasts will be 'taking [back] control' of the chaos that will commence on 1/1/2021 - after all it will be what they voted for.
Like I've said to Trent as near as dammit, without arguing any individual points, I see the dispute the reverse of your way of thinking on this subject and I don't see remainers as bad people either, just wrong.
ippy
-
Like I've said to Trent as near as dammit, without arguing any individual points, I see the dispute the reverse of your way of thinking on this subject and I don't see remainers as bad people either, just wrong.
ippy
I wonder if you will be expressing the same opinions in a year or so's time?
-
Like I've said to Trent as near as dammit, without arguing any individual points, I see the dispute the reverse of your way of thinking on this subject and I don't see remainers as bad people either, just wrong.
ippy
Have you thought of any ways Brexit will benefit you yet?
-
I wonder if you will be expressing the same opinions in a year or so's time?
I'm sure there'll be plenty for remainers to pick at for a long time.
ippy.
-
Have you thought of any ways Brexit will benefit you yet?
Have you got it that we're never likely to agree, whatever anyone in favour of leaving says I doubt their would be any common ground, isn't that why there was a referendum? Sorry we're probably not even going to agree about referendums either.
ippy.
-
... isn't that why there was a referendum? ...
The sole purpose of the referendum was to silence the right wing of the Conservative Party.
-
Glad I don't live in Kent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/24/trial-of-brexit-border-checks-causes-five-mile-lorry-queues-in-kent
-
Have you got it that we're never likely to agree
So the answer is still no. You can't think of any way in which you will be better off as a result of Brexit.
-
Glad I don't live in Kent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/24/trial-of-brexit-border-checks-causes-five-mile-lorry-queues-in-kent
Not a problem. Ippy doesn't live in Kent, so Brexit is all good.
/sarcasm.
-
The sole purpose of the referendum was to silence the right wing of the Conservative Party.
That backfired then. I think one of the tactics employed by some Remainers to win people to their side - ie. call everyone who didn't agree with them a racist idiot - was not particularly persuasive. People on both sides seemed to want to vent rather be diplomatic, listen to concerns and work towards a consensus of some kind. Not listening to people and addressing their concerns seems to be one of the reasons why Leave gained support enough votes to Brexit, and the country became more divided. It was a very useful lesson but people have short memories so doubt it will sink in.
-
So the Spending Review today mentioned Brexit zero times.
-
The sole purpose of the referendum was to silence the right wing of the Conservative Party.
I've no problem assuming you're right about that, it also obviously resolved a problem that had been bothering a lot of people too.
ippy.
-
Glad I don't live in Kent.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/24/trial-of-brexit-border-checks-causes-five-mile-lorry-queues-in-kent
How surprising to see an article of this nature in the Guardian.
ippy.
-
How surprising to see an article of this nature in the Guardian.
ippy.
You can see articles of that nature elsewhere if you can be arsed to look Ippy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8873383/Brexit-Drone-photos-reveal-27-acre-Kent-field-workers-turn-park-1-700-lorries.html
Look at the photos and weep. Is this what you really envisaged in your brave new world.
-
How surprising to see an article of this nature in the Guardian.
ippy.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/kent-brexit-border-check-trials-prompt-five-mile-lorry-tailbacks/ar-BB1blbFL
-
So the answer is still no. You can't think of any way in which you will be better off as a result of Brexit.
The answer is that we're never going to agree on this so I'm not going to argue with anybody, I'm pretty sure that would include you j p.
I'll say again, our population were so divided on brexit neither side would be accepting the others arguments, whatever said, so the only way around this impasse was to have a referendum and I must admit I too would have felt very bitter and let down if remain had won the day.
ippy,
-
You can see articles of that nature elsewhere if you can be arsed to look Ippy.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8873383/Brexit-Drone-photos-reveal-27-acre-Kent-field-workers-turn-park-1-700-lorries.html
Look at the photos and weep. Is this what you really envisaged in your brave new world.
It's a shame the country is so divided on brexit, no doubt there will be plenty to complain about as things settle down, after all we were a part of the EU for around forty years and it'd be even more surprising to me if everything went smoothly during the course of leaving.
It must be a bitter pill for remainers and I think it should also be remembered that I'm not the only person in the UK that voted to leave.
ippy.
-
I'll say again, our population were so divided on brexit neither side would be accepting the others arguments, whatever said, so the only way around this impasse was to have a referendum and I must admit I too would have felt very bitter and let down if remain had won the day.
ippy,
That is plain wrong: there was no widespread public pressure for an EU referendum.
The only pressure was coming from the lunatic fringe of the Tory party and David Cameron was daft enough to concede them a referendum, no doubt to shut them up, if he won a majority in the 2015 general election: he, quite possibly, imagined there would be another pact with the Lib Dems, but he did win a majority and had painted himself into a corner.
He could, of course, have ignored them, and if he had then we wouldn't be in this mess now.
-
It must be a bitter pill for remainers and I think it should also be remembered that I'm not the only person in the UK that voted to leave.
ippy.
And plenty are regretting it.
The same question has been asked at least twice every month since the vote by yougov:
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?'
Over the years there has been an inexorable trend from people thinking it 'right' to thinking it 'wrong'. It is no longer even close, with 50% considering it 'wrong' compared to just 39% who think it 'right'.
-
It must be a bitter pill for remainers and I think it should also be remembered that I'm not the only person in the UK that voted to leave.
I don't think I implied, or indeed, thought that you were the only person to vote leave.
A bitter pill for all of us. You are still in denial.
-
I don't think I implied, or indeed, thought that you were the only person to vote leave.
A bitter pill for all of us. You are still in denial.
Not really Trent, I can see it could be one of the ways a remainer would look at people that prefer to leave the EU.
ippy.
P S had a look at this old post of mine, I meant not really in denial, again, my thoughts on this are as near as dammit visa versa to yours Trent.
-
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-06/the-12-reasonable-worst-case-outcomes-if-brexit-talks-collapse?
I know it won't worry our ardent Leave supporter overly much.
Worries me though.
-
It worries me too. :o
-
John Crace's take on the problems facing our lying arsehole of a PM.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/09/boris-johnson-sets-himself-up-for-a-disastrous-dinner-date
-
It's funny how fish magically become ours when they cross an invisible line drawn in the sea around the UK, but when people try that trick the opposite applies.
-
Without any agreement the UK will be up the creek minus a paddle. :o
-
You know, it makes me proud to know that we an honourable man as Prime Minister. A man who keeps his word. A man who stands by his principles.
Boris Johnson said "Fuck business."
... And he is doing just that.
-
You know, it makes me proud to know that we an honourable man as Prime Minister. A man who keeps his word. A man who stands by his principles.
Boris Johnson said "Fuck business."
... And he is doing just that.
Handbags. It's all about handbags. You buy one. I buy one. Apparently.
-
You mean that he is a Thatcher throwback?
-
You mean that he is a Thatcher throwback?
No - he was babbling about handbags in his press briefing. Fuck knows why.
Much though I detested that woman there is no way she would have made the complete and utter balls up that Johnson has accomplished.
It is mind boggling in its venality and stupidity.
-
Oh, I hadn't head about Johnson's babbling. Thank you.
I read somewhere that Johnson wants to have been prime minister but does want to be prime minister.
-
Oh, I hadn't head about Johnson's babbling. Thank you.
I read somewhere that Johnson wants to have been prime minister but does want to be prime minister.
He wanted to become Prime minister and wants to have been prime minister but is having trouble with the bit in the middle.
-
The attached is a document from a HoL committee to Michael Gove regarding preparedness for 1st January as regards goods transport - it is a scary read.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3919/documents/39339/default/
-
The attached is a document from a HoL committee to Michael Gove regarding preparedness for 1st January as regards goods transport - it is a scary read.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3919/documents/39339/default/
We are led by fuckwits. But we knew this anyway.
-
The Daily Mail post Brexit food guide
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/british-food-substitutes-no-deal-brexit-daily-mail-6720142?fbclid=IwAR2luunj3-hjN5O3MSZm_bPQky3fXD_aZ73gkQNmgQ-Q7ObSguAduvPGXK0
-
Send in the gunboats
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9044873/Royal-Navy-vessels-dispatched-guard-Britains-fishing-waters-No-Deal-Brexit.html
-
Send in the gunboats
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9044873/Royal-Navy-vessels-dispatched-guard-Britains-fishing-waters-No-Deal-Brexit.html
"We don't want to fight
but, by jingo..........."
-
WHAT A MESS!!!! >:(
-
Marina Hyde
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/11/boris-johnson-charm-prime-minister-england-dover?__twitter_impression=true
-
Marina Hyde
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/11/boris-johnson-charm-prime-minister-england-dover?__twitter_impression=true
It will all be fine. I have it on good authority from a Brexit supporter. Anyway it's The Guardian, makes my blood boil. I'm a liberal who reads The Telegraph because it makes me laugh.
-
The Daily Mail post Brexit food guide
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/british-food-substitutes-no-deal-brexit-daily-mail-6720142?fbclid=IwAR2luunj3-hjN5O3MSZm_bPQky3fXD_aZ73gkQNmgQ-Q7ObSguAduvPGXK0
Strange how the Daily Mail was quiet on the subject of pizza shortages before the referendum.
I hope Ippy can come up with his list of benefits of Brexit soon because I'm seeing nothing but downsides.
-
Strange how the Daily Mail was quiet on the subject of pizza shortages before the referendum.
I hope Ippy can come up with his list of benefits of Brexit soon because I'm seeing nothing but downsides.
My spell checker underlined your Ippy on that post you've aimed at me. I'm only mentioning about my handle because I spell it with a lower case i.
I mentioned this to another poster after he had pointed out another one of my far too many misspellings to me, so I felt it was only fair to point out his mistake in return, I can't say I minded this being pointed out to me too much and I'll promise not to be a judge at any spelling bee, ever.
ippy.
-
It will all be fine. I have it on good authority from a Brexit supporter. Anyway it's The Guardian, makes my blood boil. I'm a liberal who reads The Telegraph because it makes me laugh.
Where did I say it'll all be fine, I can remember saying how I feel about Sovereignty and the hang em and flog em in the Telegraph, that paper's so extreme I can't take it seriously and again I don't think any the worse of people who voted remain, voting remain doesn't automatically make someone a bad person.
ippy.
-
My spell checker underlined your Ippy on that post you've aimed at me. I'm only mentioning about my handle because I spell it with a lower case i.
I mentioned this to another poster after he had pointed out another one of my far too many misspellings to me, so I felt it was only fair to point out his mistake in return, I can't say I minded this being pointed out to me too much and I'll promise not to be a judge at any spelling bee, ever.
ippy.
I think there's a new Brexit rule coming in that it is mandatory to properly capitalise all proper nouns just like we did in the good old days of empire before we joined the EU.
Can you think of any real benefits of Brexit?
-
Where did I say it'll all be fine, I can remember saying how I feel about Sovereignty and the hang em and flog em in the Telegraph, that paper's so extreme I can't take it seriously and again I don't think any the worse of people who voted remain, voting remain doesn't automatically make someone a bad person.
ippy.
No I agree, I don't even think those who voted leave are bad people. Just incredibly naive. And misled. And short sighted.
Anyway, who said I was talking about you? I know more than one naive, misled, short sighted leaver.
Anyway, like Jeremy I await the list of all the benefits leaving the EU will bring us. I'm sure you've got one.
-
No I agree, I don't even think those who voted leave are bad people. Just incredibly naive. And misled. And short sighted.
Anyway, who said I was talking about you? I know more than one naive, misled, short sighted leaver.
Anyway, like Jeremy I await the list of all the benefits leaving the EU will bring us. I'm sure you've got one.
Well Trent, there's the thing I, as near as makes no difference, I think the opposite to you.
I think it's more to do with having a go at whatever any leaver likes to say about leaving, you must know how much of a gulf there is between the two sides, surly that's why referendum.
No doubt the referendum was wrong for some reason as well, Trent we'll never agree with anything anybody says on the opposing side of this one says no doubt until the end of time so what's the point?
Oh yes you did point in my direction viz a viz my reference to those two bloody awful newspapers the stupid Guardian and the unrealistic Telegraph. (No doubt there'll be a disagreement about the newspapers too).
ippy.
-
I think there's a new Brexit rule coming in that it is mandatory to properly capitalise all proper nouns just like we did in the good old days of empire before we joined the EU.
Can you think of any real benefits of Brexit?
Yes j p, sovereignty completely justifies leaving on its own for me and before you mention anything in the direction of me saying anything further about leaving, forget it.
I don't look down on remainers and I don't think remainers are simple minded either, I just think remainers got it wrong they're not necessarily bad people either.
ippy.
-
Well Trent, there's the thing I, as near as makes no difference, I think the opposite to you.
I think it's more to do with having a go at whatever any leaver likes to say about leaving, you must know how much of a gulf there is between the two sides, surly that's why referendum.
No doubt the referendum was wrong for some reason as well, Trent we'll never agree with anything anybody on the opposing side of this one says no doubt until the end of time so what's the point?
Oh yes you did point in my direction viz a viz my reference to those two bloody awful newspapers the stupid Guardian and the unrealistic Telegraph. (No doubt there'll be a disagreement about the newspapers too).
ippy.
You still haven't mentioned a single actual benefit from Brexit. It is without doubt there will be a cost to the economy, even greater if, as now looks likely, we leave with no deal. In that case, there are likely to be food shortages (supermarkets are trying to stockpile (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9038071/Tesco-stockpiling-food-amid-fears-shelves-worst-case-scenario-no-deal-Brexit.html) but it's Xmas too) - certainly there will be price increases. People will lose their jobs - Nissan has said their Sunderland plant will not be viable (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/business/nissan-source-warns-there-no-plan-b-case-no-deal-brexit-3064524) with no trade deal. Other automotive plants will likely follow. As always, it's the poor who will suffer most - watch the Tory MPs and their rich friends get richer.
And for what exactly?
Sovereignty is an impossible unicorn and always was. Every trade deal we do takes away some sovereignty because it comes with obligations that must be met - it's only blind hatred of the EU that is preventing us doing a deal with them because of the idiotic prejudice of the Brexit extremists who will gladly give up sovereignty to do a deal with (for example) the USA. WTO rules have to be followed even if we never do another trade deal with anybody.
-
Is that a gunship in your pocket...
https://www.channel4.com/news/royal-navy-gunboats-on-standby-to-protect-british-fishing-waters-after-no-deal-brexit
-
Gunships in the channel: it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
I suspect that Boris the Liar has morphed into Captain Mainwaring.
-
Gunships in the channel: it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
I suspect that Boris the Liar has morphed into Captain Mainwaring.
You could be right!
-
Reminds me of the early 70s cod wars, when I was on the side of Iceland.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-55288568
The trade talks with the EU are to be extended beyond today.
-
Taking back control of our fishing rights by giving the monitoring responsibilities to..........erm, the French:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/reminder-that-britain-handed-the-license-to-monitor-its-waters-to-a-french-firm-last-year/13/12/?
Sovereignty eh? A wonderful thing.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-55288568
The trade talks with the EU are to be extended beyond today.
Oh, good.
-
Taking back control of our fishing rights by giving the monitoring responsibilities to..........erm, the French:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/reminder-that-britain-handed-the-license-to-monitor-its-waters-to-a-french-firm-last-year/13/12/?
Sovereignty eh? A wonderful thing.
Must be better than just handing over cash to Boris' mates for sticking in pins at random?
-
Yes j p, sovereignty completely justifies leaving on its own for me
But how does it benefit you? How does it benefit me? How does it benefit anybody except the politicians in Westminster?
I don't look down on remainers and I don't think remainers are simple minded either, I just think remainers got it wrong they're not necessarily bad people either.
How can you say the Remainers got it wrong when you can't even think of a single benefit of leaving?
-
Must be better than just handing over cash to Boris' mates for sticking in pins at random?
They probably are Boris's mates.
-
You still haven't mentioned a single actual benefit from Brexit. It is without doubt there will be a cost to the economy, even greater if, as now looks likely, we leave with no deal. In that case, there are likely to be food shortages (supermarkets are trying to stockpile (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9038071/Tesco-stockpiling-food-amid-fears-shelves-worst-case-scenario-no-deal-Brexit.html) but it's Xmas too) - certainly there will be price increases. People will lose their jobs - Nissan has said their Sunderland plant will not be viable (https://www.sunderlandecho.com/business/nissan-source-warns-there-no-plan-b-case-no-deal-brexit-3064524) with no trade deal. Other automotive plants will likely follow. As always, it's the poor who will suffer most - watch the Tory MPs and their rich friends get richer.
And for what exactly?
Sovereignty is an impossible unicorn and always was. Every trade deal we do takes away some sovereignty because it comes with obligations that must be met - it's only blind hatred of the EU that is preventing us doing a deal with them because of the idiotic prejudice of the Brexit extremists who will gladly give up sovereignty to do a deal with (for example) the USA. WTO rules have to be followed even if we never do another trade deal with anybody.
You seem to have underlined the contents of my post in this post of yours, N T S.
ippy.
-
You seem to have underlined the contents of my post in this post of yours, N T S.
ippy.
And you have underlined the complete emptiness of your position.
-
j p, go back to the previous post of mine you're responding to for your answer to this lot you've pointed in my direction, 'How can you say the Remainers got it wrong when you can't even think of a single benefit of leaving?'
ippy.
-
You seem to have underlined the contents of my post in this post of yours, N T S.
And you still cannot point to any advantage to leaving. Even your one stated reason (sovereignty) is vacuous because we can't have it anyway. We'll be giving away to the WTO and every other country with which we do trade deals and with every international treaty we enter into.
You seem to be willing to make real people suffer real losses for your impossible fantasy.
-
And you still cannot point to any advantage to leaving. Even your one stated reason (sovereignty) is vacuous because we can't have it anyway. We'll be giving away to the WTO and every other country with which we do trade deals and with every international treaty we enter into.
You seem to be willing to make real people suffer real losses for your impossible fantasy.
If you've read any of my other posts you should be able to see my angle and sorry but I probably for as long as we both live this is one subject we're never going to agree with each other.
The sorry is for not agreeing with you and is certainly not intended to be an apology for being a leaver.
I'm sure you're a perfectly decent person we just don't agree on this, that's all.
ippy.
-
If you've read any of my other posts you should be able to see my angle and sorry but I probably for as long as we both live this is one subject we're never going to agree with each other.
The thing is that your attitude to this is about the same as Nicolas Marks' towards science. You refuse to even listen to the actual arguments, let alone engage with the logic of the situation.
-
I cannot see that leaving the EU is any benefit to the UK, just the opposite.
-
The thing is that your attitude to this is about the same as Nicolas Marks' towards science. You refuse to even listen to the actual arguments, let alone engage with the logic of the situation.
Yes, with a small difference that I keep on reminding people that send posts like this one of yours that you can look and perhaps find your cannon fodder elsewhere.
Again as I wrote in a previous post I would be equally as bitter if the vote had gone the other way, I don't think remainers are a bunch of thick gullible dim whited naive idiots, I just think they've got it wrong nothing more than that.
Can you really see leavers and remainers agreeing with each other?
ippy
-
I cannot see that leaving the EU is any benefit to the UK, just the opposite.
I cannot see that remaining in the EU is any benefit to the UK, just the opposite.
ippy.
-
Yes, with a small difference that I keep on reminding people that send posts like this one of yours that you can look and perhaps find your cannon fodder elsewhere.
Again as I wrote in a previous post I would be equally as bitter if the vote had gone the other way, I don't think remainers are a bunch of thick gullible dim whited naive idiots, I just think they've got it wrong nothing more than that.
Can you really see leavers and remainers agreeing with each other?
ippy
yes, Nick.
-
I cannot see that remaining in the EU is any benefit to the UK, just the opposite.
ippy.
Ok, Nick
-
Yes, with a small difference that I keep on reminding people that send posts like this one of yours that you can look and perhaps find your cannon fodder elsewhere.
Again as I wrote in a previous post I would be equally as bitter if the vote had gone the other way, I don't think remainers are a bunch of thick gullible dim whited naive idiots, I just think they've got it wrong nothing more than that.
Can you really see leavers and remainers agreeing with each other?
I cannot see that remaining in the EU is any benefit to the UK, just the opposite.
All of which is just the same blind faith that Nicolas shows and with just as little in the way of actual argument.
Remaining in the EU would benefit our economy and save UK jobs. It allows seamless trade across the region allowing for just-in-time manufacturing and the ability for goods made in the UK to sell into the whole EU without tariffs. It would retain our rights to live and work anywhere in the EU. It would help to keep our standards of food safety, workers rights, consumer rights, and many other standards, high. It would make us part of a large trading block that can stand up to the USA and China, rather than the tiny UK having to grovel for deals by itself. It makes us a part of Europe-wide security data sharing, helping to prevent terrorism and organised crime. It makes us part of collaborative projects in science and technology. It regulates things like data roaming charges across the entire region, because it has the clout to impose those standards on the technology companies. And, so on, and so on.
Your turn.
-
...
Remaining in the EU would benefit our economy and save UK jobs. It allows seamless trade across the region allowing for just-in-time manufacturing and the ability for goods made in the UK to sell into the whole EU without tariffs. It would retain our rights to live and work anywhere in the EU. It would help to keep our standards of food safety, workers rights, consumer rights, and many other standards, high. It would make us part of a large trading block that can stand up to the USA and China, rather than the tiny UK having to grovel for deals by itself. It makes us a part of Europe-wide security data sharing, helping to prevent terrorism and organised crime. It makes us part of collaborative projects in science and technology. It regulates things like data roaming charges across the entire region, because it has the clout to impose those standards on the technology companies. And, so on, and so on.
...
Agree with all that - indeed, am sure that leaving will prove to be a terrible mistake.
But - there could be benefits in some areas. Eg. The CAP has caused any number of problems, being free from it may enable a better approach to farming:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/30/uk-farmers-reform-subsidies-british-agriculture
Though, there is still the issue of trusting this UK gov. and farmers to actually bring in any changes in a reasonable, competent and equitable way.
-
Agree with all that - indeed, am sure that leaving will prove to be a terrible mistake.
But - there could be benefits in some areas. Eg. The CAP has caused any number of problems, being free from it may enable a better approach to farming:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/30/uk-farmers-reform-subsidies-british-agriculture
Though, there is still the issue of trusting this UK gov. and farmers to actually bring in any changes in a reasonable, competent and equitable way.
Yes. I don't think anybody would claim the EU (or an political body for that matter) is perfect and without problems, it's just that the advantages of membership far outweigh the problems. Also, as as member, we have had, and could have continued to have, significant influence within it.
-
Right, ippy. instead of looking at this matter from a national "sovereignty" point of view, let's consider it from a personal point of view.
Can you provide us with details of any aspect of membership of the EU which has resulted in you personally being materially disadvantaged? And what was the form of this disadvantage?
-
Right, ippy. instead of looking at this matter from a national "sovereignty" point of view, let's consider it from a personal point of view.
Can you provide us with details of any aspect of membership of the EU which has resulted in you personally being materially disadvantaged? And what was the form of this disadvantage?
Try somebody else H H.
ippy.
-
Try somebody else H H.
Yes, just like Nicholas Marks, your blind faith can't stand to be directly challenged, so you have to ignore anybody who tries.
-
This chimes
https://thecritic.co.uk/my-brexit-hell/
-
Yes, just like Nicholas Marks, your blind faith can't stand to be directly challenged, so you have to ignore anybody who tries.
Two things, remainers and leavers have very little in common where Brexit's concerned, if anything, please feel free to look elsewhere for a whipping boy, (no not that type of whipping boy).
ippy.
-
Two things, remainers and leavers have very little in common where Brexit's concerned, if anything, please feel free to look elsewhere for a whipping boy, (no not that type of whipping boy).
The difference here though, is that the remainers here are willing to give reasons and you're not. Which makes the divide more akin to blind faith (you and Nicolas) versus reasoning.
-
The difference here though, is that the remainers here are willing to give reasons and you're not. Which makes the divide more akin to blind faith (you and Nicolas) versus reasoning.
I can see why this would look like that to a remainer,
Nicks, posts all spouting nonsense.
And any post made by any leaver would, more than likely, sound like one of Nicks nonsense posts to a remainer
Yes I can see the thinking behind that idea and making that comparison, yes I see what it is you're getting at.
ippy.
-
This is what you have written in one of your justifiable responses to the gibberish being spoutd by Nicholas Marks. ippy.
There is nothing wrong with saying you haven't got an evidential answer and then explain why you believe in spite of the lack of any verifiable evidence.
This is a question that I asked you a short while ago:
Can you provide us with details of any aspect of membership of the EU which has resulted in you personally being materially disadvantaged? And what was the form of this disadvantage?
This was your response:
Try somebody else H H.
Now, instead of getting annoyed, do you think that you could answer the question that I posed? So far, your statements about Brexit have appeared to be articles of faith rather than reasoned argument. Or does the principle you apply to Nick not actually apply to any of your own postings?
-
j p, go back to the previous post of mine you're responding to for your answer to this lot you've pointed in my direction, 'How can you say the Remainers got it wrong when you can't even think of a single benefit of leaving?'
ippy.
You keep complaining about the gap between us but you are not dong anything to try to narrow it.
The truth is that you know there are no benefits to Brexit. You'd just rather have British people telling you what to do and screwing up the country than foreign people. If you would admit that that is your only argument, we can get on to discuss why it's based on false premises.
-
Now, instead of getting annoyed, do you think that you could answer the question that I posed? So far, your statements about Brexit have appeared to be articles of faith rather than reasoned argument. Or does the principle you apply to Nick not actually apply to any of your own postings?
Of course he can't answer the question. His reasons for leaving the EU are all ideological. He can't point to any real benefits because there aren't any and he knows it. He just basically doesn't like the idea of foreigners having a say in how we should run our country.
-
You'd just rather have British people telling you what to do and screwing up the country than foreign people.
It's not even as if we'll achieve that though. Every trade deal and every international treaty involves giving up sovereignty. Even if we leave with no deal at all, as Michael Heseltine has said (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/13/brexit-is-the-worst-decision-of-modern-times-why-are-its-critics-in-cabinet-so-silent), "Sovereignty over the rules will simply transfer from Brussels to the WTO head office in Geneva." Brexiteers are chasing an impossible unicorn and they don't care how many jobs are lost or how much it costs our economy.
-
It's not even as if we'll achieve that though. Every trade deal and every international treaty involves giving up sovereignty. Even if we leave with no deal at all, as Michael Heseltine has said (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/13/brexit-is-the-worst-decision-of-modern-times-why-are-its-critics-in-cabinet-so-silent), "Sovereignty over the rules will simply transfer from Brussels to the WTO head office in Geneva." Brexiteers are chasing an impossible unicorn and they don't care how many jobs are lost or how much it costs our economy.
It isn't just about trade though. There are other areas over which the EU has some jurisdiction. Immigration is the obvious one, also one of the laws about rich people being able to move money around to avoid paying tax is quite significant to Brexiteers - well, the really rich ones, not the ones like ippy.
-
This is what you have written in one of your justifiable responses to the gibberish being spoutd by Nicholas Marks. ippy.
This is a question that I asked you a short while ago:
This was your response:
Now, instead of getting annoyed, do you think that you could answer the question that I posed? So far, your statements about Brexit have appeared to be articles of faith rather than reasoned argument. Or does the principle you apply to Nick not actually apply to any of your own postings?
Yes you're right but I have explained many times the reason there was a referendum was because of the gulf between leave and remain it wouldn't matter what any leaver wrote it'd be like throwing raw meat to the sharks or visa versa a remainer.
So far I think I've soft peddled on remainers even though it can be tempting sometimes, again I don't see remainers as a bunch of idiots that are incapable of thinking for themselves, I just think remaining wasn't the right decision, they got it wrong that's all.
Going by some news on YouTube about an hour ago, 12 ish, it looks like no deal is now on.
I have no intention to discuss brexit here because of how contentious and almost war like it is and believe it or not I enjoy the company of most posters on this forum, including the ones I differ with for most of the time.
ippy.
-
You keep complaining about the gap between us but you are not dong anything to try to narrow it.
The truth is that you know there are no benefits to Brexit. You'd just rather have British people telling you what to do and screwing up the country than foreign people. If you would admit that that is your only argument, we can get on to discuss why it's based on false premises.
See my post 5953 to H H.
ippy.
-
So far I think I've soft peddled on remainers even though it can be tempting sometimes...
I don't think I believe you. I think you have absolutely nothing to say to us because you know there are no actual advantages to leaving, you know that it will cause real people real harm and that you can't justify that in any rational way because the only reason you want it is the irrational and impossible (not to mention worthless) ideal of 'sovereignty'.
-
I don't think I believe you. I think you have absolutely nothing to say to us because you know there are no actual advantages to leaving, you know that it will cause real people real harm and that you can't justify that in any rational way because the only reason you want it is the irrational and impossible (not to mention worthless) ideal of 'sovereignty'.
Well said.
-
I don't think I believe you. I think you have absolutely nothing to say to us because you know there are no actual advantages to leaving, you know that it will cause real people real harm and that you can't justify that in any rational way because the only reason you want it is the irrational and impossible (not to mention worthless) ideal of 'sovereignty'.
It's perfectly legitimate for you to think whatever you like N T S.
ippy
-
I don't think I believe you. I think you have absolutely nothing to say to us because you know there are no actual advantages to leaving, you know that it will cause real people real harm and that you can't justify that in any rational way because the only reason you want it is the irrational and impossible (not to mention worthless) ideal of 'sovereignty'.
Maybe he as nothing to say because the debate is over we are leaving.
I'm sure a lot of remainers can't wait to have some sense of victory if things don't work out, maybe that is why most have focused on moaning about it instead of trying to get the best sort of Brexit possible?
-
Maybe he as nothing to say because the debate is over we are leaving.
That might work if he didn't keep on bringing up the subject.
I'm sure a lot of remainers can't wait to have some sense of victory if things don't work out, maybe that is why most have focused on moaning about it instead of trying to get the best sort of Brexit possible?
How are we supposed to help get the best deal? Fuckwit Johnson and his band of incompetent wankers are the only people who can do that.
I hope we do get a deal, pretty much anything, no matter how pathetic will be better than the catastrophe of no deal but that won't stop it from costing the economy and causing job losses.
-
Maybe he as nothing to say because the debate is over we are leaving.
The debate is not over. The UK is eventually going to rejoin the EU.
I'm sure a lot of remainers can't wait to have some sense of victory if things don't work out, maybe that is why most have focused on moaning about it instead of trying to get the best sort of Brexit possible?
Ha ha. That is hilarious. The ship to the best sort of Brexit possible sailed a long time ago. The best chance now is to get some sort of crappy trade deal but it looks just as likely that, in order to satisfy BoJo's ego, we'll end up with the worst sort of Brexit possible.
The Brexiteers have royally fucked up this country and every single one of you bears some of the blame.
-
I am sure the Brexit nitwits will blame the remainers if there is no deal, which is likely to have dire consequences for the UK. :o
-
I am sure the Brexit nitwits will blame the remainers if there is no deal, which is likely to have dire consequences for the UK. :o
Nothing so sure as that, LR.
-
I am sure the Brexit nitwits will blame the remainers if there is no deal, which is likely to have dire consequences for the UK. :o
The so called by you, nitwits, will be managing without a deal and I don't remember reading or hearing anywhere that leaving was going to be a cake walk.
Even without taking the result of the referendum into consideration surely an eighty plus seats result at the last election as well as never before labour seats going over to the conservatives, this must have been conveying something or the other to you.
There must be a lot of thick people, according to the subtle clues you give from time to time, thickos that don't want to be a part of 'an ever closer union'.
I'm not particularly that keen on Boris either much the same as you but surely you can see going by the large number of seats they gained it was telling you how much of a minority the super intelligent, all seeing remainers were/are.
As I have to repeat each time I write here there's no point discussing this contentious subject that's why we had the referendum and why I don't see any point in arguing with anyone here because the remainers and leavers will, I'm convinced will always be staying entrenched on their chosen sides, forever intransigent with their own beliefs whatever argument offered by an opponent.
Regards L R, ippy.
-
Even without taking the result of the referendum into consideration surely an eighty plus seats result at the last election as well as never before labour seats going over to the conservatives, this must have been conveying something or the other to you.
You do realise, ippy, that the electorate in Scotland voted for neither Brexit nor the Tories, so all it conveys to me is that the Scottish electorate is effectively being disenfranchised by the weight of numbers of the electorate in England - there is a solution for that though.
There must be a lot of thick people, according to the subtle clues you give from time to time, thickos that don't want to be a part of 'an ever closer union'.
And on the back of this there is another Union that now needs dissolving: so I do hope Brexit is an utter disaster (which seems likely given those who are 'masterminding' it), since that would perhaps hasten the end of the UK.
-
The so called by you, nitwits, will be managing without a deal and I don't remember reading or hearing anywhere that leaving was going to be a cake walk.
For fuck's sake, were you even paying attention during the leave campaign? Quite apart from the big lie on the side of the bus (£350 million a week for the NHS), we have:-
"Coming to a free trade agreement with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history." - Liam Fox
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want." - Michael Gove
"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards." - John Redwood
"It will be so easy to negotiate a trade deal, and of course, it's in the European Union's interest, just as it is in ours." - Paul Nuttal
"A trade deal with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee." - Gerard Batten
I got bored after I'd collected those but there are plenty more if you want to look. Where did any leaver say that it would cost the economy and cause job losses?
And what is "managing without a deal"? What would you say to (for example) the 6000 workers at Nissan's Sunderland plant, which they have said would not be viable if there is no deal?
-
You do realise, ippy, that the electorate in Scotland voted for neither Brexit nor the Tories, so all it conveys to me is that the Scottish electorate is effectively being disenfranchised by the weight of numbers of the electorate in England - there is a solution for that though.
And on the back of this there is another Union that now needs dissolving: so I do hope Brexit is an utter disaster (which seems likely given those who are 'masterminding' it), since that would perhaps hasten the end of the UK.
Scotland's a part of the UK at the mo and I have to admit I wouldn't want to split with the Scots anytime, but there, we are supposed to be living in a democracy.
As for brexit neither of us are likely to be as one on that anytime soon anyway have a good christmas and why you Scots don't seem to know how to celebrate the new year coming in properly, I don't know.
I share your dislike of the Tories, it was a one timer only for me, as a matter of fact I don't like any of the others too.
Other than that last election I have to use both hands driving the marker to force myself to vote most times.
Regards ippy.
-
For fuck's sake, were you even paying attention during the leave campaign? Quite apart from the big lie on the side of the bus (£350 million a week for the NHS), we have:-
"Coming to a free trade agreement with the EU should be one of the easiest in human history." - Liam Fox
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want." - Michael Gove
"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards." - John Redwood
"It will be so easy to negotiate a trade deal, and of course, it's in the European Union's interest, just as it is in ours." - Paul Nuttal
"A trade deal with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee." - Gerard Batten
I got bored after I'd collected those but there are plenty more if you want to look. Where did any leaver say that it would cost the economy and cause job losses?
And what is "managing without a deal"? What would you say to (for example) the 6000 workers at Nissan's Sunderland plant, which they have said would not be viable if there is no deal?
I'm sure you must know my response to any post of this kind is by now N T S.
However Happy Christmas for now and I wish you well, ippy.
-
I'm sure you must know my response to any post of this kind is by now N T S.
Yes - I directly falsified your claim with evidence, so you're going to totally ignore it - just like Nicolas Marks and other theists you are so keen to criticise, do.
-
Yes - I directly falsified your claim with evidence, so you're going to totally ignore it - just like Nicolas Marks and other theists you are so keen to criticise, do.
Like I keep on saying to you.
Do you really think I could write anything favourable about leaving that we would agree about?
I am not going there.
ippy
-
Like I keep on saying to you.
Do you really think I could write anything favourable about leaving that we would agree about?
Do you think Nicolas Marks could write anything about his beliefs that you would agree with? You are doing the same thing as he does and that you criticise him for. That's called 'hypocrisy'.
-
I don't remember reading or hearing anywhere that leaving was going to be a cake walk.
So why the fuck are we doing it?
Even without taking the result of the referendum into consideration surely an eighty plus seats result at the last election as well as never before labour seats going over to the conservatives, this must have been conveying something or the other to you.
What it conveys is that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
As I have to repeat each time I write here there's no point discussing this contentious subject
There's every point. You could have presented a cogent argument for leaving the EU but, instead, you just keep repeating the ad populum fallacy and refusing to present any kind of argument whatsoever.
You've actually got nothing. You are condemning a lot of people to a lot of hardship for some bullshit Little Englander fantasy.
-
Do you really think I could write anything favourable about leaving that we would agree about?
You could at least try. People are going to have their lives destroyed by Brexit. You owe it to them to tell them what their sacrifice is for.
-
I'd amazed, given the rapid worsening of the Covid situation, both here and across much of the rest of Europe, that there has been no emergency move to find a legal way of continuing the current transitional arrangements for a further 6 - 9 months or so to allow for mass vaccination and for the Covid crisis to become less acute - it seems madness to allow the likely disruption from the the insanity of Brexit to happen in the current circumstances.
-
So why the fuck are we doing it?
What it conveys is that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
There's every point. You could have presented a cogent argument for leaving the EU but, instead, you just keep repeating the ad populum fallacy and refusing to present any kind of argument whatsoever.
You've actually got nothing. You are condemning a lot of people to a lot of hardship for some bullshit Little Englander fantasy.
Like anyone else j p, You're entitled to your opinion.
ippy.
-
I'd amazed, given the rapid worsening of the Covid situation, both here and across much of the rest of Europe, that there has been no emergency move to find a legal way of continuing the current transitional arrangements for a further 6 - 9 months or so to allow for mass vaccination and for the Covid crisis to become less acute - it seems madness to allow the likely disruption from the the insanity of Brexit to happen in the current circumstances.
Yes that's one way of looking at things but unfortunately for you most of the UK were and are determined to leave in spite of the difficulties that admittedly are bound to occur.
That's where we differ I think you'll find most if not all levers think it's for the long term best, I think we all know the majority of the old warn out arguments of the BBC inspired, 'in spite of', or 'because of' etc and the rather unnecessary abusive terms that haven't achieved much other than perhaps strengthening the resolve of those of us like me that really don't relish the idea of 'ever closer union'.
I have some remainers in my own family it's a subject we mostly leave on one side, I pop my head up from time to time on this thread more to let it be known it's not a remainers only thread.
ippy.
-
Yes that's one way of looking at things but unfortunately for you most of the UK were and are determined to leave in spite of the difficulties that admittedly are bound to occur.
Your spiteful determination to impose "difficulties" on Scotland isn't going down very well here - as will be made clear in May.
That's where we differ I think you'll find most if not all levers think it's for the long term best
In what way "best".
I think we all know the majority of the old warn out arguments of the BBC inspired, 'in spite of', or 'because of' etc and the rather unnecessary abusive terms that haven't achieved much other than perhaps strengthening the resolve of those of us like me that really don't relish the idea of 'ever closer union'.
So, does your "resolve" justify the damage that will be done?
I don't relish the current existing "ever closer union' with the electorate of England continuing if the majority there think as you do by voting for both Brexit and the Tories - hopefully that will change in due course, Scotland will opt out of the sinking-ship UK, and we can leave you guys to get your wagons in a circle and man the barricades in order to keep johhny foreigner at bay.
Remember - when it goes belly-up, as it surely will, you guys bear all of the responsibility.
-
Yes that's one way of looking at things but unfortunately for you most of the UK were and are determined to leave in spite of the difficulties that admittedly are bound to occur.
That's where we differ I think you'll find most if not all levers think it's for the long term best, I think we all know the majority of the old warn out arguments of the BBC inspired, 'in spite of', or 'because of' etc and the rather unnecessary abusive terms that haven't achieved much other than perhaps strengthening the resolve of those of us like me that really don't relish the idea of 'ever closer union'.
The referendum was won on a string of lies about lots of money for the NHS, the easiest deal in human history, and so on. Nobody in the leave campaign was talking about how much it was going to cost the economy or how many jobs would be lost, that was all dismissed as 'project fear'. We also had an opt-out from 'ever closer union' (although you've never actually said why you think it is such a bad idea).
Even now people are regretting the choice according to polls (https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/) and that's before any of the real consequences have even happened. How do you think the support will hold up when they do, especially if there's no deal and we get mass job losses and shortages of fresh food and medicines on top of all the suffering from Covid?
I have some remainers in my own family it's a subject we mostly leave on one side, I pop my head up from time to time on this thread more to let it be known it's not a remainers only thread.
Yes, to do a Nicolas Marks: spout your unsupported blind faith and ignore all the counterarguments.
-
Bearing in mind Brexit is a Tory-driven notion you'd have thought that by now, over 4 years on, and at this late stage in the game , they'd have at least united as a party behind what form of Brexit is their agreed policy: but no, they are still arguing among themselves and their lunatic fringe continues to wag the rest of the lunatic dog.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/20/conservative-mps-threaten-rebellion-on-brexit-deal
-
The debate is not over. The UK is eventually going to rejoin the EU.Ha ha. That is hilarious.
Sounds like you made a joke and laughed at it?
If you want us to rejoin you need to improve on your skills of persuasion.
The Brexiteers have royally fucked up this country and every single one of you bears some of the blame.
That is the sort of attitude the resulted in you losing the vote in the first place, democracy: winners/losers both take responsibility.
I wanted Norway, there was a point where remain politicians and supporters could have got that, they passed it up for a chance of another vote.
-
Your spiteful determination to impose "difficulties" on Scotland isn't going down very well here - as will be made clear in May.
In what way "best".
So, does your "resolve" justify the damage that will be done?
I don't relish the current existing "ever closer union' with the electorate of England continuing if the majority there think as you do by voting for both Brexit and the Tories - hopefully that will change in due course, Scotland will opt out of the sinking-ship UK, and we can leave you guys to get your wagons in a circle and man the barricades in order to keep johhny foreigner at bay.
Remember - when it goes belly-up, as it surely will, you guys bear all of the responsibility.
Like I keep on saying my view is as near as you can get to the complete opposite of yours, not that I feel I need to apologise but I do think it's a shame this Grand Canyon like of a divide has come up and I am sorry some take it so bitterly.
ippy.
-
The referendum was won on a string of lies about lots of money for the NHS, the easiest deal in human history, and so on. Nobody in the leave campaign was talking about how much it was going to cost the economy or how many jobs would be lost, that was all dismissed as 'project fear'. We also had an opt-out from 'ever closer union' (although you've never actually said why you think it is such a bad idea).
Even now people are regretting the choice according to polls (https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/) and that's before any of the real consequences have even happened. How do you think the support will hold up when they do, especially if there's no deal and we get mass job losses and shortages of fresh food and medicines on top of all the suffering from Covid?
Yes, to do a Nicolas Marks: spout your unsupported blind faith and ignore all the counterarguments.
I've answered Gordon's post earlier on and that answer would be much the same to you N T S.
We'll never see eye to eye on this one.
ippy.
-
I've answered Gordon's post earlier on and that answer would be much the same to you N T S.
We'll never see eye to eye on this one.
Not as long as you keep running away from the issues like all the fundie theists you like to criticise so much. ::)
-
Not as long as you keep running away from the issues like all the fundie theists you like to criticise so much. ::)
I'm still here N T S.
ippy.
-
I'm still here N T S.
Yes - and still running away from all the arguments that are put to you...
-
Yes - and still running away from all the arguments that are put to you...
Time of good will and all of that and you know we'll never agree on this one and your view about brexit is equally as poisonous to me.
ippy.
-
Time of good will and all of that and you know we'll never agree on this one and your view about brexit is equally as poisonous to me.
You're never going to agree with theists either, but it doesn't stop you criticising them, specifically for not having proper evidence to offer. Yet here you are making claims and refusing to even discuss any evidence...
-
This looks like fun
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2020/dec/19/aerial-footage-shows-scale-of-lorry-queues-on-m20-to-dover-video?CMP=share_btn_tw
-
You're never going to agree with theists either, but it doesn't stop you criticising them, specifically for not having proper evidence to offer. Yet here you are making claims and refusing to even discuss any evidence...
Like I have said I'm fine with your point of view and you're welcome to it.
ippy.
-
Oven ready
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-55393560?__twitter_impression=true
-
Yes that's one way of looking at things but unfortunately for you most of the UK were and are determined to leave in spite of the difficulties that admittedly are bound to occur.
That is almost certainly false. 52% of the actual voters wanted Brexit and even some of them would probably have voted the other way if they had known what the reality of the situation would be four years hence. People under the age of 18 at the time were fairly comprehensively in favour of staying in the EU.
I think you are a coward on this subject, by the way. Why don't you just admit that you think your sovereignty fantasy important to you than other people's well being and livelihoods?
-
Sounds like you made a joke and laughed at it?
You made the joke with your claim about the best Brexit deal possible. It currently looks odds on that there will be no deal at all.
If you want us to rejoin you need to improve on your skills of persuasion.
No I don't. Over the next few years and decades it will become blindingly obvious that we need to be in the EU. Brexit only had a wafer thin majority in the first place.
That is the sort of attitude the resulted in you losing the vote in the first place, democracy: winners/losers both take responsibility.
What lost us the vote was all the lying by the Leave campaigns.
Do you honestly think Brexit is going well?
I wanted Norway, there was a point where remain politicians and supporters could have got that, they passed it up for a chance of another vote.
Rubbish. Norway was never going to happen. The Brexit campaigners who told you it could or would were lying.
-
You're never going to agree with theists either, but it doesn't stop you criticising them, specifically for not having proper evidence to offer. Yet here you are making claims and refusing to even discuss any evidence...
ippy will be the last to admit that he has been indoctrinated by the Brexit lies due to being weak-minded.
Nor is he likely to admit that he can't change his mind because he needs to believe he hasn't been lied to otherwise his whole belief system will come crashing down and he is too afraid to face life without that security blanket of blind belief without evidence.
Sovereignty - the control of their physical borders, laws and money. Except because we rely on transnational co-operation to have any kind of power or influence in the world or indeed food on the table, Britain will continue to compromise sovereignty with every trade deal they sign up to where they have to comply with the laws of another country on environment, safety and employment in order to be allowed to sell British goods or services to their markets. Presumably the idea is for us to be able to sell things we produce for our economy to grow.
Britain will also compromise sovereignty when they have to beg or pay for French co-operation if they expect the French to stop asylum seekers crossing the Channel to Britain in dinghies.
-
ippy will be the last to admit that he has been indoctrinated by the Brexit lies due to being weak-minded.
Nor is he likely to admit that he can't change his mind because he needs to believe he hasn't been lied to otherwise his whole belief system will come crashing down and he is too afraid to face life without that security blanket of blind belief without evidence.
Sovereignty - the control of their physical borders, laws and money. Except because we rely on transnational co-operation to have any kind of power or influence in the world or indeed food on the table, Britain will continue to compromise sovereignty with every trade deal they sign up to where they have to comply with the laws of another country on environment, safety and employment in order to be allowed to sell British goods or services to their markets. Presumably the idea is for us to be able to sell things we produce for our economy to grow.
Britain will also compromise sovereignty when they have to beg or pay for French co-operation if they expect the French to stop asylum seekers crossing the Channel to Britain in dinghies.
Love it Gabriella, have a lovely christmas and a happy new one too.
Regards, ippy.
-
Love it Gabriella, have a lovely christmas and a happy new one too.
Regards, ippy.
I thought the common thread running through all beliefs was worth pointing out. Your focus on religious beliefs being a special separate category from other beliefs seems to have blown up in your face, given your unevidenced faith or belief in the benefits of British sovereignty. As you often like to refer to it, your beliefs are clearly the result of indoctrination, probably by your family when you were a child, and you have been unable to shake it off. My deepest commiserations ;)
You haven't been able to define sovereignty or provide any evidence on how sovereignty benefits Britain, given we have to relinquish sovereignty through trade deals and because of our reliance on trans national cooperation in order to survive.
I wish you a lovely Christmas too and a Happy New Year.
-
I thought the common thread running through all beliefs was worth pointing out. Your focus on religious beliefs being a special separate category from other beliefs seems to have blown up in your face, given your unevidenced faith or belief in the benefits of British sovereignty. As you often like to refer to it, your beliefs are clearly the result of indoctrination, probably by your family when you were a child, and you have been unable to shake it off. My deepest commiserations ;)
You haven't been able to define sovereignty or provide any evidence on how sovereignty benefits Britain, given we have to relinquish sovereignty through trade deals and because of our reliance on trans national cooperation in order to survive.
I wish you a lovely Christmas too and a Happy New Year.
You're right I haven't been able to define sovereignty but that's only because I've chosen not to define it.
Sovereignty's not the only reason I think it's the wisest choice to leave the EU, it is my topmost reason but as you must be aware there's so much animosity that seems to to me to be be coming from the minority view on this subject, I only wish to put a leaver mark on this almost devoid of leavers thread.
Regards, ippy.
-
You're right I haven't been able to define sovereignty but that's only because I've chosen not to define it.
Sovereignty's not the only reason I think it's the wisest choice to leave the EU, it is my topmost reason but as you must be aware there's so much animosity that seems to to me to be be coming from the minority view on this subject, I only wish to put a leaver mark on this almost devoid of leavers thread.
Regards, ippy.
Ok so when you do choose to define sovereignty and its benefits or any other Leave benefits or actually post some arguments that people can engage with, then the Leave perspective might not be dismissed on this thread. As yet, the only mark you seem to be putting on this thread is that Leave don't have any arguments - just blind faith.
-
I think it is becoming clear to many people that Brexit has no benefits whatsoever, especially if there is no deal with the EU.
-
I think it is becoming clear to many people that Brexit has no benefits whatsoever, especially if there is no deal with the EU.
You're right about the many people L R, but unfortunately for you not nearly enough.
ippy
-
Ok so when you do choose to define sovereignty and its benefits or any other Leave benefits or actually post some arguments that people can engage with, then the Leave perspective might not be dismissed on this thread. As yet, the only mark you seem to be putting on this thread is that Leave don't have any arguments - just blind faith.
It's a free country V G. (I've no idea why I reversed your handle).
ippy
-
It's a free country G V.
ippy
Free of the EU, which we need more than it needs the UK will leave us in a right mess, especially if our food and medical supplies dry up!
-
You're right about the many people L R, but unfortunately for you not nearly enough.
I dunno, according to an average of 11 polls Oct to Dec, 39% think leaving was right versus 49% who think it was wrong. When asked how people would vote on the same question (leave or remain) today 47% would vote leave versus 53% remain (source (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55416939)).
Now of course remain is not an option and when you switch it to applying to rejoin we get a narrow majority for staying out: 51% versus 49%. However, this is before any of the real consequences have actually happened. I think there's very little doubt that once they do, many more people are likely to back rejoining.
The younger generations were always much more pro EU than the old fools who voted to leave, so a majority in favour of rejoining is probably only a few months to a year or so away. It may take longer for a serious political movement to take up the cause but I'm much more confident that we'll see the UK rejoin within, perhaps, the next decade.
We wont get all the same concessions, opt-outs, and discount we had before - the old fools have thrown those away for less than nothing - a few years of economic hardship, lost jobs, and lost livelihoods. Such a pointless waste.
-
Sovereignty's not the only reason I think it's the wisest choice to leave the EU, it is my topmost reason
Why not tell us what the other ones are?
but as you must be aware there's so much animosity that seems to to me to be be coming from the minority view on this subject, I only wish to put a leaver mark on this almost devoid of leavers thread.
The animosity you are seeing if any, is because of your evasion. Brexiteers have stripped us of our rights and, in some cases, our livelihoods and yet they won't tell us why.
-
No I don't. Over the next few years and decades it will become blindingly obvious that we need to be in the EU. Brexit only had a wafer thin majority in the first place.
You need consensus in a democracy, you might get it to swing your way. You're 'yah boo sucks' style of debating might cause the swing to be delayed or never to happen.
What lost us the vote was all the lying by the Leave campaigns.
Didn't persuade me, your efforts at debate during the referendum did a lot to persuade me to vote leave.
-
You need consensus in a democracy,
And you didn't really have it in 2016. The majority was wafer thin and it was obvious from demographics that it was only ever going to get thinner.
you might get it to swing your way. You're 'yah boo sucks' style of debating might cause the swing to be delayed or never to happen.
Brexiteers have fucked up the country. I'm allowed to be angry about it.
Didn't persuade me, your efforts at debate during the referendum did a lot to persuade me to vote leave.
As I recall, you had no understanding about the way the global economy works and refused to learn. You also had no idea about the governance of the EU.
Also, your preferred solution was the Norway deal which can be summed up as "the same as being in the EU but with no say in how the rules work". There was no way that option was ever going to fly.
Anyway, would you like to answer my question? Do you really think that Brexit is going well? Would you still have voted for it if your 2016 self had been able to see four years into the future?
-
Didn't persuade me, your efforts at debate during the referendum did a lot to persuade me to vote leave.
Wow - if one person on a message board "did a lot" to persuade you to vote one way or the other, apparently just by their style rather than content, you really can't have considered it at all carefully or rationally. But then you did vote to leave.....
-
Jaks,
Didn't persuade me...
If the lies of the Brexit campaign didn't persuade you what on earth was left that did?
-
And you didn't really have it in 2016. The majority was wafer thin and it was obvious from demographics that it was only ever going to get thinner.
Leave won, remain lost.
Brexiteers have fucked up the country. I'm allowed to be angry about it.
Don't think you need permission for how you feel, just advocating how you approach winning a majority.
As I recall, you had no understanding about the way the global economy works and refused to learn. You also had no idea about the governance of the EU.
So, 'all that voted leave were stupid', you keep doing that!
-
Leave won, remain lost.
A decision that the UK will regret for years and decades to come. Until we come to our senses and rejoin, which is pretty well inevitable at some point in the future.
-
Leave won, remain lost.
Two things occur to me:
Trump supporters said much the same in 2016 - and in 2020 for that matter.
A binary choice on a complex issue should never have been offered.
-
A decision that the UK will regret for years and decades to come. Until we come to our senses and rejoin, which is pretty well inevitable at some point in the future.
I think we will decide to join the EU again before too long, if they will have us.
-
A decision that the UK will regret for years and decades to come. Until we come to our senses and rejoin, which is pretty well inevitable at some point in the future.
Re-join I'm sure will become a political force in the next few years, first needs to become a Labour policy, then they need to win an election.
Looks like a deal is very close now.
-
So the deal is a 2000 page document that will have 1 day in parliament to be scrutinised. Hmm...
-
Jakswan,
Leave won, remain lost.
That’s true – the project was decades in the making, and can be traced at least to as far as Johnson making up stories when he was the Torygraph’s Europe correspondent. The ground was well-prepared in most of the right-leaning press so the string of flat out lies the Brexit campaign relied on and just enough people believed come the referendum was met with little of the objective scrutiny the fourth estate was supposed to provide.
Don't think you need permission for how you feel, just advocating how you approach winning a majority.
Not having the commentariat either asleep at the wheel or actively promoting the Brexit BS would be a good start. For now though, with the exception of those who’ve shorted sterling we’ll all wind up impoverished to varying degrees and in various ways.
So, 'all that voted leave were stupid', you keep doing that!
Believing lies does not necessarily make someone stupid. My contempt is for the liars, not for the lied to.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-55433447
AT LAST the deal has been agreed. :)
And on that happy note I shall sign off until after Christmas.
-
A deal has been agreed on...! I have no idea what the deal is....but full marks to Boris Johnson for making it happen!
-
Excellent news: so let us hope, when the spin has settled, this is exposed as a typical Tory fuckup that aids the breakup of the UK sooner rather than later.
-
Relief and sadness.
-
It's a free country V G. (I've no idea why I reversed your handle).
ippy
Yes ippy it is a free country, as it is for the theists who are free to privilege religion as much as Leave privilege their blind faith in sovereignty and Brexit.
-
Why not tell us what the other ones are?
The animosity you are seeing if any, is because of your evasion. Brexiteers have stripped us of our rights and, in some cases, our livelihoods and yet they won't tell us why.
Well we'll all see now how the UK gets on with things and if it really unfolds that we really are out in the fullest understanding/meaning of actually being out of the EU.
ippy.
-
Ippy,
Well we'll all see now how the UK gets on with things and if it really unfolds that we really are out in the fullest understanding/meaning of actually being out of the EU.
It’s desperately thin stuff so far – what Johnson has done is merely to avoid the worst possible case in favour of a just a lousy one: a downgrade of the UK economy inevitable from leaving the single market and the customs union; disrupted supply chains; jobs lost; new investments cancelled; the departure of regulatory bodies and the attendant opportunity of the start-up businesses they encourage; loss of global influence as we’re no longer the gateway for the US in particular to Europe; international trade deals that are worse than the ones we had within the EU in any case, or at best just about equal to them; loss of food safety standards and workers’ rights; a grim race to the bottom as we try to outdo global competitors by punching down at our own citizens; the stealing on my childrens’ rights to live and work wherever they liked in Europe; the heartbreaking denial of the opportunities from Erasmus to the generations to come; our exit from playing any roles in European decision-making bodies…
…it’s better than a catastrophic no deal would have been, but it’s still a pitiful achievement.
And the worst of it? Johnson’s misplaced triumphalism about all this concerns just the avoidance of the outcome he drove us to all along.
What an effing disaster.
-
Ippy,
It’s desperately thin stuff so far – what Johnson has done is merely to avoid the worst possible case in favour of a just a lousy one: a downgrade of the UK economy inevitable from leaving the single market and the customs union; disrupted supply chains; jobs lost; new investments cancelled; the departure of regulatory bodies and the attendant opportunity of the start-up businesses they encourage; loss of global influence as we’re no longer the gateway for the US in particular to Europe; international trade deals that are worse than the ones we had within the EU in any case, or at best just about equal to them; loss of food safety standards and workers’ rights; a grim race to the bottom as we try to outdo global competitors by punching down at our own citizens; the stealing on my childrens’ rights to live and work wherever they liked in Europe; the heartbreaking denial of the opportunities from Erasmus to the generations to come; our exit from playing any roles in European decision-making bodies…
…it’s better than a catastrophic no deal would have been, but it’s still a pitiful achievement.
And the worst of it? Johnson’s misplaced triumphalism about all this concerns just the avoidance of the outcome he drove us to all along.
What an effing disaster.
There must be quiet a few years worth of moaning about the state of affairs there, seeing I'm feeling magnanimous about the whole thing I'll leave how many years for others to decide.
ippy.
-
I'm with Nicola on this.
Scotland did not vote for any of this and our position is clearer than ever. Scotland now has the right to choose its own future as an independent country and once more regain the benefits of EU membership.
It beggars belief that in the midst of a pandemic and economic recession Scotland has been forced out of the EU single market and customs union with all the damage to jobs that will bring.
A deal is better than no deal. But, just because, at the 11th hour, the UK Government has decided to abandon the idea of a no-deal outcome, it should not distract from the fact that they have chosen a hard Brexit, stripping away so many of the benefits of EU membership.
-
I like this quote from David Gaulk.
Every new inconvenience as a consequence of Brexit, every belated discovery of an advantage of EU membership that is now lost, every announcement of investment and jobs being relocated elsewhere, will be put at the prime minister’s door. There is no one else to blame.
-
Leave won, remain lost.
And that's all you've got isn't it Repeat the mantra of the referendum that represented one instant in time, because you've got nothing else.
So, 'all that voted leave were stupid', you keep doing that!
That is not what my statement says. First of all, it wasn't directed at Brexiteers generally, it was directed at you. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of stupidity, I accused you of ignorance. Ignorance can be cured.
-
Excellent news: so let us hope, when the spin has settled, this is exposed as a typical Tory fuckup that aids the breakup of the UK sooner rather than later.
No let's not. If it is a hideous Tory fuck up, a lot of people will suffer.
Frankly I think the sentiment that you expressed is as as bad as Ippy's. You want things to go badly so you can achieve some ideological fantasy.
-
And that's all you've got isn't it Repeat the mantra of the referendum that represented one instant in time, because you've got nothing else.
That is demonstrably not true, you can read hundreds of my posts on the topic, I'm not offering anything now because it is in the past, remain is dead. I'll quite happily debate the merits of re-join when it becomes a realistic possibility, i.e. when it is a Labour policy.
That is not what my statement says. First of all, it wasn't directed at Brexiteers generally, it was directed at you. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of stupidity, I accused you of ignorance. Ignorance can be cured.
Semantics, that all you got? :)
-
No let's not. If it is a hideous Tory fuck up, a lot of people will suffer.
Which is what I was saying, albeit ironically.
Frankly I think the sentiment that you expressed is as as bad as Ippy's. You want things to go badly so you can achieve some ideological fantasy.
Which would free Scotland from the ideological fantasy that is Brexit, and if Brexit can happen then there is scope of Scotland to detach itself from the UK given that the political preferences of the electorate in Scotland no longer matches the political preferences of the electorate in England which, given the numbers, is where the support for Brexit and the Tories is in seemingly baked in with the bricks there for the foreseeable future.
-
Yes, Ippy, this will give Britain (whatever that means) now that it it free from the bonds of EuroFederalism (or whatever you perceive as loss of sovereignty) the opportunity to strike out and be able to develop an industrial culture that will outclass that existing elsewhere in this part of the world. In ten years time - who knows - now that we don't have the repressive Euro legislation holding us down, we could become the Bangladesh of the West.
Shirts, vests and knickers will no longer need to be transported a third of the way round the globe, our collapsed economy will ensure that we supply a grateful European market. And every year, on St Farage's day, all manual workers will be expected to give a day's labour without pay to honour Duke Rees-Mogg.
Whatever else happens now, I think that there has to be some kind of enquiry into the constitution and governance of whatever passes for the British state. The current model is well passed its usefulness. The Palace of Westminster should become a museum/hotel complex and a new legislative complex which has chambers that do not mimic medieval church choir stalls (possibly in Milton Keynes). The debating chambers should be built in such a way that they promote co-operation rather than conflict and each member should have a work-station which helps him or her to work efficiently and effectively.And, of course, there should be an electoral system which promotes representation.
-
That is demonstrably not true,
I don't see any of you volunteering the wonderful benefits of Brexit. In fact some of your number are explicitly refusing to tell us what they are. What other conclusion can I draw?
-
Which is what I was saying, albeit ironically.
Which would free Scotland from the ideological fantasy that is Brexit
Brexit is not an ideological fantasy, it is a gruesome reality. Jakswan is right about one thing: it's done. We have to do what we can to minimise the damage until such time as the UK can re-enter the EU.
and if Brexit can happen then there is scope of Scotland to detach itself from the UK
You've seen Brexit. That's a cake walk compared to Scottish independence. You don't want to go through the same thing again only ten times worse, do you?
-
Handy guide to tell us what we have gained (Clue - NOTHING)
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/eu-releases-brutal-graphic-shows-23218056?
-
Which is what I was saying, albeit ironically.
Which would free Scotland from the ideological fantasy that is Brexit, and if Brexit can happen then there is scope of Scotland to detach itself from the UK given that the political preferences of the electorate in Scotland no longer matches the political preferences of the electorate in England which, given the numbers, is where the support for Brexit and the Tories is in seemingly baked in with the bricks there for the foreseeable future.
An independent Scotland and an independent UK are much the same ideology.
I know the EU doesn't have English people in it so is more palatable for you. :)
-
I don't see any of you volunteering the wonderful benefits of Brexit. In fact some of your number are explicitly refusing to tell us what they are. What other conclusion can I draw?
My number, I started counting and only got to 1.
I have in the past debated this topic I'm not doing this now because it's moot.
Once Labour adopt re-join as policy will happily debate again.
-
You've seen Brexit. That's a cake walk compared to Scottish independence. You don't want to go through the same thing again only ten times worse, do you?
I have to agree with Jeremy.
Don't get me wrong I can see all the political, social and emotional arguments for independence. I just can't see how you could implement it fairly. The whole thing would be horrendous - from currency, to trade, to assets. I just don't see how it could happen.
And just think for a moment about what has happened in Brexit. The larger of the two parties came off significantly better. I see no difference when it comes to Scotland v. rUK.
You surely aren't expecting a UK Conservative Government to treat you fairly. I am aware of the inherent irony of that statement in that that is one of the driving forces for independence in the first place.
-
Something which seems to have been ignored during the whole of this wretched wankfest: the ultimate ownership of the UK's economy.
If I recall correctly, one of the main policies of the Thatcher government was to welcome investment lnto the UK, no matter where it came from. The benefit (to the government) was that the investment appeared on the national balance sheet as an asset. The greater the inward investment, the more prosperous the nation appeared to be. This permitted many British companies, purchased by foreign buyers, to be continued to be perceived as British companies. Even companies that were British cultural icons - like Cadburys - were allowed to be absorbed into alien organisations (admittedly, long after the demise of Thatcher).
One of the ignored consequences of this was that company strategy was being determined somewhere out of the reach of British legislators. Virtually nothing of the British car manufacturing business is controlled within the UK. Even a quintessentially British brand like Jaguar Land Rover is controlled in India. There are now JLR production facilities in China and Slovakia. Difficulties due to the UK not being a member of the EU could lead to all connection with the company's origins being severed. The British government would be powerless. The removal large segments of British manufacturing would be economically disatrous.
-
You've seen Brexit. That's a cake walk compared to Scottish independence. You don't want to go through the same thing again only ten times worse, do you?
Yep - the shift in the political preferences of the electorate in England (majority support for Brexit/the Tories) effectively disenfranchises the electorate in Scotland (no majority support for either), and I see little prospect of that changing.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I want Scotland to be free of the rest of the UK.
-
And that's all you've got isn't it Repeat the mantra of the referendum that represented one instant in time, because you've got nothing else.
That is not what my statement says. First of all, it wasn't directed at Brexiteers generally, it was directed at you. Secondly, I didn't accuse you of stupidity, I accused you of ignorance. Ignorance can be cured.
Couldn't it be you j p that's ignorant of the consequences of staying with the EU? I'm not saying you are ignorant but like you're having difficulty living with the result it would be much the same to either point of view taken.
Surely it had to be a referendum and then after that referendum look at the present government's majority it's certainly not a majority given out of love of or for the Tories, well certainly not on my part anyway.
No I won't be adding to the anything I've already stated, just in case you might/may have wondered.
ippy.
-
Handy guide to tell us what we have gained (Clue - NOTHING)
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/eu-releases-brutal-graphic-shows-23218056?
That's an excellent graphic. However, according to the Brexiteers, there are some subjects where there is a green tick in the UK side and a red cross on the EU side. It's just that it is remarkably hard to get them to tell us what those subjects are.
On the other hand, we were very much looking at red crosses on all the boxes on the UK side a few days ago. The deal we have now is the best we could have got in the current circumstances. I'll never forgive the Brexiteers for getting us into the current circumstances though.
-
Jakswan,
That's an excellent graphic. However, according to the Brexiteers, there are some subjects where there is a green tick in the UK side and a red cross on the EU side. It's just that it is remarkably hard to get them to tell us what those subjects are.
On the other hand, we were very much looking at red crosses n all the boxes on the UK side. The deal we have now is the best we could have got in the current circumstances. I'll never forgive the Brexiteers for getting us into the current circumstances though.
Which is entirely your prerogative of course. Just out of interest though, had knowledge of the grim reality of the Brexit deal we actually have now (as opposed to the fantasy version peddled by the the Brexit campaign) been known to you back in 2016 would you still have voted for it?
-
Yep - the shift in the political preferences of the electorate in England (majority support for Brexit/the Tories) effectively disenfranchises the electorate in Scotland (no majority support for either), and I see little prospect of that changing.
The political preferences in England are likely to swing back towards EU membership over the next few years and also away from the Tories.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I want Scotland to be free of the rest of the UK.
In many areas Scotland is already free of the rest of the UK. If you push for full independence, it's going to be worse than Brexit. Just the issues surrounding your currency are probably intractable. Then there's the border and what to do about all the English people living in Scotland and vice versa. As I said, Brexit will be a cake walk compared to Scottish Independence.
-
The political preferences in England are likely to swing back towards EU membership over the next few years and also away from the Tories.
In many areas Scotland is already free of the rest of the UK. If you push for full independence, it's going to be worse than Brexit. Just the issues surrounding your currency are probably intractable. Then there's the border and what to do about all the English people living in Scotland and vice versa. As I said, Brexit will be a cake walk compared to Scottish Independence.
I think many of us in Scotland think we should "take back control": now that sounds like a slogan we could use.
-
I think many of us in Scotland think we should "take back control": now that sounds like a slogan we could use.
Yes, it is a good slogan, but as we've just found out the rhetoric doesn't match the reality.
-
Couldn't it be you j p that's ignorant of the consequences of staying with the EU?
Everybody knows what being in the EU is like and you have yet to name a single disadvantage.
Surely it had to be a referendum and then after that referendum look at the present government's majority it's certainly not a majority given out of love of or for the Tories, well certainly not on my part anyway.
The referendum and the election were won with lies, ippy. Unless you think we're actually going to get £350m a week extra for the NHS, you are effectively agreeing. In reality, the UK will be financially worse off for leaving, which is the exact opposite to what was promised by the leave campaign.
No I won't be adding to the anything I've already stated, just in case you might/may have wondered.
Which makes you intellectually, and with regard to the evidence you offer, equal with Nicolas Marks.
-
You'll never be taken very seriously Ippy, not without something verifiable in the way of evidence, come on let's have it, if you have any?
-
Yep - the shift in the political preferences of the electorate in England (majority support for Brexit/the Tories) effectively disenfranchises the electorate in Scotland (no majority support for either), and I see little prospect of that changing.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I want Scotland to be free of the rest of the UK.
Just trying this on for size:-
Yep - the shift in the political preferences of the electorate in EU (majority support for EU/socialism) effectively disenfranchises the electorate in UK, and I see little prospect of that changing.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I want UK to be free of the rest of the EU.
Brexit/Indyref2 ideology very similar.
-
Jakswan,
Which is entirely your prerogative of course. Just out of interest though, had knowledge of the grim reality of the Brexit deal we actually have now (as opposed to the fantasy version peddled by the the Brexit campaign) been known to you back in 2016 would you still have voted for it?
I wanted politicians to be accountable to the electorate, a Norway type deal would have been my favoured option. Had remainers not have played into hard line Brexiters hands, we could have got that deal, in hindsight.... I don't know, possibly not from that perspective.
Moot point now though, I think the Scotland is the next major political issue facing the UK.
I think re-join as a serious debate is some way off, with car-crash Corbyn gone, I could easily vote for Labour next election. If I'm representative of swing voters then I can't see Labour policy moving to re-join for some years.
-
Just trying this on for size:-
Yep - the shift in the political preferences of the electorate in EU (majority support for EU/socialism) effectively disenfranchises the electorate in UK, and I see little prospect of that changing.
Therefore, in these circumstances, I want UK to be free of the rest of the EU.
Brexit/Indyref2 ideology very similar.
Super - so you've established with principle with Brexit in relation to the UK/EU, therefore he same principle can apply to Scotland/UK.
-
Jakswan,
I wanted politicians to be accountable to the electorate, a Norway type deal would have been my favoured option.
They were. MEPs are elected to the European Parliament. How effective the process is, how well the issues were explained to the electorate, how interested the electorate were etc are debatable, but accountability was there all along. Wef from 01.01.21 though we shall in various ways be subject to the rules of the EU if we want to trade with them, but with with no accountability to the UK electorate at all. The deal we have now is an electoral deficit, not a gain.
Had remainers not have played into hard line Brexiters hands, we could have got that deal, in hindsight.... I don't know, possibly not from that perspective.
So it’s the fault of remainers that they weren’t effective enough in preventing the hardliners from having their way notwithstanding the 30 + years of disinformation they had to counter, the platform of lies of the Brexit campaign and a press largely asleep at the wheel when they should have been challenging them, the dubious funding of the Brexit campaign pitted against the well-meaning amateurism of the remain campaign, the thousands of pro-Brexit Twitter accounts that mysteriously disappeared immediately after the vote etc?
Really though?
Moot point now though, I think the Scotland is the next major political issue facing the UK.
Probably, which is ironic as it’ll be caused at root by the Conservative & Unionist party.
I think re-join as a serious debate is some way off, with car-crash Corbyn gone, I could easily vote for Labour next election. If I'm representative of swing voters then I can't see Labour policy moving to re-join for some years.
I think re-joining is a distinct possibility, but not for at least a generation or more and never on as favourable terms as those we’ve just thrown away. The dark stain of Johnson, Gove et al will take decades to wash away – if ever.
Anyway, the question was actually this: if back in 2016 you’d seen the skip fire of a deal we now have, would you still have voted to leave?
-
Super - so you've established with principle with Brexit in relation to the UK/EU, therefore he same principle can apply to Scotland/UK.
Of course fully support IndyRef2, think you have a bunch of politicians are very adept at blaming Westminster for issues, this won't be an issue once Scotland leaves!
-
So it’s the fault of remainers that they weren’t effective enough in preventing the hardliners from having their way notwithstanding the 30 + years of disinformation they had to counter, the platform of lies of the Brexit campaign and a press largely asleep at the wheel when they should have been challenging them, the dubious funding of the Brexit campaign pitted against the well-meaning amateurism of the remain campaign, the thousands of pro-Brexit Twitter accounts that mysteriously disappeared immediately after the vote etc?
Largely rhetoric, if enough remain MP's had gone to May and said 'we'll vote for Norway type deal' it would have got through Parliament. I think blame is too strong, they gambled on another referendum, they lost.
Actually I suspect had Starmer running Labour he would have got a Norway type deal across the line.
Probably, which is ironic as it’ll be caused at root by the Conservative & Unionist party.
It will be caused by the people of Scotland voting for an independent Scotland, you can equally claim the root is the SNP feeding on anti-english sentiment.
I think re-joining is a distinct possibility, but not for at least a generation or more and never on as favourable terms as those we’ve just thrown away. The dark stain of Johnson et al will take decades to wash away – if ever.
Think I agree on re-joining, I don't buy the story it is all the fault of the Tories though.
Anyway, the question was actually this: if back in 2016 you’d seen the skip fire of a deal we now have, would you still have voted to leave?
I honestly don't know, I think we need to move on, I'd let you remain lot have your gotcha moment if you like.
-
It will be caused by the people of Scotland voting for an independent Scotland, you can equally claim the root is the SNP feeding on anti-english sentiment.
That sounds like an assertion that there is a definite racist element involved in the support for Scottish independence: on what basis have you established this?
There is certainly anti-Tory sentiment, anti-Brexit sentiment and anti-Westminster/UK sentiment, but I've yet to encounter any substantial groundswell of anti-English sentiment here that is driving the SNP agenda: there may be a few individuals of course who harbour anti-English sentiment, just as there may be some in England who harbour anti-Scottish sentiment, but where in the mainstream media and pro-independence organisations are there overt expressions of anti-Englishness?
-
Irish govt going to pay for Erasmus for NI students.
https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1186524/?__twitter_impression=true
-
That sounds like an assertion that there is a definite racist element involved in the support for Scottish independence: on what basis have you established this?
English isn't a race, so it would be nationalistic, or anglophobia.
There is certainly anti-Tory sentiment, anti-Brexit sentiment and anti-Westminster/UK sentiment, but I've yet to encounter any substantial groundswell of anti-English sentiment here
Oh stop, next you will be telling me that Rangers and Celtic fans adore each other.
that is driving the SNP agenda: there may be a few individuals of course who harbour anti-English sentiment, just as there may be some in England who harbour anti-Scottish sentiment, but where in the mainstream media and pro-independence organisations are there overt expressions of anti-Englishness?
For now anecdotal, there is Anglophobia in Wales I've witnessed it, I've also witnessed it a lot in Scottish people.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17856075.mark-smith-yes-first-minister-anti-englishness-problem-snp-anti-scottishness/
Have you now accepted that Brexit and IndyRef2 are similar ideologies?
-
For now anecdotal, there is Anglophobia in Wales I've witnessed it, I've also witnessed it a lot in Scottish people.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17856075.mark-smith-yes-first-minister-anti-englishness-problem-snp-anti-scottishness/
Have you now accepted that Brexit and IndyRef2 are similar ideologies?
An interesting point and article. One of my main reasons for voting to remain was that I opposed the nationalistic fervour that came from some within the Leave campaign.
As you are pointing to the similarities between Brexit and Indyref2 do you accept that it was the racists wot won it for Brexit?
As the article you quoted pointed out:
nationalism itself attracts, and encourages, people who hate or distrust other nationalities and that, in the case of Scottish nationalism, this means it attracts and encourages people who hate or distrust the English.
I think it is equally fair to say (as I have before) that although not every Leave voter is racist, every racist will have voted leave.
-
An interesting point and article. One of my main reasons for voting to remain was that I opposed the nationalistic fervour that came from some within the Leave campaign.
As you are pointing to the similarities between Brexit and Indyref2 do you accept that it was the racists wot won it for Brexit?
As the article you quoted pointed out:
I think it is equally fair to say (as I have before) that although not every Leave voter is racist, every racist will have voted leave.
Oh I don't know there is quite a group of rabid anti-Semitics in your leftish flavour of politics that probably voted to remain, or those not 'proper racists'?
-
Oh I don't know there is quite a group of rabid anti-Semitics in your leftish flavour of politics that probably voted to remain, or those not 'proper racists'?
Really? That's the best you've got?
The last figures I saw put the number at between 0.1 and 0.3% of the membership.
Not excusing it just trying to give a little perspective against your vague "quite a group" claim.
-
Really? That's the best you've got?
The last figures I saw put the number at between 0.1 and 0.3% of the membership.
Not excusing it just trying to give a little perspective against your vague "quite a group" claim.
'Quite a group' is not specific, but was sufficient to refute your earlier claim:-
I think it is equally fair to say (as I have before) that although not every Leave voter is racist, every racist will have voted leave.
Hopefully you get the perspective now. :)
-
Whataboutery is not a convincing argument.
Anyway shouldn't you be out and about making Brexit a success instead of wasting your time with diehard remainers?
-
I wanted politicians to be accountable to the electorate, a Norway type deal would have been my favoured option
But the Norway type deal is exactly the same as being in the EU but without the EU being in any way accountable to Britain. We would have had to obey all their rules but without any right to shape them, vote against them or veto them.
Had remainers not have played into hard line Brexiters hands, we could have got that deal
No we couldn't because it would have been unacceptable to the Brexiteers for the reasons I have just outlined.
-
Everybody knows what being in the EU is like and you have yet to name a single disadvantage.
The referendum and the election were won with lies, ippy. Unless you think we're actually going to get £350m a week extra for the NHS, you are effectively agreeing. In reality, the UK will be financially worse off for leaving, which is the exact opposite to what was promised by the leave campaign.
Which makes you intellectually, and with regard to the evidence you offer, equal with Nicolas Marks.
Again N T S, all in your opinion and it's your opinion that's not likely to change and it's just the same for leavers, therefore referendum.
What would be the point of discussing something, anything we're never, as a point of principle, going to agree about and admittedly just like you we're thinking the the visa versa of each others ideas, there's nothing difficult about it. Seriously can you really see that changing, well I can't certainly not in the short term.
ippy.
-
Again N T S, all in your opinion and it's your opinion...
What exactly do you think is my opinion? Are you trying to claim that the leave campaign didn't promise £350m a week for the NHS or that they are now actually going to deliver it?
This is a cold, hard fact; the leave campaign lied. Are you seriously going to claim otherwise?
-
What exactly do you think is my opinion? Are you trying to claim that the leave campaign didn't promise £350m a week for the NHS or that they are now actually going to deliver it?
This is a cold, hard fact; the leave campaign lied. Are you seriously going to claim otherwise?
I'm only referring to the opinions you've expressed in your posts, I can see where you're coming from but obviously don't go along with your line of thought as I've said in my previous posts.
ippy.
-
Whataboutery is not a convincing argument.
No idea what you are waffling about, you claimed
'all the racists voted for Brexit'
I refuted you with; the hard left have some racists (anti-Semites) and many of them didn't vote for Brexit.
Anyway shouldn't you be out and about making Brexit a success instead of wasting your time with diehard remainers?
Is that your attempt at debate?
-
Is that your attempt at debate?
I was coming down to your level.
Anyway off you go. Boris needs lots of little helpers.
-
But the Norway type deal is exactly the same as being in the EU but without the EU being in any way accountable to Britain. We would have had to obey all their rules but without any right to shape them, vote against them or veto them.
Not doing the Brexit debate again.
No we couldn't because it would have been unacceptable to the Brexiteers for the reasons I have just outlined.
During May's time the Brexiteers were a minority in Parliament. Actually maybe I do them a disservice, in which case Corbyn, who many thought was a Brexiteer, played them like a fiddle. :)
-
I was coming down to your level.
Anyway off you go. Boris needs lots of little helpers.
You made a statement which I refuted, you lost the debate.
The level you are playing at now, not interested.
-
You made a statement which I refuted, you lost the debate.
The level you are playing at now, not interested.
You never are. Off you go. Lots of money to make up.
-
I can understand that Labour see the only choice as to be to vote for the deal but I think a better long term strategy would be abstention - the idea that they are voting to get rid of being in Erasmus seems shocking to me. That Johnson is on record that we would stay in Erasmus and we have not underlines thag he is a lying incompetent.
The SNP have it easy in voting against as despite the desperate fappings of both Tory and Labour it's easier to portray it as voting against leaving rather than no deal.
I have to hope that the deal works but it's already pushing the break up of the UK. The special deal for NI which effectively creates a border in the Irish sea, something that was a red line but gone, and the pragmatic decision of the Irish govt - a large coalition currently - the drip drip of where Dublin will be seen as having the better interests of Belfast than London will is eroding any link.
Add to that Gibraltar moving into Schengen and ot's going to be hard not for the relationship between UK and Gib to rot.
And both of those special arrangements then make Scotland looks as if it is being 'punished',. A canny EU policy will help the SNP - Erasmus looks like again an easy approach.
-
Not doing the Brexit debate again.
It's funny how reticent the Brexit supporters have become since the referendum. We can't get any of them to tell us what the supposed benefits are.
During May's time the Brexiteers were a minority in Parliament. Actually maybe I do them a disservice, in which case Corbyn, who many thought was a Brexiteer, played them like a fiddle. :)
During May's time the Norway deal was never on the table.
As somebody who wanted the Norway deal, do you think what we actually have is better than staying in the EU or worse?
-
I can understand that Labour see the only choice as to be to vote for the deal but I think a better long term strategy would be abstention - the idea that they are voting to get rid of being in Erasmus seems shocking to me. That Johnson is on record that we would stay in Erasmus and we have not underlines thag he is a lying incompetent.
Staying in Erasmus is not now an option in the short term. If the deal doesn't go, we are even more fucked. Any party that votes against the deal is voting to sabotage the UK and appy a kick in the teeth to everybody in it.
The SNP have it easy in voting against as despite the desperate fappings of both Tory and Labour it's easier to portray it as voting against leaving rather than no deal.
Might have guessed they's do that. Have they got any clue about reality?
-
Staying in Erasmus is not now an option in the short term. If the deal doesn't go, we are even more fucked. Any party that votes against the deal is voting to sabotage the UK and appy a kick in y
the teeth to everybody in it.
Might have guessed they's do that. Have they got any clue about reality?
No both de iure, that isn't the case - voting against the legislation is not voting for no deal - and de facto isn't the case either since the Tory majority, and Labour voting for it mean that it will pass. Voting for it is symbolically supporting every part of it. An abstention from Labour means in the future they wouldn't be so easily tarred with all of the consequences being covered with 'Well, you voted for it'.
-
I have to agree with Jeremy.
Don't get me wrong I can see all the political, social and emotional arguments for independence. I just can't see how you could implement it fairly. The whole thing would be horrendous - from currency, to trade, to assets. I just don't see how it could happen.
And just think for a moment about what has happened in Brexit. The larger of the two parties came off significantly better. I see no difference when it comes to Scotland v. rUK.
You surely aren't expecting a UK Conservative Government to treat you fairly. I am aware of the inherent irony of that statement in that that is one of the driving forces for independence in the first place.
Exactly - it is the argument of an abusive spouse - stay and be abused, because if you leave we will really hurt you.
-
Exactly - it is the argument of an abusive spouse - stay and be abused, because if you leave we will really hurt you.
Yes. Well put.
It is not an enviable situation to be in which ever way it goes. Is the EU a safe shelter?
-
I'm only referring to the opinions you've expressed in your posts, I can see where you're coming from but obviously don't go along with your line of thought as I've said in my previous posts.
What are you not going along with? There were blatant, barefaced lies from the leave campaign. Are you saying that is just my opinion? The evidence is out there, just look at any picture of the leave campaign bus and ask yourself if you really expect the NHS to get £350m a week extra from Friday.
-
Yes. Well put.
It is not an enviable situation to be in which ever way it goes. Is the EU a safe shelter?
I think it can be seen as such. It's certainly the position that has been being used for 30 years.
-
It's funny how reticent the Brexit supporters have become since the referendum. We can't get any of them to tell us what the supposed benefits are.
We won what is the point?
Do you want me to admit it will be disaster and a terrible thing for the country, fine I'll concede it all, declare Jeremy the winner of the internet.
During May's time the Norway deal was never on the table.
https://ig.ft.com/brexit-second-round-indicative-votes/
MP's voted against a customs union, by the looks of it courtesy of the SNP abstaining. :)
If cowboy Corbyn had gone earlier I think Starmer would have got a Norway type deal through.
As somebody who wanted the Norway deal, do you think what we actually have is better than staying in the EU or worse?
Don't know yet, will admit from my POV it could be worse.
-
What are you not going along with? There were blatant, barefaced lies from the leave campaign. Are you saying that is just my opinion? The evidence is out there, just look at any picture of the leave campaign bus and ask yourself if you really expect the NHS to get £350m a week extra from Friday.
I suppose it'd be a bit on the wishful side if I was to think that politicians never tell lies, telling lies goes with the political territory but this wouldn't make any difference to me because I've never wanted to be in the EU going right back to before we had the original first vote on the subject.
Never wanting to be a part of the EU doesn't mean I have an obligation to supply ammunition for remainers to keep on venting their spleens at me, not that I'm a fan of Boris but that last election without need to reference the referendum must have spelled out in large capital letters how the majority of UK citizens feel about the EU, lies or otherwise.
There you are, there must be something there for you to get your teeth into.
ippy.
-
must have spelled out in large capital letters how the majority of UK citizens feel about the EU
Except it didn't.
The only reason the conservatives got their thumping majority was due to our anachronistic, undemocratic, unreformed voting system. Only the very stupid would not recognise that fact.
The Tories got 43.6% of the vote, but gained 365 seats out of a total of 635.
Do the maths. That's a majority share of seats on a minority vote. I know it was ever thus but it needs changing and was not a reflection of how the UK citizens felt about the EU.
-
Did anyone hear Michael Gove on Today on radio 4 this morning? You would by now have thought that when asked about the tangible benefits of the deal he'd have a set of solid answers to parade. Not a bit of it - apparently British exporters can now be "match fit" when trading with the world outside the EU. No mention of what "match fit" would actually mean, no mention of the fact the UK businesses have been trading readily around the globe pretty much forever, no mention of how that situation would improve in practical terms by turning out backs on the largest and most developed market in the world. No mention in fact of any solid, tangible gain that would begin to off-set the damage we've done to ourselves.
Is the Brexit deal good news? Yes in the sense that waking up from the anaesthetic to be told by the surgeon that they'd only had to amputate one leg rather than both of them is good news, but that's not much of an achievement I'd have thought.
-
... this wouldn't make any difference to me because I've never wanted to be in the EU going right back to before we had the original first vote on the subject.
Your memory is faulty. There never was a "first vote on the subject". You never voted to join the Common Market. Joining the Common Market was an election pledge by the Conservative Party in a general election. The UK was already a member of the Common Market when Harold Wilson called his referendum.
The purpose of the Wilson referendum was exactly the same as that of the Cameron referendum - to kick a troublesome, noisy party fringe in the nuts. This was an act in which Harold Wilson clearly showed greater skill than David Cameron.
-
Your memory is faulty. There never was a "first vote on the subject". You never voted to join the Common Market. Joining the Common Market was an election pledge by the Conservative Party in a general election. The UK was already a member of the Common Market when Harold Wilson called his referendum.
The purpose of the Wilson referendum was exactly the same as that of the Cameron referendum - to kick a troublesome, noisy party fringe in the nuts. This was an act in which Harold Wilson clearly showed greater skill than David Cameron.
I'm fine with your post you're welcome to your view, it does however amaze me I'm sure if I said the weather on referendum day was either lovely or rubbish, because I'm a member of leaving the EU side you would find some kind of none to friendly comment to make, but don't worry about it H H, you're not on your own.
ippy
-
Except it didn't.
The only reason the conservatives got their thumping majority was due to our anachronistic, undemocratic, unreformed voting system. Only the very stupid would not recognise that fact.
The Tories got 43.6% of the vote, but gained 365 seats out of a total of 635.
Do the maths. That's a majority share of seats on a minority vote. I know it was ever thus but it needs changing and was not a reflection of how the UK citizens felt about the EU.
Constituencies that have never been tory?
ippy
-
I suppose it'd be a bit on the wishful side if I was to think that politicians never tell lies, telling lies goes with the political territory but this wouldn't make any difference to me because I've never wanted to be in the EU going right back to before we had the original first vote on the subject.
Rarely have the lies been so shameless and amount to the exact opposite of what would actually happen. It may not have made a difference to your own cult-like blind faith, but it does undermine the notion that this is what the majority wanted. The referendum result was by a tiny margin, so even if only a small percentage were taken in by promises of lots of money for the NHS (or Turkey being about to join of any of the other lies), that could well have made all the difference. And let's not forget that Johnson, and others in the rabid right wing press, had been lying about the EU for a long time.
Trent has already covered the GE non-majority. Facts (evidence) don't seem to bother you much, do they?
-
Constituencies that have never been tory?
What about them? They can't turn the minority who voted Tory into "the majority of UK citizens" that you claimed.
-
Constituencies that have never been tory?
ippy
Matters not. If you are claiming that the Tory vote was as a result of leavers, then the rest Labour, Lib dems SNP etc. are the result of remainers and in terms of votes are the larger grouping - so not a ringing endorsement for Brexit.
The above is because you continue to view the matter in simplistic terms. Real life is much more complicated. Even though you seem determined to ignore that fact.
-
Cameron referendum
EU Referendum Bill
MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour
-
NTtS,
…but it does undermine the notion that this is what the majority wanted.
Isn’t that rather the point? Presumably “what the majority wanted” wasn’t just the “in or out?” question on the ballot, but also the things they were told “out” would actually achieve. Otherwise the question would be largely meaningless – akin to “up or down?” or “left or right?”.
And the problem with that of course is that what we’ve actually got now bears almost no relation to the outcomes many Brexiters voted for.
-
EU Referendum Bill
MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour
So what?
David Cameron's prime motivation was to put a lid on the ERG. He was convinced that any referendum would support the status quo. This view was the mainstream view within the House of Commons. He even permitted a simple majority to determine the outcome.
Both main parties were certain that a national vote would support Remain (as did the LibDems). Hence the overwhelming result of the free vote.
-
Rarely have the lies been so shameless and amount to the exact opposite of what would actually happen. It may not have made a difference to your own cult-like blind faith, but it does undermine the notion that this is what the majority wanted. The referendum result was by a tiny margin, so even if only a small percentage were taken in by promises of lots of money for the NHS (or Turkey being about to join of any of the other lies), that could well have made all the difference. And let's not forget that Johnson, and others in the rabid right wing press, had been lying about the EU for a long time.
Trent has already covered the GE non-majority. Facts (evidence) don't seem to bother you much, do they?
Well if there was something dodgy it doesn't seem to be anything dodgy enough that it would have amounted to a legitimate demand for a re run of the referendum and yes I am very content with that result, however it's looking more like a wait and see with this treaty.
ippy
-
So what?
You referred to it as Cameron's referendum, the Uk Parliament supported it with a massive majority.
David Cameron's prime motivation was to put a lid on the ERG. He was convinced that any referendum would support the status quo. This view was the mainstream view within the House of Commons. He even permitted a simple majority to determine the outcome.
Both main parties were certain that a national vote would support Remain (as did the LibDems). Hence the overwhelming result of the free vote.
I think the political establishment voted it through to deal with growing support for UKIP, who had won the EU elections in 2014.
Greens, LIbDems, Labour at various times all have supported a referendum, not because they wanted to leave but because it was an issue with the electorate.
The ERG may or may not have been Cameron's motivation, but the reason we had the referendum and have now left is because of the electorate.
-
An unusual unity in Northern Ireland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-55462155?__twitter_impression=true
-
No doubt Brexit enthusiasts will see this being but a minor inconvenience: funny how the 'benefits' of Brexit add cost and complexity.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390
-
Rumblings in Labour party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55474148
-
No doubt Brexit enthusiasts will see this being but a minor inconvenience: funny how the 'benefits' of Brexit add cost and complexity.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/28/brexit-customs-duties-to-apply-to-eu-goods-worth-more-than-390
The link you've posted Gordon, it seems to be a link to something or other from the Guardian?
ippy.
-
So as well as paying for access to the Erasmus scheme for NI, Ireland are going to cover EHIC as well. Clever stuff
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/united-ireland-trends-as-dublin-commits-to-funding-eu-health-cards-and-erasmus-for-citizens-north-of-the-border/29/12/
-
The link you've posted Gordon, it seems to be a link to something or other from the Guardian?
ippy.
So it is: are you going to dispute what it says?
-
So it is: are you going to dispute what it says?
I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.
Anyway I thought that the Guardian worked on a principle something like, say if any of their reporters found something like a certain obscure brand of ,any, cheese would become 3p a ton cheaper as a result of leaving the EU and then tried to get this information printed, it would lead to instant dismissal for the said reporter.
Is that a part of why you're not that keen on the idea of leaving the EU? You know taking the Guardian seriously and the BBC too I suppose?
ippy
-
I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.
Yes it is clear you prefer fantasy fiction.
-
I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.
Anyway I thought that the Guardian worked on a principle something like, say if any of their reporters found something like a certain obscure brand of ,any, cheese would become 3p a ton cheaper as a result of leaving the EU and then tried to get this information printed, it would lead to instant dismissal for the said reporter.
Is that a part of why you're not that keen on the idea of leaving the EU? You know taking the Guardian seriously and the BBC too I suppose?
ippy
Whilst it is always sensible to retain a degree of scepticism about any news media, The Guardian and the BBC seem to me to be reasonably balanced in their reporting: do you have evidence, beyond that they may not agree with you or you don't like what they say, that they are prejudiced? In relation to the link I posted, about increased costs to the general public who purchase good from the EU over a certain value (such as via eBay), can you counter what The Guardian reported?
Like many of my fellow Scots I value the EU, and given the lurch towards the Tories/Brexit elsewhere in the UK I'd rather ditch the UK.
-
Whilst it is always sensible to retain a degree of scepticism about any news media, The Guardian and the BBC seem to me to be reasonably balanced in their reporting: do you have evidence, beyond that they may not agree with you or you don't like what they say, that they are prejudiced? In relation to the link I posted, about increased costs to the general public who purchase good from the EU over a certain value (such as via eBay), can you counter what The Guardian reported?
Like many of my fellow Scots I value the EU, and given the lurch towards the Tories/Brexit elsewhere in the UK I'd rather ditch the UK.
I wont be reading or taking anything I have the misfortune to hear about brexit coming from either of those two sources.
No doubt any devout remainer will find some way of dismissing the Civitas report about the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation and any attack on those two media sources by them, but if say the report is out by 20% on it's figures about the BBC's brexit coverage it'd still only amount to 23.2% of the leave side of being put out to air by the BBC
The actual coverage discrepancy between leave and remain favouring presentations by the BBC between 2004 & 2015 was according to Civitas was out of 4275 guests appearing on the BBC it amounted to only 3.2% of the total figure were pro Brexit, something remainers I suspect more than likely don't want to hear so, no doubt, that'll be dismissed out of hand straight away.
I find it difficult to believe anybody that even suggests that they didn't think the BBC's coverage of Brexit had a distinct bias for remain actually I say anybody with a half a brain that says they didn't notice this BBC bias is lying and as for the Guardian tear it up into squares a string or a hook through one corner______________
ippy.
-
Please, we've covered Civitas before. Not unbiased themselves are they?
Shared the same building as Vote Leave? Coincidence?
Strange that they don't concentrate on the unrelenting pro brexit position of say the Daily Mail. Which I doubt has ever printed one thing in favour of the EU.
Go away and come back with real evidence if you can.
-
Please, we've covered Civitas before. Not unbiased themselves are they?
Shared the same building as Vote Leave? Coincidence?
Strange that they don't concentrate on the unrelenting pro brexit position of say the Daily Mail. Which I doubt has ever printed one thing in favour of the EU.
Go away and come back with real evidence if you can.
I'm really surprised by your reaction to my post Trent!
They still didn't manage between all of the various groups to sway the vote by even the slightest jot.
ippy.
-
They still didn't manage between all of the various groups to sway the vote by even the slightest jot.
I'm sorry you'll have to explain. Who didn't? The Beeb? The Mail? Sky? The express? LBC? Who are you talking about.
How do you quantify who swayed the votes and by what means?
-
They still didn't manage between all of the various groups to sway the vote by even the slightest jot.
Looks like you missed it Trent, and of course you've no idea what I'm writing about, don't worry it's the 31st soon.
-
They still didn't manage between all of the various groups to sway the vote by even the slightest jot.
Looks like you missed it Trent, and of course you've no idea what I'm writing about, don't worry it's the 31st soon.
Can't wait, ippy: Brexit will boost the case for Scottish independence no end.
-
They still didn't manage between all of the various groups to sway the vote by even the slightest jot.
Looks like you missed it Trent, and of course you've no idea what I'm writing about, don't worry it's the 31st soon.
Oh dear. DO I have to spell it out?
You claim bias on the part of the BBC and Guardian. I claim bias on the part of ITV, SKY, the rest of the printed press with the exception of the I and the Mirror. Now who swayed who, by how much and how did it affect the result.
For the hard of thinking let me be clear it is impossible to tell. But what isn't in dispute is that Civitas is not, and has never been an impartial source.
I don't suppose you will believe this because it's not from some howling right wing source (I know you will protest you are not right wing - methinks you doth protest too much) but it is worth a read(it is 2017 but that is when all this Brexit stuff was going on & on):
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/02/08/opaque-and-deceptive-think-tanks-spend-millions-pushing-brexit-and-climate-science-misinformation
-
Oh dear. DO I have to spell it out?
You claim bias on the part of the BBC and Guardian. I claim bias on the part of ITV, SKY, the rest of the printed press with the exception of the I and the Mirror. Now who swayed who, by how much and how did it affect the result.
For the hard of thinking let me be clear it is impossible to tell. But what isn't in dispute is that Civitas is not, and has never been an impartial source.
I don't suppose you will believe this because it's not from some howling right wing source (I know you will protest you are not right wing - methinks you doth protest too much) but it is worth a read(it is 2017 but that is when all this Brexit stuff was going on & on):
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2017/02/08/opaque-and-deceptive-think-tanks-spend-millions-pushing-brexit-and-climate-science-misinformation
Yes sky news, channel 4news, the BBC and the I T V news have tended to cross fertilise with each other for some time over the years you're right about that and then when you add them to the parliamentary bias for remain as well in spite of all that lot and the leave vote still shone through all of it.
I would love to see a re run of the BBC's referendum night programming the looks on their totally 'unbiased' faces were priceless.
Jeremy Vine gave up on his little yellow brick road David Dimbleby looked like he was choking on the words he didn't want to have to say, it would be necessary to be totally blind if you couldn't see how much bias there is against leaving the EU there is at the BBC and was there on that night.
I must add it would be equally wrong of these broadcasters to have a bias either way, but there it's mostly over now.
ippy.
-
You really don't read with comprehension do you?
-
You really don't read with comprehension do you?
I was thinking much the same about your posts but there I don't have any feelings that make me want to think you're thick just because we don't agree about Brexit.
I do keep on forgetting how stupid we were to vote leave, I'm so so genuinely sorry about that.
ippy.
-
I do keep on forgetting how stupid we were to vote leave, I'm so so genuinely sorry about that.
ippy.
In that case we'll just have to keep reminding you: and it's a bit too late to be sorry.
-
I do keep on forgetting how stupid we were to vote leave, I'm so so genuinely sorry about that.
That is a lie, of course. No surprise there.
-
It appears that while Labour MPs are meant to vote for the legislation about the deal, Labour MSPs will vote for a motion against the deal.
-
That is a lie, of course. No surprise there.
Likewise Trent.
ippy.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55478513
MPs have voted by a very large majority (521-73) to back the Brexit trade deal with the EU.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55478513
MPs have voted by a very large majority (521-73) to back the Brexit trade deal with the EU.
This thread is good on the damage done by how we had the debate.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1344228458143113216.html
-
Likewise Trent.
ippy.
Not really. Do you just randomly generate shit?
-
This thread is good on the damage done by how we had the debate.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1344228458143113216.html
We arrived at this point because too many of the MP's put their own agenda ahead of the country.
Nice to see Nicola get a good bashing:-
https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/debate-trade-and-co-operation-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-and-the-european-union-december-30-2020?clip_start=13:43:59&clip_end=13:54:59
-
We arrived at this point because too many of the MP's put their own agenda ahead of the country.
Nice to see Nicola get a good bashing:-
https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/debate-trade-and-co-operation-agreement-between-the-united-kingdom-and-the-european-union-december-30-2020?clip_start=13:43:59&clip_end=13:54:59
Your post seems a complete non sequitur to the thread I posted.
-
Bit technical this, but some of you might be interested in the tariff-free claim re the Brexit deal (I do consulting work in this area, so have to read the mountain of new rules that have just been published).
Member states of the EU can move goods tariff (and largely paperwork) free between themselves. A movement of good from, say, London to Paris is equivalent to a movement from London to Manchester in other words. This arrangement relies on a concept called “free circulation” and free circulation status applies in two circumstance, namely:
- goods “wholly obtained” in the EU (eg dug from the ground, produced on farms etc); and
- goods imported from non-EU countries that have satisfied all the import formalities, paid the relevant import taxes etc.
So if, say, a car maker assembles cars from EU-made components and from third country components that are all in free circulation, the car can move to other member states without further customs formalities and imports taxes.
This is the arrangement that, until 11 pm today, the UK enjoys as part of the customs union.
So what will change after 11 pm? In short, the free circulation concept will disappear, and instead if imports from the EU are to enter the UK without customs duties they will have to satisfy various rules of origin. To go back to our car maker, who we’ll say is in Germany: that business will assemble cars from lots of EU-made components, but will also have components sourced from non-EU countries. If he wants to sell his cars tariff-free to the UK, he’ll have to show therefore that his cars “originate” in the EU despite their non-EU content. This is done in one or a mix of several ways, namely:
- by calculating the values of the EU vs the non-EU content, and then looking up special rules on a product-by-product basis (for example, you may have to show that at least 50% of the ex works price is EU added);
- by changes to the classification of the imported components. All imports and exports are classified using a global nomenclature called the Harmonised System, so this rule means that the classification for the non-EU component (eg an engine) is different from the classification for the EU-made product (eg, a car). This change in classification rule also varies according to the number of digits of the classifications that have to change (four-digit level, six-digit level etc); and/or
- product-specific rules (for some plastics for example, it’s “a chemical reaction, purification, mixing and blending, production of standard materials, a change in particle size, isomer separation, or biotechnological processing is undergone”).
Sometimes just one of these rules will apply, and sometimes a combination of them will.
OK, so what does this mean in practice? These days relatively few EU-made goods are “wholly obtained”. From cars to tomato sauce to textile goods to pretty much anything manufactured, there’s a good chance that some or all of the materials used come from outside the EU. This means that for these goods the origin rules have to be understood and calculated, and that many apparently EU goods won’t be deemed to be EU goods at all, so if they’re shipped to the UK they’ll have to pay import duties. Thus if, say, our car maker has too much non-EU content in his cars instead of duty free access to the UK they’ll pay an import tax of 10%.
And all of this applies reciprocally of course. That is UK manufacturers/exporters will have to do the same calculations for their goods, and if they fail the same UK origin status rules those goods will attract import duty when they arrive at the EU border.
So, in summary, what this means is that “tariff-free” post Brexit is true to an extent, but in fact there will be considerable tariffs imposed in both directions for all the non-originating goods that move from the UK to the EU and vice versa.
Anyway, just thought this might be worth setting out for any of you not quite as across the rules as I have to be… :o
-
Excellent post, bhs. What impact does the Northern Irish solution have here?
-
No both de iure, that isn't the case - voting against the legislation is not voting for no deal
Yes it is, because there is nothing else on offer. Voting against the deal is voting for WTO rules and hence a kick in the teeth for all Britons.
Symbolic gestures are pointless now. We have already lost. Better to move on and start campaigning to rejoin the EU.
-
Exactly - it is the argument of an abusive spouse - stay and be abused, because if you leave we will really hurt you.
But Scotland is not being abused by England.
-
NS,
Excellent post, bhs. What impact does the Northern Irish solution have here?
Thank you. Re NI, different ball game. Wef 11 pm tonight a “border in the Irish Sea” will apply so movements between the UK and NI in either direction will require customs declarations. This is a big deal – it’s like saying we now have customs declarations between London and Manchester, but it was the only way to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.
As for duties there should be no duties in either direction, but UK exporters will need to show that the goods they sell to NI are not “at risk” of entering the rest of the EU, ie the Republic especially because there’s are no customs checks between NI and the Republic. This’ll largely be done with a trusted trader scheme as I understand it but the practical complexities of preventing smuggling into the EU especially don’t seem to be well worked out. A guidance note on Brexit and NI has just been published, but I admit I haven’t had time to read it yet (the rest of EU stuff has some 800 pages to digest!).
-
I couldn't think of any good reason to read anything coming from the Guardian.
Pretty much the same piece also appeared in the Daily Telegraph. I know that because my mother read it and got quite angry. When my parents go on holiday to France they alway bring back more than 18 litres of wine, usually in the form of three 10 litre boxes plus numerous bottles.
She was also quite shocked when I told her that roaming charges will probably be coming back.
I told her that, if she didn't like it, she shouldn't have voted for Brexit. Oh well.
-
Your post seems a complete non sequitur to the thread I posted.
But it's actually true. If more MPs had put the interests of the country ahead of their careers, we would not have left the EU.
-
Your post seems a complete non sequitur to the thread I posted.
From your linked article:-
It is the absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy that is about to play out
I know you are an SNP fan boy but SNP's role in getting Parliament into that position has been pivotal.
-
From your linked article:-
It is the absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy that is about to play out
I know you are an SNP fan boy but SNP's role in getting Parliament into that position has been pivotal.
Yes, and your post was non sequitur to that.
Also your attempt at an ad hominem is incorrect.
-
But it's actually true. If more MPs had put the interests of the country ahead of their careers, we would not have left the EU.
Doesn't stop it being a non sequitur to my post.
-
Interesting (if depressing) Guardian article re the appalling damage we’ve done to our international reputation:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/31/the-view-from-europe-uk-taken-over-by-gamblers-liars-clowns-and-their-cheerleaders
-
But Scotland is not being abused by England.
My post doesn't say anything like that. The point is saying that there is no point in seeking independence because the WM govt will be bastards is not a good argument for staying in the union.
-
Yes, and your post was non sequitur to that.
I've explained how it wasn't.
Also your attempt at an ad hominem is incorrect.
Where was the ad hominem?
You cited an article which said 'It is the absolute travesty of parliamentary democracy that is about to play out'.
I did not disagree just state I'm of the opinion that SNP played a pivotal role in getting parliament into that position.
I did suggest as a supporter of SNP you were perhaps not likely not to agree.
Opinions are not facts therefore not subject to fallacy.
NearlySane bingo what will be the next Latin phrase he knocks out! :)
-
With barely half an hour to go before the most epic act of self harm in modern history, just a final thought for what it’s worth: as the Brexit disaster unfolds and the blame game to come plays out, those of us who were right but lost the rigged referendum should perhaps take comfort from one idea - playing the long game. At some time the current crop of liars, chancers and opportunists will be gone and maybe, just maybe, we’ll reapply for EU membership. Sure the deal could never be as good as the one we just threw away, but maybe the billions Johnson et al have cost us as they screwed the country I love will be their final, grim legacy.
Who can say, but in any case no matter how impoverished and vulnerable these people have left us I wish a happy new year one and all aboard our odd little ship of fools. All best.
-
I think that the most bitter irony forJohnson is that - in the not very distant future - his numerous descendants will be learning of his incompetent and disastrous occupancy of Downing Street in their history lessons.
Interesting set of programmes on BBC 4 about that new-ish phenomenon "celebrity". Both the outgoing President of the USA and the current First Lord of the Treasury have relied on transient, vacuous behaviour which ensured their continued exposure in the gutter press for their ascendence.
-
“I just wish I was 21 again, frankly, because my goodness what prospects lie ahead of us for young people now: to be out there buccaneering, trading, dominating the world again.”
Iain Duncan Smith
-
“I just wish I was 21 again, frankly, because my goodness what prospects lie ahead of us for young people now: to be out there buccaneering, trading, dominating the world again.”
Iain Duncan Smith
Yep. I winced when I heard that. Tone fucking deaf.
-
Another complication of the wonderful Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55530721
-
My post doesn't say anything like that. The point is saying that there is no point in seeking independence because the WM govt will be bastards is not a good argument for staying in the union.
Nobody is making that point though. I'm saying that independence from the UK will make Brexit seem like a picnic because of the relative difficulty of unravelling the existing ties
-
Another complication of the wonderful Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55530721
I came here to post exactly that.
Not going well so far is it.
-
Nobody is making that point though. I'm saying that independence from the UK will make Brexit seem like a picnic because of the relative difficulty of unravelling the existing ties
I was replying Trent's post which said
'You surely aren't expecting a UK Conservative Government to treat you fairly. I am aware of the inherent irony of that statement in that that is one of the driving forces for independence in the first place.'
So yes, that point was being made by Trent.
-
I was replying Trent's post which said
'You surely aren't expecting a UK Conservative Government to treat you fairly. I am aware of the inherent irony of that statement in that that is one of the driving forces for independence in the first place.'
So yes, that point was being made by Trent.
OK. I stand corrected. But if you ever do get to the point of negotiating independence, you won't be dealing with a Conservative government. There's no way Boris or his Tory successors will countenance breaking up the UK (ironically).
-
OK. I stand corrected. But if you ever do get to the point of negotiating independence, you won't be dealing with a Conservative government. There's no way Boris or his Tory successors will countenance breaking up the UK (ironically).
On that I bumped into an old friend today: a long-term Scottish Labour member/activist who is pro UK and anti-Brexit, and I asked her what she thought of her party's chance in the forthcoming Holyrood elections (not much, she said), and then we talked of the prospects of Inyref2.
Her view is that the Tories, no matter what they say, might find it in their long-term interests to see Scotland separate from the UK since, given the established support for the SNP here, and as the problems of Brexit and Tory ministerial incompetence become increasingly obvious (and they already are), and if support for Johnson/Tories then erodes and support for Labour increases in England, there is the possibility that at the next GE a resurgent Labour could govern with the support of the SNP (like May arranged with the DUP) and, if so, then the Tories are out - so, according to my friend, the Tories might conclude they'd have a better chance of retaining power if the SNP/Scotland are out of Westminster by the time of the next GE.
Of course, she could be wrong.
-
Good news. I have found an advantage of Bexit. Jakswan and Ippy, no need to thank me for doing your job
As of 1st January, women's sanitary products were zero rated for VAT.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tampon-tax-abolished-from-today
Theoretically, women in Britain should pay 4.8% less for tampons than on December 31st. Of course retailers might choose to absorb the change as increased margin.
-
Good news. I have found an advantage of Bexit. Jakswan and Ippy, no need to thank me for doing your job
As of 1st January, women's sanitary products were zero rated for VAT.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tampon-tax-abolished-from-today
Theoretically, women in Britain should pay 4.8% less for tampons than on December 31st. Of course retailers might choose to absorb the change as increased margin.
First of all, they could have done this anyway, as the change to the EU law came in on the first. Secondly when it was proposed in 2015, the Tories voted against it. Third in Scotland we have moved to make period products free.
-
First of all, they could have done this anyway, as the change to the EU law came in on the first. Secondly when it was proposed in 2015, the Tories voted against it. Third in Scotland we have moved to make period products free.
Actually, it's worse than that.
Apparently, in 2016 we persuaded the EU to zero rate sanitary products, but because of the referendum they stopped listening to us.
http://infacts.org/we-dont-need-to-leave-the-eu-to-scrap-the-tampon-tax/
We could have had zero rated tampons in 2017 in the whole EU if we hadn't decided to tell them to fuck off.
Scotland's free tampon policy looks like one from a country that doesn't have to pay its own bills.
-
Jakswan .....no need to thank me for doing your job
News to me that this is my job. :)
-
Nice to see it is going well (not).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/06/northern-ireland-facing-food-supply-disruption-over-brexit-mps-told
-
Nice to see it is going well (not).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jan/06/northern-ireland-facing-food-supply-disruption-over-brexit-mps-told
Hard to feel sympathy for the DUP but it is obvious that Johnson lied when he promised no border in the Irish Sea
-
Down with scrutiny
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-committee-jacob-rees-mogg-eu-trade-deal-b1784512.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
The disaster continues to unfold: can't say I'm surprised.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/10/baffling-brexit-rules-threaten-export-chaos-gove-is-warned
-
The disaster continues to unfold: can't say I'm surprised.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/10/baffling-brexit-rules-threaten-export-chaos-gove-is-warned
Aye lets hope Nicola is keeping a close watch as she wants Scotland to go through the same thing with rUK, well assuming she survives.
-
Aye lets hope Nicola is keeping a close watch as she wants Scotland to go through the same thing with rUK, well assuming she survives.
Classic whataboutery
-
Classic whataboutery
Right back at ya!
-
Right back at ya!
So you accept you used the tu quoque fallacy?
-
::) ::) ::)
-
So you accept you used the tu quoque fallacy?
No.
Let me start with Gordon's post again, less glib this time.
The disaster continues to unfold: can't say I'm surprised.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/10/baffling-brexit-rules-threaten-export-chaos-gove-is-warned
Gordon, given you label this as a disaster, does it give you any concern on what an iScotland might have to go through in order to continue trading with UK?
-
No.
Let me start with Gordon's post again, less glib this time.
Gordon, given you label this as a disaster, does it give you any concern on what an iScotland might have to go through in order to continue trading with UK?
How can it at this stage - it would be a separate negotiation involving very different circumstances; for instance, an independent Scotland would have no land border with the EU, and any subsequent agreement an independent Scotland would seek to negotiate with the EU (pending applying for EU membership), such as custom union/single market, would probably not be identical to that just negotiated by the UK. Moreover, an independent Scotland's preferences as regards its immediate relationship the EU post independence would clearly be a factor in its negotiations with the UK.
The issue that the Guardian link highlights is that what has just been negotiated by the UK government is already proving to be problematic, and that is a consequence of the UKs particular approach to the EU, which may not be the approach adopted by an independent Scotland.
-
How can it at this stage - it would be a separate negotiation involving very different circumstances; for instance, an independent Scotland would have no land border with the EU, and any subsequent agreement an independent Scotland would seek to negotiate with the EU (pending applying for EU membership), such as custom union/single market, would probably not be identical to that just negotiated by the UK. Moreover, an independent Scotland's preferences as regards its immediate relationship the EU post independence would clearly be a factor in its negotiations with the UK.
The issue that the Guardian link highlights is that what has just been negotiated by the UK government is already proving to be problematic, and that is a consequence of the UKs particular approach to the EU, which may not be the approach adopted by an independent Scotland.
I think the difficulty of the negotiations for Brexit are a reasonable question to raise in terms of how Scexit might happen. It's unlikely to be any simpler and if we are adding in rejoining the EU at around the same time likely to be way more complex - though it might be argued that the Northern Ireland deal is not a million miles away from something that might work.
As already pointed out in reply to Trentvoayager though the argument that the rUK govt might act as bastards in any such negotiation isn't a good one for staying as it's the argument for staying on an abusive relationship. Just been having a conversation about this and what the Tory party is currently not is a positive unionist party. That I think is the biggest recruotinv sargeant for Yes voters.
-
How can it at this stage - it would be a separate negotiation involving very different circumstances; for instance, an independent Scotland would have no land border with the EU, and any subsequent agreement an independent Scotland would seek to negotiate with the EU (pending applying for EU membership), such as custom union/single market, would probably not be identical to that just negotiated by the UK. Moreover, an independent Scotland's preferences as regards its immediate relationship the EU post independence would clearly be a factor in its negotiations with the UK.
I think if Scotland joined EU customs union then it would have to leave the UK single market?
The issue that the Guardian link highlights is that what has just been negotiated by the UK government is already proving to be problematic, and that is a consequence of the UKs particular approach to the EU, which may not be the approach adopted by an independent Scotland.
I agree Scotland-EU will have zero issues but once Scotland joins the EU then Scotland-rUK relationship would be exactly like EU-UK relationship.
-
More 'benefits'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html
-
More 'benefits'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html
And I cannot understand why the UK didn't agree to that one. Maybe it's because most musicians are Remainers and they wanted to spite them.
-
More 'benefits'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9132689/amp/Supermarket-shelves-hit-Brexit-port-chaos-staff-shortages-stores-run-low-fruit-veg.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top&__twitter_impression=true
-
And more 'benefits'
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/09/pesticide-believed-kill-bees-authorised-use-england-eu-farmers?__twitter_impression=true
-
And yet more 'benefits'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55633632
-
This might be classed by some as a benefit
https://www.politico.eu/article/speeding-ticket-enforcement-reversed-after-brexit/?amp;amp
-
The 'benefits' keep coming
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-france-fish-idUSKBN29H2CK?taid=5ffe241f4156da0001be24d9&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
-
The problems of not having time to scrutinise the deal
https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/scotland/brexit-fisheries-minister-did-not-read-deal-as-she-was-very-busy-organising-local-nativity-trail/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Another 'benefit'.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/13/fresh-seafood-exports-scotland-eu-halted-fishing-brexit
-
'Better, happier fish'
https://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/news/national/19011234.fish-better-happier-now-british-claims-rees-mogg/
-
They certainly will be happier without British boats after them! :)
-
The Percy Pigs problem
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55648201
-
'Better, happier fish'
https://www.andoveradvertiser.co.uk/news/national/19011234.fish-better-happier-now-british-claims-rees-mogg/
Are people ever going to realise that this man is an absolute fucking joke. He's a caricature that even caricaturists could not have thought up.
-
Are people ever going to realise that this man is an absolute fucking joke. He's a caricature that even caricaturists could not have thought up.
I don't find him a joke. That he makes a stupid and pathetic remark like this about people losing their businesses because of his actions, and the actions of the govt he is in makes him dangerous.
-
I don't find him a joke. That he makes a stupid and pathetic remark like this about people losing their businesses because of his actions, and the actions of the govt he is in makes him dangerous.
I take your point. Although jokes can I think be dangerous.
-
I take your point. Although jokes can I think be dangerous.
Especially elected ones - but I think much of the caricaturing of the likes of Rees Mogg and Johnson allows the inherent danger to slip by.
-
More 'benefits'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-workers-rights-eu-b1787603.html
-
Yet more 'benefits' - the Scottish fishing industry, who naively thought Brexit would be the proverbial 'good thing', are now realising they've been sold a lie.
I do hope they will remember this come May.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55669168
-
Another 'benefit'
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-55665537?fbclid=IwAR18Xyng67-x3UWMYP-fWFWtx5pZCediBIrpQiOFgJV4XUGTQ_jufrKtR1k&__twitter_impression=true
-
Still winning - more benefits:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/17/shock-brexit-charges-are-hurting-us-say-small-british-businesses?
-
More benefits
http://www.npa-uk.org.uk/Brexit_brings_UK_pork_sector_to_standstill.html
-
For people worried about going out of business, it's just teething trouble
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-55706114?__twitter_impression=true
-
Oleaginous throbbing gristle speaks
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-seafood-sales-boris-johnson-b1788936.html
-
Oleaginous throbbing gristle speaks
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-seafood-sales-boris-johnson-b1788936.html
Serves them right. They clearly were filling in the wrong forms /s. Of course, when we were in the EU, they didn't need to fill in any forms.
This is actually getting really quite painful. All of these "minor" problems with red tape and bureaucracy and borders are beginning to add up into quite a mountain. I think we deserve an apology for the Brexiteers for making us put up with all this shit.
-
Not really a big deal but I am having a ready to cook meal delivered from one of my favourite restaurants at the weekend. It has a Burgundy (not Ron) theme but they can't get the planned cheese Langres Petit so it will be Tain Truckle Chedder
-
Taking back control
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-music-tours-visa-eu-b1789390.html
-
Taking back control
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-music-tours-visa-eu-b1789390.html
And Simon Rattle is stepping down from the LSO to concentrate on working in Germany, where he now lives.
-
I see Roger Daltrey got fooled again
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/musicians-including-roger-daltrey-ed-sheeran-and-elton-john-attack-brexit-deal-over-impact-on-touring/ar-BB1cUX7w
-
The 'benefits' keep on coming.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/20/absolute-carnage-eu-hauliers-reject-uk-jobs-over-brexit-rules
-
More 'benefit'
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/stena-line-cancels-holyhead-sailings-19624567
-
And here it appears is an actual benefit
https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-boss-says-brexit-is-positive-and-claims-new-trade-deal-gives-carmaker-a-competitive-advantage-12194667
-
The 'benefits' continue.
It seems if someone on the EU ordered £25 worth of cheese from this company it would need to be accompanied by a health certificate costing £180 - utter madness: a scenario seemingly missed by our wonderful negotiators.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/23/cheshire-cheesemaker-says-business-left-with-250000-brexit-hole
-
And here it appears is an actual benefit
https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-boss-says-brexit-is-positive-and-claims-new-trade-deal-gives-carmaker-a-competitive-advantage-12194667
Or does it?
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/are-things-really-so-rosy-for-the-nissan-plant-in-sunderland/
-
You couldn't make it up!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/23/brexit-hit-firms-advised-government-officials-set-up-shop-in-eu
-
Funny how these 'benefits' turn out to be disasters - and the 'benefits are mounting up.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/23/a-brexit-nightmare-the-british-businesses-being-pushed-to-breaking-point
-
Summary by Andrew Rawnsley of the realities of the Brexit disaster.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/24/bill-for-boris-johnson-brexit-is-coming-punishingly-steep
-
Good news. I've found another benefit of Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55796426
Credit card company fees are capped at 0.3% in the EU. We are not in the EU anymore, so Mastercard is raising its fees for transactions between here and the EU to 1.5%.
Oh wait, that's only a benefit to Mastercard and its shareholders.
How long is it going to be before the Brexiteers realise they screwed up?
-
More 'benefits'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-55752541?__twitter_impression=true
-
Pathetic wanking posturing from UK govt.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/25/brussels-warns-britain-against-downgrading-eu-ambassador-status?__twitter_impression=true
-
'Benefits'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/brexit-dutch-warehouse-boom-as-uk-firms-forced-to-invest-abroad?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3Wpt_Hk4daNiMcrE66ETY5l-ivhpQaM239lyvoYbgdC7BxA4bE3gz5OSk#Echobox=1611677195
-
Would you Adam and Eve it, it's all gone a bit Pete Tong
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55818519
-
One can only conclude that these unintended 'benefits' are the result of masterly incompetence - or perhaps the subtle intention is to hasten a united Ireland by pissing people off like this.
-
These 'benefits' seem to be coming in a continual stream these days.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/28/british-business-leaders-warn-of-substantial-difficulties-at-uk-ports
-
Although this is about vaccines it looks like some of the Brexit shit is about to hit the fan as regards Northern Ireland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55864442
-
Although this is about vaccines it looks like some of the Brexit shit is about to hit the fan as regards Northern Ireland.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55864442
DUP leader throws hissy fit.
(That's the DUP who wanted brexit, BTW)
-
DUP leader throws hissy fit.
(That's the DUP who wanted brexit, BTW)
I'm with Arlene for once. This is what no one wanted. It puts the GFA in jeopardy
-
I'm with Arlene for once. This is what no one wanted. It puts the GFA in jeopardy
Was discussing Arlene elsewhere and a friend posted this - Jeremy Paxman interviewing a 17 year old Arlene, and Madonna!!! Murphy, after a school bus bombing.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/video-watch-the-moment-arlene-foster-is-shown-her-teenage-interview-with-jeremy-paxman-about-ira-school-bus-bombing-34441565.html?fbclid=IwAR0aBgLHataGFFlbfy5lPTKmxZhVICAzMw0cO17cObhq2iS7Ticwm510_XI
-
I'm with Arlene for once. This is what no one wanted. It puts the GFA in jeopardy
She was told the risks when she campaigned for brexit.
-
She was told the risks when she campaigned for brexit.
And yet it still screws up Sinn Fein, SDLP, and the Alliance, and puts the GFA in real danger. In which case I Told You So is a worthless position
-
I am back to disagreeing vehemently with Arlene Foster. All is right
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55866285
-
The 'benefits' keep coming.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/30/uk-firms-plan-to-shift-across-channel-after-brexit-chaos
-
The 'benefits' keep coming.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/30/uk-firms-plan-to-shift-across-channel-after-brexit-chaos
If only we could have foreseen this...
... oh wait, we did.
-
Interesting idea
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55871373
-
If these are 'teething troubles' then an emergency dentist is required.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/31/eight-days-for-carrots-to-get-to-belfast-with-complex-brexit-checks
-
Now for the bees:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-02/beekeeper-in-brexit-row-with-government-over-threat-to-burn-15m-baby-bees
"monumentally stupid"
-
These problems in NI ports must surely place the 'protocol' and risk and if so, due to threats to staff, this could turn into a right old can of worms for everyone involved. I can't see the EU abandoning doing checks, but if these are not done at the ports then I wonder where else in NI they could be done if these threats persist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-55901429
-
Now for the bees:
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-02-02/beekeeper-in-brexit-row-with-government-over-threat-to-burn-15m-baby-bees
"monumentally stupid"
I don't know what his problem is. The British People voted overwhelmingly by 2% to ban the immigration of bees from Europe...
...What do you mean it never came up at the time?
-
UK Govt admitting it's not just teething problems
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/michael-gove-admits-that-post-brexit-trade-issues-in-northern-ireland-are-not-teething-problems
-
I don't know what his problem is. The British People voted overwhelmingly by 2% to ban the immigration of bees from Europe...
...What do you mean it never came up at the time?
I'm just totally bemused by the level of detail that was gone into. I mean it's ok to import Queen Bees but the rest of you fuck off with your filthy foreign buzzing.
-
Huge 'benefit'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-55903599?__twitter_impression=true
-
And so now we might trigger article 16
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-boris-johnson-says-hell-consider-triggering-article-16-of-northern-ireland-protocol-12207504
-
71 pages of benefits
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55887043
-
More 'benefits'
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/06/fury-at-gove-as-exports-to-eu-slashed-by-68-since-brexit?__twitter_impression=true
-
Not sure this can be seen as being very beneficial.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/08/yorkshire-lobster-exporter-baron-shellfish-brexit-costs-forced-close
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55997641
Still going well ::)
-
More 'benefits'
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/06/fury-at-gove-as-exports-to-eu-slashed-by-68-since-brexit?__twitter_impression=true
I think the people of this country have had enough of Gove.
-
Anybody fancy a Cornish king crab? Or a Cornish sole?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55996938
-
Another 'benefit'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56095821
-
I wonder how long it will be before many people who voted to leave the EU turn upon those who persuaded them it would be very beneficial for the UK to do so?
-
The 'benefits' are piling up - here's another.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/17/brexit-forces-northern-ireland-buyers-to-cancel-orders-for-100000-trees
-
Loyalist terrorists withdraw support for GFA because of the Brexit agreement. Very worrying.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/brexit-northern-ireland-loyalist-armies-renounce-good-friday-agreement
-
Loyalist terrorists withdraw support for GFA because of the Brexit agreement. Very worrying.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/04/brexit-northern-ireland-loyalist-armies-renounce-good-friday-agreement
Don't worry it is just Project Fear.
/sarcasm.
-
Just goes to show that the Tories can't be trusted to do what they signed up to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/15/eu-launch-legal-action-uk-plan-extend-brexit-grace-period
-
Benefit!. Oh no.
https://news.sky.com/story/visa-to-hike-interchange-fees-for-uk-customers-in-post-brexit-move-12247818
-
Isn't it going well!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/18/brexit-blamed-for-british-exports-to-ireland-falling-65-in-january
-
No doubt Leavers would say this is they kind of thing they were fully aware of when they voted for Brexit!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/24/uk-firm-to-stop-using-british-pork-after-post-brexit-border-problems-helen-browning
-
Presumably the Brexit procedures were contracted out to Heath Robinson.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2021/mar/24/how-brexit-added-layers-bureaucracy-meat-exports
-
You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh (Thank you, Oscar)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/british-spain-brexit-resident-status-b1823540.html
-
The Brexit carnage continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/29/small-business-exports-fall-eu-survey-brexit
-
The Brexit carnage continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/29/small-business-exports-fall-eu-survey-brexit
But isn't this exactly what our incrdible Prime Minister wanted to achieve?
Didn't he say "fuck business"?
-
But isn't this exactly what our incrdible Prime Minister wanted to achieve?
Didn't he say "fuck business"?
Perhaps he was talking about this
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18500.msg829496#msg829496
-
Yet another 'benefit'.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/britons-in-france-could-lose-driving-licences-due-to-post-brexit-impasse
-
More great export news thanks to Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/01/brexit-scottish-dog-food-firm-relocates-to-france-due-to-export-red-tape
-
A judge decides to release 4 ponies that were stuck due to form-filling in problems, including the colour of ink used. Will be interesting to see if there is any fallout from this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/22/brexit-ponies-held-for-month-in-belfast-port-freed-after-court-ruling
-
Kate Hoey...
https://www.irishpost.com/news/kate-hoey-accuses-ireland-of-using-the-threat-of-ira-bombs-to-get-its-way-on-brexit-211193?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=web
-
This could get messy.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/05/jersey-french-threat-cut-electricity-post-brexit-licences-boats
-
It's getting messy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57003069
-
It's getting messy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57003069
Is it me, or is thinking "hmmm.....the day before some elections" being too cynical?
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/01/wetherspoons-boss-calls-eu-migration-tackle-bar-staff-shortage/
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/06/01/wetherspoons-boss-calls-eu-migration-tackle-bar-staff-shortage/
Comedy gold. You could not make this up.
-
Comedy gold. You could not make this up.
It seems he did not realise that there might be a shortage of staff. However, one of the taxi drivers was saying the other day that he was definitely a remainer, but now wonders whether the faccination programme would have gone as well as it has here if we had remained. all irrelevant now of course, since we're out and that's it, but interesting nevertheless.
-
However, one of the taxi drivers was saying the other day that he was definitely a remainer, but now wonders whether the faccination programme would have gone as well as it has here if we had remained. all irrelevant now of course, since we're out and that's it, but interesting nevertheless.
The idea that we could do what we did because of Brexit is just more misinformation. We approved the first vaccine (before the European Medicines Agency) while still operating under EU rules (before the end of the transition period). There is also nothing the EU could have done to stop us procuring our own supplies.
See, for example, here:-
"In an interview on Times Radio, the health secretary Matt Hancock incorrectly claimed that the UK was able to approve the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine more quickly because of Brexit. Similar claims have also been made by other MPs including the leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg, health minister Nadine Dorries and the MP Michael Fabricant. This is not correct.
The facts behind this story lie with regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012.
Until the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December, vaccines in the UK are supposed to be authorised via the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, since 2012, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been free, under regulation 174, to give temporary approval to an unlicensed medicinal product in the case of certain types of public health threat, such as a pandemic.
When the MHRA approved the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for use in the UK on 2 December, the government press release accompanying this announcement made clear that approval was given under regulation 174."
-- Vaccine approval isn’t quicker because of Brexit (https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit/)
"Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them."
-- Covid vaccine decisions have little to do with Brexit (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/covid-vaccine-decisions-brexit)
-
The idea that we could do what we did because of Brexit is just more misinformation. We approved the first vaccine (before the European Medicines Agency) while still operating under EU rules (before the end of the transition period). There is also nothing the EU could have done to stop us procuring our own supplies.
See, for example, here:-
"In an interview on Times Radio, the health secretary Matt Hancock incorrectly claimed that the UK was able to approve the use of the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine more quickly because of Brexit. Similar claims have also been made by other MPs including the leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg, health minister Nadine Dorries and the MP Michael Fabricant. This is not correct.
The facts behind this story lie with regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012.
Until the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December, vaccines in the UK are supposed to be authorised via the European Medicines Agency (EMA). However, since 2012, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has been free, under regulation 174, to give temporary approval to an unlicensed medicinal product in the case of certain types of public health threat, such as a pandemic.
When the MHRA approved the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for use in the UK on 2 December, the government press release accompanying this announcement made clear that approval was given under regulation 174."
-- Vaccine approval isn’t quicker because of Brexit (https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit/)
"Similarly, the member states were in no way obliged to take part in the EU’s joint vaccine procurement scheme. The EU has very limited competences for public health under its founding treaties: it can take action only to “support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States”. The EU member states in this case voluntarily decided to opt into the joint procurement scheme. If one or more of them had decided to follow the UK’s path and procure its own vaccines, no one would have stopped them."
-- Covid vaccine decisions have little to do with Brexit (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/covid-vaccine-decisions-brexit)
Thank you - very interesting. I shall pass the information on to the said taxi driver, who will in fact be quite interested.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57403258
https://youtu.be/4UdfsiMl_hE
-
So far, following the triumphal trumpeting of the walking baby-making machine which disastrously masquerades as the prime Minister of the United Kingdom (I'm sure that from this characterisation it is clear that my comments are totally objective) about the trading agreement between the UK and Australia, no-one appears to have questioned any environmental consequences.
When last I looked, Australia and Great Britain were almost as far apart geographically as it is possible to get on planet Earth. And products travelling from one country to the other would require a journey by ship lasting a number of weeks or transportation by air which, in carbon terms, is very expensive. In addition, most food products - certainly meat - will also require constant refrigeration.
Do you think that environmental considerations formed any part of the deliberations?
-
Cheer up HH. Look to the positives. It's going to save you 52p a year. Don't you go spending all that at once.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/15/uk-australia-trade-deal-what-does-it-mean-brexit
I particularly like the small detail pointed out that Jacobs Creek wines on which we are going to save all that money is owned by "Pernod Ricard, one of France’s biggest alcohol companies.".
There has to be some kind of irony in there somewhere.
-
Cheer up HH. Look to the positives. It's going to save you 52p a year. Don't you go spending all that at once.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/15/uk-australia-trade-deal-what-does-it-mean-brexit
I particularly like the small detail pointed out that Jacobs Creek wines on which we are going to save all that money is owned by "Pernod Ricard, one of France’s biggest alcohol companies.".
There has to be some kind of irony in there somewhere.
Italy's prosecco producers must be quaking in their boots.
-
Farmers are starting to wake up to the fact that they were lied to. I'm trying hard to sympathise.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/food-standards-uk-farmers-brexit-australia-trade-deal-276455/?
-
Farmers are starting to wake up to the fact that they were lied to. I'm trying hard to sympathise.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/food-standards-uk-farmers-brexit-australia-trade-deal-276455/?
Shame it was now rather than before June 24th 2016.
-
Do I remember politicians of a certain persuasion telling us that our trade with Europe would be unaffected?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/18/british-food-and-drink-exports-to-eu-fall-by-2bn-in-first-quarter-of-2021?
-
Polly Toynbee summing it up pretty well:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/24/five-years-brexit-calamity-uk
-
I do hope you have all got your irony meters up to their full charge:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tory-mp-and-self-styled-hardman-of-brexit-now-says-brexit-is-a-fiasco-284751/?
-
I do hope you have all got your irony meters up to their full charge:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tory-mp-and-self-styled-hardman-of-brexit-now-says-brexit-is-a-fiasco-284751/?
Great hair though....if toilet brushes wore suits they'd be Steve Baker.
-
Shortage of milkshakes due to brexit?
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/24/business/mcdonalds-milkshake-shortage-uk/index.html
-
It's all going so well
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ian-botham-brexit-prisoners-abattoirs-b1907269.html
-
Hmmm, how could we have avoided this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9936697/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Lets-unite-EU-crush-curse-border-bureaucracy.html
-
Hmmm, how could we have avoided this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9936697/MAIL-SUNDAY-COMMENT-Lets-unite-EU-crush-curse-border-bureaucracy.html
Is the Mail suffering from the print equivalent of dementia.
Just read that - "Let's unite with the EU"
-
Just had a call from my pharmacist. She suggested I cut down the amiunt of one of my eye drops - the important one - because they've tried everything to expedite its' export from Germany, but the new regulations and transport have delayed supplies till Wednesday, and I won't get my prescription before Friday at the earliest. It's a drug which needs refrigeration.
I SHOULD have got my repeat last Tuesday.
-
Just had a call from my pharmacist. She suggested I cut down the amiunt of one of my eye drops - the important one - because they've tried everything to expedite its' export from Germany, but the new regulations and transport have delayed supplies till Wednesday, and I won't get my prescription before Friday at the earliest. It's a drug which needs refrigeration.
I SHOULD have got my repeat last Tuesday.
That is shocking. Replicate that across the country and how many people are being affected by this governments disregard for it's own actions, or perhaps inactions.
-
That is shocking. Replicate that across the country and how many people are being affected by this governments disregard for it's own actions, or perhaps inactions.
At least I'm - relatively - lucky, TV. I can half this particular drug dose in the short term without riskin what vision I have.
Think of those with complex medical conditions who can't reduce the drug without endangering their healt - or their life.
Ah, the joys of Brexit Britain.
-
No beer at Wetherspoons.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/08/31/beer-shortages-at-wetherspoons-after-brexit-and-covid-hit-supply-chains-15184924/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.twitter
-
No beer at Wetherspoons.
Karma in action.
-
No beer at Wetherspoons.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/08/31/beer-shortages-at-wetherspoons-after-brexit-and-covid-hit-supply-chains-15184924/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.twitter
I hope they hound Kwasi Kwarteng forever. Britain unbeered.
-
No beer at Wetherspoons.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/08/31/beer-shortages-at-wetherspoons-after-brexit-and-covid-hit-supply-chains-15184924/?ito=article.mweb.share.top.twitter
Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.
Next we'll have James Dyson whining that there's nobody to sell his vacuum cleaners.
-
More confirmation of just how fucking wonderful Brexit is turning out - if we are to believe what the Brexit enthusiasts claim then they knew what they were voting for (fools that they were).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/02/brexit-uk-food-drink-exports-eu-disastrous-decline
-
More confirmation of just how fucking wonderful Brexit is turning out - if we are to believe what the Brexit enthusiasts claim then they knew what they were voting for (fools that they were).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/02/brexit-uk-food-drink-exports-eu-disastrous-decline
Yes it's all going swimmingly well. My state of mind is worrying me. I'm entertaining dark thoughts about the exact methods I will use to torture Tim Martin.
-
Yes it's all going swimmingly well. My state of mind is worrying me. I'm entertaining dark thoughts about the exact methods I will use to torture Tim Martin.
You could make him eat a meal in Weatherspoons every day for all eternity - I think that would be proportionate.
-
A new level of lunacy?
According to The Connexion, a newspaper published in France for British ex-pats, a new regulation comes into force soon:
If you intend to drive your British vehicle in France – or anywhere else in the EU – you will now need a “UK” sticker on your car.
This replaces the GB sticker or magnet that was previously needed when driving abroad, and the UK government guidance states: “If you have a GB sticker, cover or remove it.”
The new rule will come into effect on September 28th, 2021 for British registered cars driving in the EU, with the exception of Ireland, which does not require a sticker or magnet.
The UK government specifies: “You will need to display a UK sticker clearly on the rear of your vehicle if your number plate has any of the following:
• a GB identifier with the Union flag (also known as the Union Jack)
• a Euro symbol
• a national flag of England, Scotland or Wales
• numbers and letters only – no flag or identifier
If your number plate includes the UK identifier with the Union flag (also known as the Union Jack), you do not need a UK sticker. If you’re in Spain, Cyprus or Malta, you must display a UK sticker no matter what is on your number plate.
My assumption is that this is a message directed towards Northern Ireland.
-
A new level of lunacy?
Before EU number plates IIRC, you had to have a GB sticker. Now it needs to say "UK". Where's the lunacy (excepting the lunacy of leaving the EU in the first place)?
My assumption is that this is a message directed towards Northern Ireland.
I don't follow. It will apply to all cars from the UK.
-
Before EU number plates IIRC, you had to have a GB sticker. Now it needs to say "UK". Where's the lunacy (excepting the lunacy of leaving the EU in the first place)?
I don't follow. It will apply to all cars from the UK.
They have already said it is to be "more inclusive" to NI - what that message means and how it will be taken are still to be determined.
That they want people with GB plates to change them or buy and apply a UK sticker after already having made people with EU plates change to GB ones or GB stickers in January just shows that the rules are being set by bureaucrats with their heads up their backsides.
-
Our local Wetherspoons is a decommissioned Baptist church. Hopefully a reconversion is in the offing.
-
I don't follow. It will apply to all cars from the UK.
"GB" stands for "Great Britain" - a geographical term being the name of the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. "UK" includes Northern Ireland. It is, perhaps, a signal to Northern Ireland telling it "where it belongs".
-
They have already said it is to be "more inclusive" to NI - what that message means and how it will be taken are still to be determined.
Northern Ireland technically isn't in Great Britain, but it is in the UK. So it will be literally more inclusive.
That they want people with GB plates to change them or buy and apply a UK sticker after already having made people with EU plates change to GB ones or GB stickers in January just shows that the rules are being set by bureaucrats with their heads up their backsides.
It's just a sticker.
-
Will this nation ever wake up to the fact that they have elected a complete and utter tosspot as PM:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/06/boris-johnsons-biggest-lie-europe-coming-home-single-market
-
As ever the benefits just keep on coming:
https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/uk-prove-ineligible-for-lugano-membership/?
I realise this is a little mentioned area but it is incredibly important for our standing in the world. In this case lessening that standing.
-
Brexit just keeps on giving
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58501527
-
Since I agree with Dominic Minghella on much of the policy stuff in this thread, it might be expected that I agree with his position about 'ordinary people' but it seems to me based on a simpliistic combination of the Ad Hominem and No True Scotsman fallacies. It precludes winning people over and winning the argument by dismissing the people not dealing with the arguments. It's deeply depressing.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1438470113812959233.html
-
Cheaper gas bills under Brexit....
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/boris-johnson-michael-gove-brexit-gas-bills-291199/
-
Lying dick PM continues to lie
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58641114
-
More confirmation of how well Brexit is going.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/22/brexit-key-factor-in-huge-drop-in-2021-great-britain-to-ireland-exports
-
Indeed
-
The view from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/30/brexit-food-gas-shortage-predictable/
-
This is funny:
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1442897700039454720/photo/1
-
The view from The Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/30/brexit-food-gas-shortage-predictable/
That just about sums it up. One thing that I didn't realise is that we haven't even begun to impose border controls on EU goods coming in yet. When that starts (if it starts), it'll make the current shortages seem like a bountiful time of plenty.
-
That just about sums it up. One thing that I didn't realise is that we haven't even begun to impose border controls on EU goods coming in yet. When that starts (if it starts), it'll make the current shortages seem like a bountiful time of plenty.
And, of course, as so often happens, I think to myself "you can't make this shit up" :
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19616582.uk-government-mocked-giving-brexit-contract-hinduja-global-solutions/
Global Britain giving all our jobs to the whole globe.
-
Taking back control
-
This
-
And this
-
I think the Tories are catching on ... they need to take us back to before supermarkets, immigration, vaccines, socialism, railways, industrial revolutions, democracy - not just back to the 70's!
Then they really can take back control >:(
-
I've been noting much of the waffle coming from various Tory fuckwits today: the notion that some of the current difficulties are to be expected as part of the transition arising from Brexit is laughable since, if that were true, then pig farmers would not be faced with the prospect of slaughtering their own livestock because the abattoirs no longer have the staff and there might have been a few more tanker drivers kicking around.
-
I've been noting much of the waffle coming from various Tory fuckwits today: the notion that some of the current difficulties are to be expected as part of the transition arising from Brexit is laughable since, if that were true, then pig farmers would not be faced with the prospect of slaughtering their own livestock because the abattoirs no longer have the staff and there might have been a few more tanker drivers kicking around.
hmm .. that's Project Fear - so can't be happening - it must be due to covid and Starmer...
Hey, if it wasn't for cheap EU immigrants - truck drivers and butchers, farmers and fishermen would have been living in luxury for the last 40 years! Nurses, carers and hospitality workers would be highly paid .. good thing we are free of EU rules that stopped us paying them properly!
</endsarc>
-
I've been noting much of the waffle coming from various Tory fuckwits today: the notion that some of the current difficulties are to be expected as part of the transition arising from Brexit is laughable since, if that were true, then pig farmers would not be faced with the prospect of slaughtering their own livestock because the abattoirs no longer have the staff and there might have been a few more tanker drivers kicking around.
It's not laughable, it was predictable (and predicted). Unfortunately, the Brexiteers lied to us and enough people bought the lies to put us in this mess.
About the only part of this mess that was not predicted before the Brexit vote (or at least that I was unaware of) was the Northern Ireland border fiasco.
-
It's not laughable, it was predictable (and predicted). Unfortunately, the Brexiteers lied to us and enough people bought the lies to put us in this mess.
About the only part of this mess that was not predicted before the Brexit vote (or at least that I was unaware of) was the Northern Ireland border fiasco.
Several media outlets in the Province warned repeatedly that brexit would be a problem for all sides.
A joint delegation met with Cameron and co three times in 2015, but he seemed to ignore them.
The NI situation has no easy solution which would pacify the hotheads on both sides.
-
It's not laughable, it was predictable (and predicted). Unfortunately, the Brexiteers lied to us and enough people bought the lies to put us in this mess.
About the only part of this mess that was not predicted before the Brexit vote (or at least that I was unaware of) was the Northern Ireland border fiasco.
I think that a core issue here is that first there is Brexit, as a thing, and then there is the form of Brexit that this government pursued: where there were options that, as I understand it, would see the UK leave EU but remain in the Single Market, where that option wouldn't require the NI Protocol that this government negotiated in bad faith and they are now intent on opting out of, now that they can see for themselves - despite having been told beforehand- that what they agreed just won't work. The version of Brexit this government have agreed now looks very much like the equivalent of a do-it-yourself hangman's kit.
I listened earlier to Boris the Liar on the radio, and on Andrew Marr yesterday, simply not engaging with the issue now facing pig farmers: where he dismissively said that pigs will get killed anyway so that we can enjoy a bacon sandwich, while seemingly refusing to recognise that because, post-Brexit, the facilities needed to slaughter and butcher them are now insufficient, farmers are faced with having to cull their livestock before they ever reach the food chain.
I used to think that the government chose a form of Brexit that would keep its lunatic fringe quiet: but it now seems that this lunatic fringe has now grown to include most of the Tory party, for whom 'Brexit' is now an article of faith to the extent that they refuse to concede that Brexit has been, and will continue to be, problematic because of how they approached it. This lunacy is apparent in recent attempts to portray the various problem issues as being part of the 'post-Brexit transformation': but this 'transformation' seems to have come as a surprise to them, which belies any notion that Brexit/Tory supporters knew what they were voting for - since if they did then the current and continuing chaos that is Brexit must be part of the plan.
-
Seen elsewhere:
Why has it only just been pointed out to me that "Get Brexit Done" is an anagram of "being extorted".
-
I think that a core issue here is that first there is Brexit, as a thing, and then there is the form of Brexit that this government pursued: where there were options that, as I understand it, would see the UK leave EU but remain in the Single Market, where that option wouldn't require the NI Protocol that this government negotiated in bad faith
The option of staying in the single market was never really on the table. It's the same as being in the EU but without any say in how the rules are made up. In other words, from the "take back control" perspective, it would have made things worse.
and they are now intent on opting out of, now that they can see for themselves - despite having been told beforehand- that what they agreed just won't work. The version of Brexit this government have agreed now looks very much like the equivalent of a do-it-yourself hangman's kit.
I listened earlier to Boris the Liar on the radio, and on Andrew Marr yesterday, simply not engaging with the issue now facing pig farmers: where he dismissively said that pigs will get killed anyway so that we can enjoy a bacon sandwich, while seemingly refusing to recognise that because, post-Brexit, the facilities needed to slaughter and butcher them are now insufficient, farmers are faced with having to cull their livestock before they ever reach the food chain.
I look forward to the bacon shortage. I can't think of many things more likely to make the country realise we are being run by a total incompetent.
I used to think that the government chose a form of Brexit that would keep its lunatic fringe quiet: but it now seems that this lunatic fringe has now grown to include most of the Tory party, for whom 'Brexit' is now an article of faith to the extent that they refuse to concede that Brexit has been, and will continue to be, problematic because of how they approached it. This lunacy is apparent in recent attempts to portray the various problem issues as being part of the 'post-Brexit transformation': but this 'transformation' seems to have come as a surprise to them, which belies any notion that Brexit/Tory supporters knew what they were voting for - since if they did then the current and continuing chaos that is Brexit must be part of the plan.
It is part of the Brexit transformation: the transformation from being an affluent strong country in the heart of the EU to being a tin pot little dictatorship on its edges trying to turn the clock back to the 1950s.
Tory MPs are in a hell of a fix: having got on the train, getting off would be instant political suicide even though they know it's heading for the collapsed bridge over the gorge of death.
-
“The problem with a revolt against imaginary opposition is that you get imaginary freedom”
Fintan O’Toole on Brexit
-
Hard to see how Boris the Liar can be so dismissive and trite about something that is actually happening.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/05/pigs-culled-amid-uk-shortage-abattoir-workers
His most recent comment on this, as per The Guardian's 'Politics Live' page is "What you can’t do is government can’t magic-up changes to that their systems overnight. People need to recognise that we can’t simply continue with models which have basically held this country back and held our economy back. That’s why we’re going for a different approach."
Perhaps then it might have been more sensible to migrate from an old model to a new model and not, as they have done, allow the old model to just fail: that is, of course, if you accept that there is indeed this 'different approach' in the offing, which I personally doubt.
-
This could be worth watching, especially if the threat is serious as winter approaches: I'm getting some popcorn in.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/05/france-uk-jersey-eu-energy-supply-fishing-row-channel
-
This could be worth watching, especially if the threat is serious as winter approaches: I'm getting some popcorn in.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/05/france-uk-jersey-eu-energy-supply-fishing-row-channel
If there is any in the shops.
-
If there is any in the shops.
I'll check tomorrow, and if so buy a few bags.
-
As an aside, Boris the Liar did his speech to his fellow fuckwits earlier today and his 'intro' was a song 'Blue Cassette', by the Friendly Fires.
The band aren't happy: they hadn't given their permission and they have asked their management to stop it happening again - they added "If we'd have intended them to use it, we'd have named the track 'Blue Bunch of Corrupt Wankers'".
Seems like fair comment to me.
-
This looks worrying - my impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, is that the UK government is now in self-destruct mode due to its blind faith in Brexit.
Maybe things will need to implode before the Tory government can be got rid of, though in spite of it all they retain support in some parts of the UK - but who knows how much what damage will occur, and whether it will be enough to change the minds of enough Tory/Brexit supporters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/09/trade-war-looms-as-uk-set-to-spurn-eu-offer-on-northern-ireland
-
Deeply depressing news from Northern Ireland
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/pup-leader-billy-hutchinson-says-unionists-can-no-longer-back-good-friday-agreement-41028885.html
-
This looks worrying - my impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, is that the UK government is now in self-destruct mode due to its blind faith in Brexit.
I don't agree. The government is in self destruct mode because of basic incompetence. Boris Johnson manifestly does not know how to lead a country. The government's blind faith in Brexit is a consequence of its utter uselessness.
Maybe things will need to implode before the Tory government can be got rid of, though in spite of it all they retain support in some parts of the UK - but who knows how much what damage will occur, and whether it will be enough to change the minds of enough Tory/Brexit supporters.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/oct/09/trade-war-looms-as-uk-set-to-spurn-eu-offer-on-northern-ireland
The government is setting the EU up as an enemy to distract us from all the fuckwittery it is doing at the moment. I think this rant by James O'Brien nails it (it's been posted here before, but it's worth posting again).
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1456601290096660482
-
Deeply depressing news from Northern Ireland
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/pup-leader-billy-hutchinson-says-unionists-can-no-longer-back-good-friday-agreement-41028885.html
I'm beginning to think the easiest solution is just to cede sovereignty of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. It's either that or break the Good Friday Agreement or put a border in place between mainland UK and Ulster. Personally, I'd be OK with the last option. It would serve as a fitting monument to the utter stupidity that is Brexit.
-
I'm beginning to think the easiest solution is just to cede sovereignty of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland. It's either that or break the Good Friday Agreement or put a border in place between mainland UK and Ulster. Personally, I'd be OK with the last option. It would serve as a fitting monument to the utter stupidity that is Brexit.
Or we could remain outside the EU (thereby respecting the result of the 2016 referendum, in which the question was solely about membership of the EU and was completely silent on the nature of a non-membership relationship) and we could rejoin the single market/customs union, thereby solving the NI problem instantly.
-
Or we could remain outside the EU (thereby respecting the result of the 2016 referendum, in which the question was solely about membership of the EU and was completely silent on the nature of a non-membership relationship) and we could rejoin the single market/customs union, thereby solving the NI problem instantly.
I'd go for that given the damage being done to the economy, but do you think they'd have us now after all the crap we've subjected them to?
-
Or we could remain outside the EU (thereby respecting the result of the 2016 referendum, in which the question was solely about membership of the EU and was completely silent on the nature of a non-membership relationship) and we could rejoin the single market/customs union, thereby solving the NI problem instantly.
Yes that would work. The only problem is that it would destroy the careers of several people who are still in charge of making the decisions.
-
I'd go for that given the damage being done to the economy, but do you think they'd have us now after all the crap we've subjected them to?
Yes they would. In fact, we could walk straight back into the EU if we wanted to. The British economy is still pretty large and would still be an asset for them.
-
Yes they would. In fact, we could walk straight back into the EU if we wanted to. The British economy is still pretty large and would still be an asset for them.
I certainly hope so. Still with the current lot in charge this is all a bit of a pipe dream.
-
I certainly hope so. Still with the current lot in charge this is all a bit of a pipe dream.
And by the time somebody competent takes charge we might not have an attractively large economy.
-
Northern Ireland out performing rest of UK
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/northern-ireland-economy-outperforms-rest-of-uk-303057/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=sfeu
-
Northern Ireland out performing rest of UK
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/northern-ireland-economy-outperforms-rest-of-uk-303057/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=sfeu
Gosh. It's almost as if a single market is a good idea. Who'd have thunk it?
-
Gosh. It's almost as if a single market is a good idea. Who'd have thunk it?
https://youtu.be/Oz8RjPAD2Jk
-
Ah the sunlit uplands
-
One rat jumps from the sinking ship: no doubt the Tory party will have a replacement rat lined up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59714241
-
One rat jumps from the sinking ship: no doubt the Tory party will have a replacement rat lined up.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59714241
Nadine Dorries perhaps
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59719162
-
It's all going very well
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/25/one-year-on-most-voters-say-brexit-has-gone-badly
-
Still winning:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/dec/26/school-trips-to-uk-slump-brexit?
-
Blessed are the cheesemakers (not).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/dec/27/brexit-the-biggest-disaster-that-any-government-has-ever-negotiated
-
More Brexit benefits
-
Ffs!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/31/boris-johnson-crowns-pint-glasses-key-brexit-success
-
Ffs!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/31/boris-johnson-crowns-pint-glasses-key-brexit-success
Honestly, I just can't comprehend the dishonesty on display.
We’ve replaced free movement with a points-based immigration system.
I agree: I can't move freely anymore. Why soes he think this is good?
We’ve secured the fastest vaccine rollout anywhere in Europe last year by avoiding sluggish EU processes.
The reality is that, although we were quick out of the blocks, may EU countries have overtaken us. Furthermore, there was nothing in the EU regs that stopped us doing what we did.
From simplifying the EU’s mind-bogglingly complex beer and wine duties
which didn't apply to us while we were in the EU.
He's a lying devious piece of shit.
-
This just in: there was never any ban on the Crown mark on pint glasses.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59868823
-
You remember when we were promised:
"There will be frictionless trade"
A typo apparently, should have read:
"There will be friction, less trade"
-
MEanwhile, in the "I'm so thick I shouldn't be allowed near a blunt knife" category, we have Natalie Elphicke closing in on Nadine Dorries as they approach the finishing line:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/watch-reactions-as-tory-mp-for-dover-tells-commons-traffic-jams-are-not-because-of-brexit-311470/?
-
A fascinating analysis of Brexit by Anand Menon:
https://youtu.be/g75OIszvopk
PS It is long - 1 hour, but worth it.
-
And the cry was avoirdupois - which is ironic in many ways
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-imperial-measurements-economic-benefit-study-b2021304.html
-
And the cry was avoirdupois - which is ironic in many ways
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-imperial-measurements-economic-benefit-study-b2021304.html
They seem to be somewhat desperate to find some economic benefits. My prediction is that the only economic benefit the study will show is to professional economic study developers.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/uk-faces-fine-eu-chinese-imports
Apparently we could face EU fines of up to £1.7bn for allowing fraudulent imports of Chinese goods during the period 2011-2017.
HMRC is yet another public service left to corruption and rot by the Tory government (imo).
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/uk-faces-fine-eu-chinese-imports
Apparently we could face EU fines of up to £1.7bn for allowing fraudulent imports of Chinese goods during the period 2011-2017.
HMRC is yet another public service left to corruption and rot by the Tory government (imo).
The (imo) is redundant.
-
Ex-pat (my sister) living in Hungary now has to pay £15 to receive a correctly-stamped parcel. What the?
-
'Brexit freedoms enable UK to send illegal migrants to Rwanda, where economic migrants taking advantage of the asylum system will be sorted from genuine asylum seekers who will have access to legal assistance. Sounds a good plan?
-
'Brexit freedoms enable UK to send illegal migrants to Rwanda, where economic migrants taking advantage of the asylum system will be sorted from genuine asylum seekers who will have access to legal assistance. Sounds a good plan?
I won't say what I think about that plan in polite company.
-
Sounds a good plan?
No.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-rwanda-asylum-seekers-scheme-b2057882.html
-
Just keeping you on you toes there. Yes it seems very excessive. Would people agree that the trafficking gangs need to be stopped, though - somehow?
-
Just keeping you on you toes there. Yes it seems very excessive. Would people agree that the trafficking gangs need to be stopped, though - somehow?
Somehow? You mean, by not treating incoming applicants like freeloading scum to the point where they'd rather avoid the official channels? You mean by not withdrawing and misapplying foreign aid so that the places these people are leaving are not so terrible they're willing to try anything to get away? You mean by not flogging weapons to despicable regimes where they can be used domestically and internationally to devastate communities?
Somehow...
O.
-
Somehow? You mean, by not treating incoming applicants like freeloading scum to the point where they'd rather avoid the official channels? You mean by not withdrawing and misapplying foreign aid so that the places these people are leaving are not so terrible they're willing to try anything to get away? You mean by not flogging weapons to despicable regimes where they can be used domestically and internationally to devastate communities?
Somehow...
O.
Yes
-
Or we could dig a very deep pit, somewhere where a smuggler was, just before he fell into it, only a few feet further on.
-
Or we could dig a very deep pit, somewhere where a smuggler was, just before he fell into it, only a few feet further on.
And hope that there isn't someone else with access to a boat who isn't bothered about whether people survive the crossings? Whilst there are desperate people there are opportunities to exploit them, and there is never going to be an end to unscrupulous people willing to do the exploiting.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed at the source - we need to dry up the demand for immigration, not try to ration the supply. Rationing the supply with a high demand just makes the people more desperate and the suppliers richer.
O.
-
And hope that there isn't someone else with access to a boat who isn't bothered about whether people survive the crossings? Whilst there are desperate people there are opportunities to exploit them, and there is never going to be an end to unscrupulous people willing to do the exploiting.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed at the source - we need to dry up the demand for immigration, not try to ration the supply. Rationing the supply with a high demand just makes the people more desperate and the suppliers richer.
O.
I'm not sure that sending foreign aid and ending weapons supplies is going to achieve that on its own, though it would help.
I think the problem is that geting a visa to live here is far too expensive. If people can afford these requirements, they clearly don't need to come as much as those who are coming from poor backgrounds. So I would float the idea of having a cap on visas but give a large proportion of them to those who otherwise turn to illegal and dangerous methods of entry. Give those who turn up and camp on the French coast priorty. There could be a waitng list and creature comfort facilities near Dover etc for while they are waiting.
-
More confirmation of how 'well' this is going.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/21/boris-johnson-hints-further-delay-post-brexit-eu-import-checks
-
And yet more proof of how splendidly listening to the Liar in chief turns out:
-
Brexit the gift that keeps on
giving taking:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/uks-trade-performance-drops-to-worst-level-since-records-began-328084/?
-
“Withdrawing from the single market, just so that they can say: ‘We got Brexit done’ was the height of idiocy. But then they are idiots.”
Ryanair boss, O'Leary.
-
Ryanair boss, O'Leary.
Michael O'Leary says something I agree with. Better mark it in my diary.
-
Michael O'Leary says something I agree with. Better mark it in my diary.
Indeed. Brexit makes strange bedfellows for many of us.
-
Apparently, it's the fault of the French that the tougher borders we wanted are working.
-
Another advantage of Brexit: our disabled badges are no longer guaranteed to be accepted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62287752
-
I quite like the idea of having my passport stamped, though I think I'd prefer no stamp and not having to wait. But I probably wouldn't go to France at the same time as everyone else!
-
Another advantage of Brexit: our disabled badges are no longer guaranteed to be accepted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62287752
There seems to be some issue with guide dogs being accepted without quarantine as well.
-
Brexit is like the Easter Rising. Ffs!
https://archive.ph/sAyAM
-
Brexit is like the Easter Rising. Ffs!
https://archive.ph/sAyAM
The relationship of Ireland and the UK was fundamentally very different to the UK's relationship with the EU. That should have been blindingly obvious.
Tom Harris is probably also not for Scottish independence.
-
Brexit has done the UK no good at all, I wish it could be reversed.
-
Great last paragraph
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/aug/31/unboxed-project-festival-of-brexit-label-visitors-target
-
Great last paragraph
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/aug/31/unboxed-project-festival-of-brexit-label-visitors-target
Ministers had hoped that the festival would attract 66 million people,
Surely that is a typo. 66 million people is practically everyone in the UK. I, for one, had never even heard of it until I followed your link.
-
I read the headline and thought 'eh!'. But the argument has some power.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/13/black-wednesday-brexit-sterling-crisis
-
I read the headline and thought 'eh!'. But the argument has some power.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/13/black-wednesday-brexit-sterling-crisis
The timetable might have been longer but the Euro would still have happened.
-
Would be funny if it wasn't serious - for me this story illustrates just how useless the Tories really are: if you are going to stack the deck in your favour it's probably best to do it in a way that isn't obvious.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/18/metric-system-imperial-measures-consultation-brexit
-
No doubt there are some who still claim the knew what they were voting for when the voted for Brexit - if so, I hopethey like queues.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/28/eu-biometric-entry-system-could-multiply-delays-at-dover
-
I wasn't sure whether to post this here or on the Next PM thread. It works in either place.
tl;dr even the Daily Telegraph has realised that Project Fear was right.
Hopefully it is not paywalled. It wasn't for me.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/15/project-fear-right-along/
Just in case it is, here is a flavour:
Downbeat predictions by the Treasury and others on the economic consequences of leaving the EU, contemptuously dismissed at the time by Brexit campaigners as "Project Fear", have been on a long fuse, but they have turned out to be overwhelmingly correct, and if anything have underestimated both the calamitous loss of international standing and the scale of the damage that six years of policy confusion and ineptitude has imposed on the country.
-
I love this picture:
-
Still winning:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-finds
-
Isn't it gratifying to see that the £350 million that is saved each week as a result of leaving the EU is being spent so effectively on the National Health Service.
-
What's the point in this sort of vacuous lying?
https://news.stv.tv/politics/alister-jack-claims-scotland-has-no-desire-to-be-in-eu-despite-overwhelming-remain-vote
-
So much of this going on at the moment. And not only from the Tories.
Note the pledge from Starmer to make Brexit work. All fools. (unless Starmer is lying just to get elected and will then move towards rejoining the single market - but I ain't holding my breath)
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/12/support-for-leaving-eu-has-fallen-significantly-across-bloc-since-brexit
I dare say the people who support Brexit will find some way to make this sound like a positive, but it really isn't. What a fucking useless country we are turning into. (Speaking only for England here but I'm sure the Tory mindset is to take all the nations down with them)
-
What's the point in this sort of vacuous lying?
https://news.stv.tv/politics/alister-jack-claims-scotland-has-no-desire-to-be-in-eu-despite-overwhelming-remain-vote
I got a great answer on this from a friend in another place
'Also importantly, what's the point in not vacuously lying? Lying has become the ubiquitous political wallpaper upon which nothing sticks. It's important to lie about the small things so that lying about big things seems normal and unremarkable. It's also costless. Yesterday we had a Health Secretary say that he disputes the government's own figures about excess deaths, not for any honest cogent reason.
So today we have a Scotland Secretary who lies about stuff that people who live here know isn't true. It's partly aimed at his constituency here, partly to bait the opposition, but mainly it's his small contribution to the bigger lie that everything is alright. No, we have not embarked upon a course of action that will end the country. No we are not presiding over a very great number of excess deaths due to our neglect and mismanagement. No we are not getting poorer relatively, and - uniquely among the G7 - in nominal terms. To engage in reality is to lose the argument, so they must avoid it at all costs and make that seem normal. That's the point of it.'
-
That sounds like the truth, depressingly.
-
Interesting piece on trends regarding attitudes to Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2023/jan/30/changing-attitudes-to-brexit-three-years-on
-
Interesting piece on trends regarding attitudes to Brexit:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2023/jan/30/changing-attitudes-to-brexit-three-years-on
Hope for the future then.
-
Hmmm....
-
All going very well
https://archive.vn/BpZuF
-
Interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/11/revealed-secret-cross-party-summit-held-to-confront-failings-of-brexit
-
Interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/11/revealed-secret-cross-party-summit-held-to-confront-failings-of-brexit
Funny how that translates to the Mail's: "Secret plan to unravel Brexit".
-
Funny how that translates to the Mail's: "Secret plan to unravel Brexit".
Yeah, think this is doomed if they go about it this way.
-
Liz! That's a brilliant idea. I wonder why nobody ever thought of it before.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/liz-truss-calls-for-economic-union-to-stand-up-to-china-and-everyone-says-the-same-thing-343858/
Duh!
-
Speaking to an audience in Northern Ireland ... Mr Sunak said the fact that Northern Ireland was able to have open access to the EU and unhindered trade with the UK's home market was "an unbelievably special position" unavailable to any other trading nation.
And he said if his deal was accepted, Northern Ireland would be in a "unique position in the entire world, European continent, in having privileged access not just to the UK home market, which is enormous, fifth biggest in the world, but also the European Union's single market. Nobody else has that."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64796945
Mr Sunk, I have some questions...
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64796945
Mr Sunk, I have some questions...
I was going to edit my post to correct the spelling mistake, but I decided it looks better as it is.
-
Still all going very well
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65612295.amp
-
Still all going very well
Not according to Nigel Farage
https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-says-brexit-has-failed-and-economy-has-not-benefited-but-downing-street-disagrees-12882281
-
7 years ago, I was on a dash to vote because of plane cancellations.
-
Those bloody foreigners up on the roof
https://twitter.com/R0Poem/status/1672162589579649031?t=EgjfhMPWuDGyjdAx4YgQIA&s=19
-
Lets just keep the CE mark it's too much trouble to change it:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/01/uk-eu-safety-mark-brexit-climbdown
-
Lets just keep the CE mark it's too much trouble to change it:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/aug/01/uk-eu-safety-mark-brexit-climbdown
Funny that. If you sell goods in a market, you have to adhere to that market's safety standards. Who knew? ....
... oh right, just about everybody except the Brexiteers.
-
Brexit Benefit! Brexit Benefit! Brexit Benefit!
Apparently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66642878
-
Brexit Benefit! Brexit Benefit! Brexit Benefit!
Apparently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66642878
We can dump shit in our rivers again. Hooray!
... oh, wait...
-
We can dump shit in our rivers again. Hooray!
... oh, wait...
But it's more shit.
-
Still winnning. Why does anyone believe this bunch of lying liars:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/uk-fails-ban-pesticides-outlawed-use-in-eu
-
Still winnning. Why does anyone believe this bunch of lying liars:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/13/uk-fails-ban-pesticides-outlawed-use-in-eu
The UK government has given emergency authorisation every year since Brexit for the use of a neonicotinoid that is highly toxic to bees.
What kind of emergency requires the use of a particular pesticide? Is it the sort of emergency that results when a Tory minister needs more money?
-
What kind of emergency requires the use of a particular pesticide? Is it the sort of emergency that results when a Tory minister needs more money?
And on the Tory Bingo card you just got a full house.
Congratulations.
Your prize is a swim from one of our many award-winning brown flag beaches.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66642878
Deregulation, so beloved by the Tory swivel-eyed faction, is nearly always disastrous. Thatcher's deregulation led to the BSE/CJD crisis.
-
Deregulation, so beloved by the Tory swivel-eyed faction, is nearly always disastrous. Thatcher's deregulation led to the BSE/CJD crisis.
Nope. The use of meat and bone meal to feed cattle started long before Thatcher gained power.
You can't blame everything on her.
-
Brexit Benefit! Brexit Benefit! Brexit Benefit!
Apparently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66642878
Lords defeat the 'Brexit benefit'!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66804160
-
Lords defeat the 'Brexit benefit'!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66804160
Did the govt want to lose the vote?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66805127
-
Hurrah we can have a pint of champagne at last, maybe!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67795075
-
The then-prime minister [Johnson] pledged to change the rules ahead of the 2019 election, calling imperial measurements an "ancient liberty" and adding he saw "no reason why people should be prosecuted" for using them.
But the government has now said it will not change the rules, after 98.7% of respondents to a consultation favoured using metric as the main measurement unit for sales, as now, or as the only unit.
Some sanity.
I don't care what sized bottles they sell wine in, as long as I can still get standard sized bottles and any non standard bottles are clearly marked in metric units with the volume of liquid contained therein.
-
Some sanity.
I don't care what sized bottles they sell wine in, as long as I can still get standard sized bottles and any non standard bottles are clearly marked in metric units with the volume of liquid contained therein.
Not a parody
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12904933/PETER-HITCHENS-Let-return-champagne-pint-strike-blow-against-metric-commissars-loathe-traditions.html
-
Not a parody
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12904933/PETER-HITCHENS-Let-return-champagne-pint-strike-blow-against-metric-commissars-loathe-traditions.html
I see some of the commenters make the obvious point: wine producers are not going to start putting their produce in pint sized bottles just because a few old xenophobic luddites in Britain want their archaic measuring system back.
-
So 'single market' via Ulster?
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-offers-to-sacrifice-brexit-freedoms-to-re-establish-stormont-report/a799742753.html
-
The 'Brexit benefits' are piling up: here's another.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/tourists-heading-to-europe-could-face-14-hour-queues-at-dover-from-october
-
This piece in The Spectator on the collapse of talks on a UK/Canada trade agreement illustrates the basic flaw in the Brexit position, in that it is essentially 2 completely contradictory positions. One based on the idea of 'free markets', and one based on 'anti globalist protectionism'.
https://archive.vn/pAO7L
-
And Brexit 2.0
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68135059
-
The 'Brexit benefits' are piling up: here's another.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/25/tourists-heading-to-europe-could-face-14-hour-queues-at-dover-from-october
Imagine queueing up for 14 hours ands then finding that your passport is not considered valid by the EU
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68658209
-
Food price fears as Brexit import charges revealed
Brexit benefit!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68726852
-
Food price fears as Brexit import charges revealed
Brexit benefit!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68726852
The fee has been introduced to pay for border inspections and fund new facilities in Kent to protect biosecurity
Really? Can't they fund it out of all the savings from not being in the EU anymore? /s
-
Brexit continues to be an issue in Northern Ireland
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-68951063
-
So the jury is still out on Kemi B. Is she think or is she thick as pigshit?
-
So the jury is still out on Kemi B. Is she think or is she thick as pigshit?
Or calculating that people who might support her are?
-
Good news everybody.
As a result of Brexit, our trade balance with respect to the EU has improved.
Yes, goods exported have decreased by 27% but goods imported have decreased by a whopping 32%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd988p00z1no
I just want to cry.
-
Good news everybody.
As a result of Brexit, our trade balance with respect to the EU has improved.
Yes, goods exported have decreased by 27% but goods imported have decreased by a whopping 32%
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd988p00z1no
I just want to cry.
I suppose if you are against an idea of 'globalism', this is taking back control.
-
I suppose if you are against an idea of 'globalism', this is taking back control.
I hadn't realised that "taking back control" was code for that.
I thought it was code for something else entirely.
-
I hadn't realised that "taking back control" was code for that.
I thought it was code for something else entirely.
Oh, it's that too, but that's all part of the World Economic Forum's neoliberalist globalist agenda ;)