Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When the economy is in the gutter, and the Brexit generation are dead, it’ll happen.
The economy was always going to end up in the gutter at some point (boom/bust), the 'Brexit generation' gap is quite possibly down to several other factors, and as is immediately self-evident, you're relying on a belief that world and local circumstances will remain completely static or in the favour of your conclusion.
I don't mind people hoping that we'll rejoin (we all have dreams), but the implication that it's inevitable is just plain wishful thinking.
An attempt to rejoin would depend on a major political party making it a campaign platform issue. This seems unlikely in the near future.
The Tories are hardly likeley to reverse their own policy so quickly.
Corbyn has always been somewhat Euro-sceptic and hasn't made the political hay of the government's difficulties on the topic that would indicate a change of heart.
I dunno, there's a possibility we'll be successful on the outside but it's going to take some world class politics.
With the economic benefits of being in the EU very clear, and the gains of Brexit being virtually non-existant, and with polling showing that more people now want to be in than out, I think it's virtually inevitable that we'll rejoin. I'd go so far as to say I'm confident we'll be back in the EU/EEA within a decade, much to the rage of the brexiteers and relief of everyone else.
Herzlos wrote: I dunno, there's a possibility we'll be successful on the outside but it's going to take some world class politics.
With the economic benefits of being in the EU very clear, and the gains of Brexit being virtually non-existant, and with polling showing that more people now want to be in than out, I think it's virtually inevitable that we'll rejoin. I'd go so far as to say I'm confident we'll be back in the EU/EEA within a decade, much to the rage of the brexiteers and relief of everyone else.
Question is, do we actually want you guys back? I'd want to see some guarantees you are not going to have second thoughts about it and mess up our economies again.
The only two ways we won't do so within a generation is if either:
a) We end up so closely aligned that we replicate all of the benefits of membership for the everyday voter (freedom of movement is probably the biggie) that it's hard to whip up the fervour for political union again
b) Some sort of unforeseeable cataclysmic event ruins the EU/causes Brexit to be a huge success.
Any Brexit that crashes the economy, causes huge job loss, interferes greatly in the day to day lives of people etc will be easy to pin blame on. I'd give it 15 years at most before a party gets into power at a GE on a platform of rejoining (or at least offering the referendum for it).
And yes, it will be in a weaker position than the one we'd have left. Thanks, Leave voters...
In fifteen years, any ructions will have died down, we'll still be a top world economy (barring some unforeseen major catastrophe), and nobody will carebabout joining the EU, anymore than people in Japan do. There'll be other far more pressing political concerns to deal with, because politics is inherently short termist.
I doubt it. In 15 years time there will be 15 years worth of voters who grew up in the EU and potentially have some awareness of what we've given up, like Freedom of Movement.
If our economy is doing well, and the EU isn't, then there'd be no incentive to want back in. But if our economy could do better within the EU (because it's got better trade deals, the customs union is actually a good thing, and so on), then there will be plenty of demand to get back in.
It will all depend on how much economic damage Brexit does. Potentially if industries are completely ruined and irrecoverable, there will be no benefit to rejoining, and there won't be companies like Nissan, JLR, Airbus, campaigning for us to re-join because they've already moved and no longer care.
Herzlos wrote: I dunno, there's a possibility we'll be successful on the outside but it's going to take some world class politics.
With the economic benefits of being in the EU very clear, and the gains of Brexit being virtually non-existant, and with polling showing that more people now want to be in than out, I think it's virtually inevitable that we'll rejoin. I'd go so far as to say I'm confident we'll be back in the EU/EEA within a decade, much to the rage of the brexiteers and relief of everyone else.
Question is, do we actually want you guys back? I'd want to see some guarantees you are not going to have second thoughts about it and mess up our economies again.
That is the big issue - what will we have to concede to be allowed back in?
All I see from Brexit is an expensive opportunity to take us back to where we were but with less money, influence and opt-outs. But hey - our EU contributions will go down (because they are based on our economy).
Herzlos wrote: I doubt it. In 15 years time there will be 15 years worth of voters who grew up in the EU and potentially have some awareness of what we've given up, like Freedom of Movement.
Probably the last piece of key legislation that the UK will participate wil be the new ETIAS system which was voted yesterday.
Hopefully we'll still be VISA excempt - but I'm not sure that'd automatically be the case with a "no deal"?
That said, ESTA isn't too bad. My scan always fails so I end up having to queue anyway. At least the ETIAS will be valid for 3 years, so isn't going to add much time/cost overhead.
I'm curious as to what the criteria for entry is, and how many people will be denied their annual Spanish piss up.
Ketara wrote: In fifteen years, any ructions will have died down, we'll still be a top world economy (barring some unforeseen major catastrophe), and nobody will carebabout joining the EU, anymore than people in Japan do. There'll be other far more pressing political concerns to deal with, because politics is inherently short termist.
Sadly I tend to agree, apart from the fact that I think major economic troubles are more likely. Bear in mind that it was our economic troubles in the 70’s that were a big driver for joining in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, credit where it’s due, the US have got a really good system in the ESTA, it’s quick, easy and very reasonably priced.
Wanted to run an idea past you; what to you think of the idea of the uk joining EFTA? It was something I was talking about in the past. Not sure if you had seen it or not.
Herzlos wrote: Hopefully we'll still be VISA excempt - but I'm not sure that'd automatically be the case with a "no deal"?
That said, ESTA isn't too bad.
The concept itself is pretty neutral. It's once they start tacking things like "if you've ever been to this country you don't qualify" that gets on my nerves.
I'm doing the Yukon rather than Alaska this September out of principle.
The concept itself is pretty neutral. It's once they start tacking things like "if you've ever been to this country you don't qualify" that gets on my nerves.
I need a special visa to get into the US on account of regularly going to Iraq, but I don’t feel I’m particularly hard-done-by. It’s expensive and a hassle but it lasts ten years at a time.
1hr 45mins for No Deal prep. Bet everyone who says the government aren’t taking that sufficiently seriously feels pretty dumb now, eh?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have very little time for Wings, but this is a curious idea to alleviate post-Brexit border issues in Ireland: place a border on the much shorter Scotland-England border, which surprisingly high numbers of voters polled are comfortable with. It’s not going to happen, it’d be too much of a step towards Scottish independence, but some thinking outside the box is always useful.
Wanted to run an idea past you; what to you think of the idea of the uk joining EFTA? It was something I was talking about in the past. Not sure if you had seen it or not.
Well i mean that could technically work out for you, but considering how much we get Nickel and dimed by the EU you ain't gonna fare that much better.
Still probably would add some more weight to the EFTA and therfore better chances at negotiations outside of Europe.
The concept itself is pretty neutral. It's once they start tacking things like "if you've ever been to this country you don't qualify" that gets on my nerves.
I need a special visa to get into the US on account of regularly going to Iraq, but I don’t feel I’m particularly hard-done-by. It’s expensive and a hassle but it lasts ten years at a time.
1hr 45mins for No Deal prep. Bet everyone who says the government aren’t taking that sufficiently seriously feels pretty dumb now, eh?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have very little time for Wings, but this is a curious idea to alleviate post-Brexit border issues in Ireland: place a border on the much shorter Scotland-England border, which surprisingly high numbers of voters polled are comfortable with. It’s not going to happen, it’d be too much of a step towards Scottish independence, but some thinking outside the box is always useful.
Surely that will only work if all traffic between NI and Great Britain goes to Scotland. It also imposes unnecessary extra difficulty and cost on people moving between England and Scotland.
It's only the DUP who are ideologically opposed to a border in the Irish Sea, where one effectively already exists because all traffic between Ireland and Great Britain has to go by air or ship.
The concept itself is pretty neutral. It's once they start tacking things like "if you've ever been to this country you don't qualify" that gets on my nerves.
I need a special visa to get into the US on account of regularly going to Iraq, but I don’t feel I’m particularly hard-done-by. It’s expensive and a hassle but it lasts ten years at a time.
1hr 45mins for No Deal prep. Bet everyone who says the government aren’t taking that sufficiently seriously feels pretty dumb now, eh?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have very little time for Wings, but this is a curious idea to alleviate post-Brexit border issues in Ireland: place a border on the much shorter Scotland-England border, which surprisingly high numbers of voters polled are comfortable with. It’s not going to happen, it’d be too much of a step towards Scottish independence, but some thinking outside the box is always useful.
Surely that will only work if all traffic between NI and Great Britain goes to Scotland. It also imposes unnecessary extra difficulty and cost on people moving between England and Scotland.
It's only the DUP who are ideologically opposed to a border in the Irish Sea, where one effectively already exists because all traffic between Ireland and Great Britain has to go by air or ship.
...and sadly they hold the Govt by the balls, for the time being.
The DUP need to make hay while the sun shines because I imagine that a Labour Govt will do them no favours, and possibly even worse, a resurgent and vengeful Tory Govt with a majority may not be very forgiving of their erstwhile "allies".
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: When the economy is in the gutter, and the Brexit generation are dead, it’ll happen.
Well the terms will be very bad for eu to take troublemaker back in to cause more trouble
It's more likely we will get the same offer as everyone else. Whilst we may have benefits now, they won't be there then. But I'm not sure people will care that much, as the benefits we have now are largely due to an older, bigoted, generation that don't really like anyone not white and british. The younger generation appear to have much less of that bigotry. Hence things like continued border checks are unlikely to be the major concern they are now. If the Euro is equivalent to the £ in value then it makes sense to merge the currencies as all you are really doing is charging yourself for the privilege of changing a face on a piece of paper/plastic. In a generation that can talk to or play with someone that is Australian, French, American, Polish all at the same time with no boundaries then the concept of hard boundaries at an arbitrary line becomes a joke.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: In fifteen years, any ructions will have died down, we'll still be a top world economy (barring some unforeseen major catastrophe), and nobody will carebabout joining the EU, anymore than people in Japan do. There'll be other far more pressing political concerns to deal with, because politics is inherently short termist.
Of course to point out the flaw in this theory. That being people wanting to leave the EU has lasted since we joined. Hence the idea that it will all die down doesn't really ring true because you could have said that about joining in the first place. I think this is more what you want to happen, rather than what will happen with any evidence to back it up!
Surely that will only work if all traffic between NI and Great Britain goes to Scotland. It also imposes unnecessary extra difficulty and cost on people moving between England and Scotland.
As a Scot that's fine with me. I'd rather have seamless access to Europe than England.
It's also worth noting that NI and Scotland both voted remain, so anything that brings us closer to remain with England doing all the leaving is perfect.
because this latest negotiating position from the cabinet is concentrated bollocks from start to finish.
Party before country. It's the Conservative party motto.
I think we should call it the Schrodingers Wrexit policy. We are both in and out of the EU at the same time.
It's in reality a lot of waffly words though as they have no meaing or context. They've basically spent the day agreeing a set of words that in the cold light of day mean nothing.
For example they will align for industrial agriculture, but at the same time allow for us to reject any changes depending on a parliamentary vote which could result in the deal come crashing down at any instant. At the same time they want to work to a customs alignment that's different from what we already have but wouldn't be compatible with us allowing us to change it on a whim. They want a customs arrangement without freedom of movement but with a system that you can be denied access depending on how racist the Tory party are feeling on any particular day. That's not freedom of movement. They want regulatory flexibility for the financial market and hence only part of the service industry but without the other alignments that come with it. There are so many contradictions you can drive a bus through the fudge. And they have taken 2 years to come up with this mess. It's still have the cake and eat it just in different wording.
However it is another slide towards effectively being in the EU without any say over the rules whilst trying to avoid the inevitable. You might as well stay in the EU!
We might be reaching the stage where we're paying the EU 40 billion just to stay in the EU
Because that's what this plan amounts to. It's the worst of both worlds.
Feth me, if I rounded up 10 Remain dakka members and sent them to Brussels to negotiate Brexit, they could have done a better job.
Two years for this horsegak????
I suppose the good news is that Barnier will do a De Gaulle and give us a Non non non.
The good news for Remainers is that Gove, Bojo, Fox, and DD are finished. There credibility, what little they had if any, is gone for evermore.
You can't keep threatening to resign and not resign. You can't claim to support Brexit and then sign up for this bollocks. They put their cushy job ahead of their principals.
Farage will probably make a comeback off of this, The Times is saying that May will fire Bojo, and a Corbyn victory looks a good possibility.
Who will trust the Tories again after this sell-out?
because this latest negotiating position from the cabinet is concentrated bollocks from start to finish.
Party before country. It's the Conservative party motto.
I think we should call it the Schrodingers Wrexit policy. We are both in and out of the EU at the same time.
It's in reality a lot of waffly words though as they have no meaing or context. They've basically spent the day agreeing a set of words that in the cold light of day mean nothing.
For example they will align for industrial agriculture, but at the same time allow for us to reject any changes depending on a parliamentary vote which could result in the deal come crashing down at any instant. At the same time they want to work to a customs alignment that's different from what we already have but wouldn't be compatible with us allowing us to change it on a whim. They want a customs arrangement without freedom of movement but with a system that you can be denied access depending on how racist the Tory party are feeling on any particular day. That's not freedom of movement. They want regulatory flexibility for the financial market and hence only part of the service industry but without the other alignments that come with it. There are so many contradictions you can drive a bus through the fudge. And they have taken 2 years to come up with this mess. It's still have the cake and eat it just in different wording.
However it is another slide towards effectively being in the EU without any say over the rules whilst trying to avoid the inevitable. You might as well stay in the EU!
I completely agree with you. And I'm relying on your side to save the day for Brexit.
Because you'd rather ignore facts, and believe in sensationalist headlines, or lies on a bus, rather than the all important details, because you're 'not a detail person'.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Things is though, this won't be the end of it. Portillo is spot on when he predicts a decade of instability.
Remain supporters will want to use this as a springboard for back into the EU.
Brexit supporters will try and chip away at this with guerrilla warfare from the backbenches. UKIP will probably be back from the dead.
This will keep rumbling on...
And you will believe the lies when they promise you that *this* time the Europeans will really come crawling to us for a deal and we hold all the cards. Vote for it again, and Lucy will pull away the ball from Charlie Brown yet again and we will wonder what it takes for reality to penetrate.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Who will trust the Tories again after this sell-out?
.....And yet, come the next election, millions of people will still vote for them...
If I live to be a million, I'll never understand why...
You're not the only one. How anyone can equate current conservatives with fiscal responsibility and stability is utterly beyond me.
They are quite literally breaking the country apart, and people still vote for them. It's surreal, you feel a bit foolish pointing out that what your mate has just parroted out is in fact utter bollocks. You'd think everyone would know, or at least be able to read, and remember back further than the last couple of days. But when it comes to the conservatives, it's like some shutter comes down and just blanks off everything they've actually done.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: We might be reaching the stage where we're paying the EU 40 billion just to stay in the EU
Because that's what this plan amounts to. It's the worst of both worlds.
Feth me, if I rounded up 10 Remain dakka members and sent them to Brussels to negotiate Brexit, they could have done a better job.
Two years for this horsegak????
I suppose the good news is that Barnier will do a De Gaulle and give us a Non non non.
The good news for Remainers is that Gove, Bojo, Fox, and DD are finished. There credibility, what little they had if any, is gone for evermore.
You can't keep threatening to resign and not resign. You can't claim to support Brexit and then sign up for this bollocks. They put their cushy job ahead of their principals.
Farage will probably make a comeback off of this, The Times is saying that May will fire Bojo, and a Corbyn victory looks a good possibility.
Who will trust the Tories again after this sell-out?
because this latest negotiating position from the cabinet is concentrated bollocks from start to finish.
Party before country. It's the Conservative party motto.
I think we should call it the Schrodingers Wrexit policy. We are both in and out of the EU at the same time.
It's in reality a lot of waffly words though as they have no meaing or context. They've basically spent the day agreeing a set of words that in the cold light of day mean nothing.
For example they will align for industrial agriculture, but at the same time allow for us to reject any changes depending on a parliamentary vote which could result in the deal come crashing down at any instant. At the same time they want to work to a customs alignment that's different from what we already have but wouldn't be compatible with us allowing us to change it on a whim. They want a customs arrangement without freedom of movement but with a system that you can be denied access depending on how racist the Tory party are feeling on any particular day. That's not freedom of movement. They want regulatory flexibility for the financial market and hence only part of the service industry but without the other alignments that come with it. There are so many contradictions you can drive a bus through the fudge. And they have taken 2 years to come up with this mess. It's still have the cake and eat it just in different wording.
However it is another slide towards effectively being in the EU without any say over the rules whilst trying to avoid the inevitable. You might as well stay in the EU!
I completely agree with you. And I'm relying on your side to save the day for Brexit.
You know, when I was growing up in the 1980s, the Tories did a lot of damage. And now they're doing it again to Brexit with their serial incompetence.
They rolled up the white flag to Hitler in the 1930s, and gave us the Suez debacle.
And yet, come the next election, millions of people will still vote for them...
If I live to be a million, I'll never understand why...
Tbf how could've anyone thought that you would be keeping all advantages and just take what you want from the EU without playing after their tune to a degree is beyond me.
Especially when there are similiar countries in europe, that pay a lot of money and have no say and are stuck in the same situation to a degree.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Who will trust the Tories again after this sell-out?
.....And yet, come the next election, millions of people will still vote for them...
If I live to be a million, I'll never understand why...
You're not the only one. How anyone can equate current conservatives with fiscal responsibility and stability is utterly beyond me.
They are quite literally breaking the country apart, and people still vote for them. It's surreal, you feel a bit foolish pointing out that what your mate has just parroted out is in fact utter bollocks. You'd think everyone would know, or at least be able to read, and remember back further than the last couple of days. But when it comes to the conservatives, it's like some shutter comes down and just blanks off everything they've actually done.
It's mind boggling.
Farage of all people predicted this last year. He said the Tories would do this, then campaign on a GE pledge to take us out of the EU.
We really mean it this time - is that what they're print on their manifesto?
I may as well head over to the EU website and see what jobs are available. We're clearly to incompetent to beat them, so we may as well join them
God damn, two years ago, we had the future in our hands. We could have had a bold vision to build a Britain fit for the 21st century to face the challenges heading our way.
Instead we got bank managers fretting over paperclips, and principals going out the window from a party that values self-preservation over national interest every time.
Spivs, chancers, has beens, and petty intellectuals have well and truly fethed over Brexit.
I now live in hope that Barnier rides to the rescue
Farage of all people predicted this last year. He said the Tories would do this, then campaign on a GE pledge to take us out of the EU.
We really mean it this time - is that what they're print on their manifesto?
I may as well head over to the EU website and see what jobs are available. We're clearly to incompetent to beat them, so we may as well join them
God damn, two years ago, we had the future in our hands. We could have had a bold vision to build a Britain fit for the 21st century to face the challenges heading our way.
Instead we got bank managers fretting over paperclips, and principals going out the window from a party that values self-preservation over national interest every time.
Spivs, chancers, has beens, and petty intellectuals have well and truly fethed over Brexit.
I now live in hope that Barnier rides to the rescue
God damn, two years ago, we had the future in our hands. We could have had a bold vision to build a Britain fit for the 21st century to face the challenges heading our way.
This is what happens when you believe lies printed on the side of a bus or refuse to read past the headlines. You never had 'the future' in your hands, and you have been repeatedly told this, and demonstrated this.Britain was never going to get a better deal out of this than the one you had. Thinking anything else frankly is delusional.
Instead we got bank managers fretting over paperclips, and principals going out the window from a party that values self-preservation over national interest every time.
Or maybe leaving the eu is simply fraught with problems. I know you're happy to leave and for us all to end up in a cave banging rocks after this, but thankfully, not everyone is this short sighted.
Spivs, chancers, has beens, and petty intellectuals have well and truly fethed over Brexit.
Or maybe, brexit was just a really really terribly bad idea in the first place and completely self destructive, short sighted and self indulgent. But hey, you won. This is all yours. And you get to own it.
The government itself has got into the petty pro-Brexit lying game.
The Blue Passport lie was the first notable example. Now we have the bs about the fishing quotas.
To prove it's not all about Brexit, Universal Credit is being enthusiastically lied about too.
I realise that tactical and strategic lying is a necessary part of life and politics, but the lies the government is making up are so easily disproved, it shows they have contempt for the public.
So that's it? After all the posturing and strutting about I was expecting some kind of middle aged public school boy battle royale. But they all just meekly rolled over for the weekend? No doubt the spineless morons will be back to sniping at each other within the week, but what am I going to do with all this popcorn?
Ah what a morning to wake. It's really amusing to watch country to tear itself down. And to boot after knowingly willingly voting to do so.
And top of that to do so in so stupid way. They spend hours and release this? Why even bother. Eu will simply say "nope" on this attemp to cherry pick things.
Too bad don't have popcorn. Reading latest news is better than movies.
If the cabinet Brexiteers don't fall in line now then May simply has to sack them. You can't have this much-publicised reconciling of positions then let ministers start briefing against it or any remaining shred of authority is gone.
Edit: Read one interesting theory on the tweets that the senior Brexiteers would have nothing to gain from rebellion now - if the ERG & more send the letters in to the 1922 that forces a leadership contest they can take their chances in that and try to force a new position if they win. Personally I don't see it, but I don't claim to understand the Tory mindset.
Spivs, chancers, has beens, and petty intellectuals have well and truly fethed over Brexit.
Sounds like the cast of Dads Army.
But seriously, no. It was never going to work. What would a successful "21st century British Brexit" even look like? You can't claim we missed the opportunity to climb to the sunny Brexit uplands if nobody has ever shown they existed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Who will trust the Tories again after this sell-out?
.....And yet, come the next election, millions of people will still vote for them...
If I live to be a million, I'll never understand why...
You're not the only one. How anyone can equate current conservatives with fiscal responsibility and stability is utterly beyond me.
They are quite literally breaking the country apart, and people still vote for them. It's surreal, you feel a bit foolish pointing out that what your mate has just parroted out is in fact utter bollocks. You'd think everyone would know, or at least be able to read, and remember back further than the last couple of days. But when it comes to the conservatives, it's like some shutter comes down and just blanks off everything they've actually done.
It's mind boggling.
The "I'm alright, Jack" 's seem to believe that a Labour government means giving more of their hard earned to scroungers, so would rather vote in Cthulu than Labour.
Which would be fine if privatisation ever saved money or improved services.
God damn, two years ago, we had the future in our hands. We could have had a bold vision to build a Britain fit for the 21st century to face the challenges heading our way.
Instead we got bank managers fretting over paperclips, and principals going out the window from a party that values self-preservation over national interest every time.
Spivs, chancers, has beens, and petty intellectuals have well and truly fethed over Brexit.
I now live in hope that Barnier rides to the rescue
Now I am going to stick my head on the line, as an ardent supporter of staying in the EU, but will note that leaving the EU could have been a success. There is however a huge *BUT*
This should have been just like any other project. The options, risks, issues and so forth should have all been considered and appropriately managed. This is a project that should take 30 years and there are reasons for this. We have an economy heavily reliant on the the service industry and an externally supplied industry (e.g. Airbus, car manufacturers etc). These are all heavily reliant on the EU and being in the single market with freedom of movement. The whole economy would need to be reworked to not rely on the EU at this macro scale. You need to determine an area that UK can become leaders in that isn't reliant on this type of structure. In some ways similar to Japan or South Korea where they are heavily invested in electronics manufacturing that everyone wants. So for the sake of argument lets say robotics/AI. So you need to invest heavily in these areas and start withdrawing support slowly to those areas of services you no longer want to support (e.g. banking). Once you are a world leader in this area now you are not reliant on the EU at the macro economic scale (everyone wants your robots and AI). With this revised economy you can now determine the most appropriate working relationship with the EU. You can the leave safely knowing that you are not reliant on the macroscale working of the EU.
However this is generational project planning. We did not get this. We got an adhoc political whim of a promise. There was no thought to the consequences or what it meant. It was never meant to succeed, it was a political game nothing more.
So now when the unexpected happened and we got a split vote then there was no project plan, no idea of what it meant, just a view on what people wanted and why but which varied depending on which person you spoke to.
You were sold a honeytrap. You were given all these 'aspirational' things that aligned with your view on the world but with no practical application as to how it would work or whether it would work.
As such the things you wanted were never going to happen (either we'd leave hard and it would be an economic disaster, or we stay in/so closely aligned that you'd never be happy). And that largely is what people have been saying here for some time. What you want isn't going to happen. Not because it can't happen, but because the planning to get that stage was never undertaken, never planned for and hence were travelling a cliff edge blindfolded.
The EU isn’t negotiating terms, it’s saying “these are the rules, sign up or don’t”.
You could send a thousand Dakka members, the EU doesn’t give a feth.
I think the point is that they were more realistic about the options and that we are now almost at the place that people were saying from day 1. You get to choose the section of the club you are in, but the EU won't change those groupings.
I think the point is that they were more realistic about the options and that we are now almost at the place that people were saying from day 1. You get to choose the section of the club you are in, but the EU won't change those groupings.
I guess we'll never know if no deal would have put those autocrats in their place.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, you may as well start a campaign to get us back into the EU, and whilst you're at it, you can put my name down on the paper.
Hell, If we're staying in the EU anyway, we may as well try and salvage our rebate and opt outs back and grab a chair at the commission table.
If we're lucky, the EU might be in a generous mood.
Feth me, a 40 billion down payment and 2 years of bollocks just to end up back where we started...
If I were to vent my true feelings about the wretched and treacherous snakes that pass as the Tory party, I'd be banned from dakka.
They have been nothing but a millstone around this country's neck for 200 years!
May they rot in hell.
This is going exactly as remain predicted, but no, that was “project fear” and we were going to sail off in to the Atlantic in winds driven entirely by Farages smug self satisfaction and the angry blowhards of middle England.
We told you that it was not easy. We told you that you could not neatly tie up all the complex beauracracy and sort out deals with the rest of the world in a few months and ensure we were not cut off on our own, but that was shouted down and dismissed with experts suddenly gaining inverted commers and anyone who was against it branded a traitor.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, you may as well start a campaign to get us back into the EU, and whilst you're at it, you can put my name down on the paper. Hell, If we're staying in the EU anyway, we may as well try and salvage our rebate and opt outs back and grab a chair at the commission table.
If we're lucky, the EU might be in a generous mood.
Feth me, a 40 billion down payment and 2 years of bollocks just to end up back where we started... If I were to vent my true feelings about the wretched and treacherous snakes that pass as the Tory party, I'd be banned from dakka. They have been nothing but a millstone around this country's neck for 200 years!
May they rot in hell.
It's almost like brexit is a really really terribly bad idea, to the point where it's unworkable. But hey, we told you this. And you didn't want to listen.
But hey, it's good to see you trying to blame someone else again instead of owning up to, and admitting to the foolishness of brexit.
Nobody is seeing the bigger picture here, and this is what I've been warning about for 2 years.
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and implemented.
Instead, vast swathes of the British electorate, who only ever voted in 2016, because they thought their vote was worth a damn for once...
have been disenfranchised.
Given that GE election turnout has been in a historical decline since the 1990s, given that trust and faith in politicians has never been lower...
Who seriously thinks that this modern day Munich will improve any of that?
May's short-terminism has dealt a severe blow to British democracy, and I seriously don't think the country will ever recover from it...
Why would anybody ever bother to vote again?
No doubt some Remainers in the media will be overjoyed at working-class voters never voting again,
but there will be a vacuum, there always is, and I doubt if we'll like the people who will fill it...
If you think Farage was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...
Me? I doubt if I'll ever vote again. I'll pull up the drawbridge, withdraw from doing my civic duty, and let the country get on with it.
The money men have won, as they always do, and I say to everybody on this thread, be they Remain or Leave, that's bad, because they don't care about us, only the bottom line...
They are not our friends. And they never will be...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody is seeing the bigger picture here, and this is what I've been warning about for 2 years.
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and implemented.
Instead, vast swathes of the British electorate, who only ever voted in 2016, because they thought their vote was worth a damn for once...
have been disenfranchised.
Given that GE election turnout has been in a historical decline since the 1990s, given that trust and faith in politicians has never been lower...
Who seriously thinks that this modern day Munich will improve any of that?
May's short-terminism has dealt a severe blow to British democracy, and I seriously don't think the country will ever recover from it...
Why would anybody ever bother to vote again?
No doubt some Remainers in the media will be overjoyed at working-class voters never voting again,
but there will be a vacuum, there always is, and I doubt if we'll like the people who will fill it...
If you think Farage was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...
Me? I doubt if I'll ever vote again. I'll pull up the drawbridge, withdraw from doing my civic duty, and let the country get on with it.
The money men have won, as they always do, and I say to everybody on this thread, be they Remain or Leave, that's bad, because they don't care about us, only the bottom line...
They are not our friends. And they never will be...
Bollocks.
Seriously the money men have won is the best you can come up with?
Ok let's ignore Fartgas and his mates in banking shorting the pound on referendum night.
Ok let's ignore John "the Vulcan" Redwood telling his clients to get there investments out of the UK.
Ok let's ignore Lord Haw Haw Moggy hiding his money in sanctioned Russian banks and looking forward to making a killing when the economy crashes. Oh and the new EU tax laws he is desperate to avoid.
Ok let's ignore the other dozen or so Tory/Brexiters advising clients to get the investments out of the UK and into the EU
I could go on but as we can see it was the "money men" who sabotaged brexit. Seriously it was not that Brexiteer are fantasies and xenophobes with no plan more than furriners out.
If the electorate votes to put their collective hands in acid, don't be surprised when two years later the politicians decide that vinegar is the best option.
Complaining that the electorate will accept nothing weaker than sulphuric acid is a) not true, b) still stupid.
If anybody thinks that the money men don't have their hooks in the EU, then they ought to have their picture in the dictionary under naïve.
You only have to look at Cyrpus, Malta and Luxembourg.
People often ask me why I was anti-EU, but as a long time socialist, it's pretty self-evident.
Who seriously thinks that the free movement of money, goods and people benefits the working-classes of Europe?
It's been a corporate stich up since the coal and steel days. That Thatcher was behind the single market tells me everything I need to know about the whole damn project.
Whirlwind wrote: ...Now I am going to stick my head on the line, as an ardent supporter of staying in the EU, but will note that leaving the EU could have been a success. There is however a huge *BUT*
This should have been just like any other project. The options, risks, issues and so forth should have all been considered and appropriately managed. This is a project that should take 30 years and there are reasons for this. We have an economy heavily reliant on the the service industry and an externally supplied industry (e.g. Airbus, car manufacturers etc). These are all heavily reliant on the EU and being in the single market with freedom of movement. The whole economy would need to be reworked to not rely on the EU at this macro scale. You need to determine an area that UK can become leaders in that isn't reliant on this type of structure. In some ways similar to Japan or South Korea where they are heavily invested in electronics manufacturing that everyone wants. So for the sake of argument lets say robotics/AI. So you need to invest heavily in these areas and start withdrawing support slowly to those areas of services you no longer want to support (e.g. banking). Once you are a world leader in this area now you are not reliant on the EU at the macro economic scale (everyone wants your robots and AI). With this revised economy you can now determine the most appropriate working relationship with the EU. You can the leave safely knowing that you are not reliant on the macroscale working of the EU...
Bizarrely, an ardent EU supporter has provided the only real, workable plan to withdraw ourselves in an orderly and agreeable fashion. I would actually have voted leave, if this was the way we were going to do it.
However, it's too long term for the electorate, and doesn't also carry the immediate satisfaction of telling the Tories and Europe to go feth itself, which is why it'd probably ever work.
Well done anyway chap, it's a shame it's a bit long winded to stick on the side of a bus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If anybody thinks that the money men don't have their hooks in the EU, then they ought to have their picture in the dictionary under naïve.
You only have to look at Cyrpus, Malta and Luxembourg.
People often ask me why I was anti-EU, but as a long time socialist, it's pretty self-evident.
Who seriously thinks that the free movement of money, goods and people benefits the working-classes of Europe?
It's been a corporate stich up since the coal and steel days. That Thatcher was behind the single market tells me everything I need to know about the whole damn project.
You make good points, however, the EU provided structures for trades between nations and collective bargaining with other super economies, you could still happily run a social democracy within it with nationalised infrastructure and workable unions etc with very little interference.
I'm a socialist, and I see no real problems with free movement of people or capital.
Thatchers destruction of industry and remoulding of society into a neo-liberal one had nothing to do with the EU, that was her, or more precisely ourselves.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody is seeing the bigger picture here, and this is what I've been warning about for 2 years.
Pot. Kettle. Black. You are self righteous. You are the zealous ideologue that is blind to the bigger picture, because you are so obsessed with 'headlines' that you don't care about any of the details and intricacies involved in this mess or who will suffer as a result. All you care about are sound bites and none for pragmatism or practicalities.
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and implemented.
Instead, vast swathes of the British electorate, who only ever voted in 2016, because they thought their vote was worth a damn for once...
have been disenfranchised.
Horsegak.
Hmm. So the govt pushing ahead with brexit as their only priority is not somehow respecting and implementing the referendum result. No one has been disenfranchised.
Jesus Christ, I know you are wilfully blind to the bigger picture and it seems consequences, and are happy with us all banging rocks in caves after this as an acceptable price, but not everyone is willing to do that. For very good bloody reasons. the shocking thing is there are loads of jobs and livelihoods out there that you don't care about that rely on Europe and the integration that we have developed, along with almost 50% of the population that wanted to remain.
Given that GE election turnout has been in a historical decline since the 1990s, given that trust and faith in politicians has never been lower...
Who seriously thinks that this modern day Munich will improve any of that?
It's almost like the whole thing is complicated with a lot of consequences for making mistakes.
May's short-terminism has dealt a severe blow to British democracy, and I seriously don't think the country will ever recover from it...
Why would anybody ever bother to vote again?
Your usual black and white hysteria. Tory Infighting aside, the bigger picture requires a healthy relationship with the EU, since so much of what we do, sell and buy goes there. 'Out means out' is a great soundbite, but again, zealous dogma means reality and it's worthless.
No doubt some Remainers in the media will be overjoyed at working-class voters never voting again,
but there will be a vacuum, there always is, and I doubt if we'll like the people who will fill it...
If you think Farage was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...
Me? I doubt if I'll ever vote again. I'll pull up the drawbridge, withdraw from doing my civic duty, and let the country get on with it.
Hypocrite and coward.
No. You don't get to do this. You voted for this. This is yours. You are the last person in line who gets to wash his hands of this. You get to own it. And we get to remind you of this idiocy.
The money men have won, as they always do, and I say to everybody on this thread, be they Remain or Leave, that's bad, because they don't care about us, only the bottom line...
They are not our friends. And they never will be...
It's the other way around. The money men were on your side. Don't you get it? Brexit is a goldmine for people like that. They wanted this. They get to asset strip this country now. And you just fell I need line and gave it to the disaster capitalists and are too blind and Self righteous to see it.
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and ver will be... :
Simple yes/no question for you. Are we leaving the EU? Give me a one word answer. No “not in any meaningful way” or “yes but” or any of that. Yes or no. Are we leaving the EU? That was the question at the referendum and those were the choices. There is no way anyone can say no to that. It may not be the way you wanted, but we are leaving the EU. If you wanted something in particular perhaps you should blaim the leave campaign for norelying on populism and vague pronouncements rather than setting out a clear vision.
I’m not expecting you to give a direct answer, but I hope you do. Yes or no to a simple question.
. no, the people here/elsewhere who voted remain or kept explaining why the Brexit idea -- cannot really call it a plan can you eh ? -- kept talking about the big picture, or reality as we called it, since the start.
I doubt if I'll ever vote again. I'll pull up the drawbridge, withdraw from doing my civic duty, and let the country get on with it.
... oddly enough this is exactly what you did by voting for Brexit too.
Go figure.
The money men have won, as they always do, and I say to everybody on this thread, be they Remain or Leave, that's bad, because they don't care about us, only the bottom line...
They are not our friends. And they never will be...
But, privately, the 27 EU leaders have already been informed by Brussels that May’s plans would cross red lines the leaders set out in the EU’s negotiating position, BuzzFeed News can reveal.
The EU27’s initial assessment, the details of which have been seen by BuzzFeed News, is that proposals included in the paper – such as remaining in the single market for goods without the single market’s other freedoms (people, services and capital), and a clear legal oversight mechanism – are unacceptable.
Brussels also feels that May’s new customs proposal, which would see Britain collect duties on behalf of the EU, looks a lot like the customs partnership they have already rejected, according to the assessment.
A pledge by the UK to not let standards on the environment, climate change, social, employment and consumer protection fall below their current levels, is welcome by Brussels, but EU capitals have been warned that it requires further detailed assessment.
You've arrived in the nick of time reds8n, because I was looking for a Mod.
Is it possible to have the Union Jack next to my name changed to a white flag to reflect the UK's new status?
At any rate, I suppose that buzzfeed link you posted is good news of a sort.
The bad news is that the EU knows that May has a spine made from rubber, not steel, so she'll likely concede further ground to them in return for zero...
There's never been a negotiation this bad since the Native Americans sold New York for a crust of bread and a half-empty bottle of rum...
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and ver will be... :
Simple yes/no question for you. Are we leaving the EU? Give me a one word answer. No “not in any meaningful way” or “yes but” or any of that. Yes or no. Are we leaving the EU? That was the question at the referendum and those were the choices. There is no way anyone can say no to that. It may not be the way you wanted, but we are leaving the EU. If you wanted something in particular perhaps you should blaim the leave campaign for norelying on populism and vague pronouncements rather than setting out a clear vision.
I’m not expecting you to give a direct answer, but I hope you do. Yes or no to a simple question.
Don't think I'm only directing flak towards Remain.
I am blaming Leave. They were fething hopeless.
Juncker could have done a better job than Gove, Bojo, and Fox.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, you may as well start a campaign to get us back into the EU, and whilst you're at it, you can put my name down on the paper.
Hell, If we're staying in the EU anyway, we may as well try and salvage our rebate and opt outs back and grab a chair at the commission table.
If we're lucky, the EU might be in a generous mood.
Feth me, a 40 billion down payment and 2 years of bollocks just to end up back where we started...
If I were to vent my true feelings about the wretched and treacherous snakes that pass as the Tory party, I'd be banned from dakka.
They have been nothing but a millstone around this country's neck for 200 years!
May they rot in hell.
I’m going to ignore the heated stuff and concentrate on this, because this is why (even as an ardent Remainer) soft Brexit is probably a bad idea. We end up tied into EU rules and payments but with none of our current benefits and lose all of our democratic input. As Whirlwind pointed out, there was a very remote possibility of making leave a success, but it would require unity, vision, drive, commitment and planning of a kind that we haven’t had since the Second World War (if ever). That is not going to happen, so the next best option is to just stay in. Max out the existing, unused, rights to help address the legitimate issues of the 52% and engage with the EU to make the improvements we all know are required.
Edit: this is also why a couple of my moderate Eurosceptic friends actually voted to remain; even before the vote they could see that soft Brexit was a miserable compromise and hard Brexit would be a disaster.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You've arrived in the nick of time reds8n, because I was looking for a Mod.
Is it possible to have the Union Jack next to my name changed to a white flag to reflect the UK's new status?
At any rate, I suppose that buzzfeed link you posted is good news of a sort.
The bad news is that the EU knows that May has a spine made from rubber, not steel, so she'll likely concede further ground to them in return for zero...
There's never been a negotiation this bad since the Native Americans sold New York for a crust of bread and a half-empty bottle of rum...
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and ver will be... :
Simple yes/no question for you. Are we leaving the EU? Give me a one word answer. No “not in any meaningful way” or “yes but” or any of that. Yes or no. Are we leaving the EU? That was the question at the referendum and those were the choices. There is no way anyone can say no to that. It may not be the way you wanted, but we are leaving the EU. If you wanted something in particular perhaps you should blaim the leave campaign for norelying on populism and vague pronouncements rather than setting out a clear vision.
I’m not expecting you to give a direct answer, but I hope you do. Yes or no to a simple question.
Don't think I'm only directing flak towards Remain.
I am blaming Leave. They were fething hopeless.
Juncker could have done a better job than Gove, Bojo, and Fox.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, you may as well start a campaign to get us back into the EU, and whilst you're at it, you can put my name down on the paper.
Hell, If we're staying in the EU anyway, we may as well try and salvage our rebate and opt outs back and grab a chair at the commission table.
If we're lucky, the EU might be in a generous mood.
Feth me, a 40 billion down payment and 2 years of bollocks just to end up back where we started...
If I were to vent my true feelings about the wretched and treacherous snakes that pass as the Tory party, I'd be banned from dakka.
They have been nothing but a millstone around this country's neck for 200 years!
May they rot in hell.
I’m going to ignore the heated stuff and concentrate on this, because this is why (even as an ardent Remainer) soft Brexit is probably a bad idea. We end up tied into EU rules and payments but with none of our current benefits and lose all of our democratic input. As Whirlwind pointed out, there was a very remote possibility of making leave a success, but it would require unity, vision, drive, commitment and planning of a kind that we haven’t had since the Second World War (if ever). That is not going to happen, so the next best option is to just stay in. Max out the existing, unused, rights to help address the legitimate issues of the 52% and engage with the EU to make the improvements we all know are required.
Edit: this is also why a couple of my moderate Eurosceptic friends actually voted to remain; even before the vote they could see that soft Brexit was a miserable compromise and hard Brexit would be a disaster.
This is actually a very good point.
It's a disaster for both sides, and it takes a special kind of incompetence to unite both sides into thinking that this is a terrible deal, but that May's stock in trade.
It's bad for Brexit supporters like me.
But to Remain supporters like you, I would also argue that it is terrible for the reasons you outlined.
And here's another reason: those gutless fethers, the so called Brexiteers in the cabinet, will spend the next 10 years on the sidelines sniping away at this. Naturally of course, they won't have the backbone to do anything about it, but with Farage back at UKIP, and Bojo hiding behind his newspaper column,
it will be a drip drip drip of resentment and it will only stir up more trouble in the country.
Portillo was right: this is going to rumble on for years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You've arrived in the nick of time reds8n, because I was looking for a Mod.
Is it possible to have the Union Jack next to my name changed to a white flag to reflect the UK's new status?
At any rate, I suppose that buzzfeed link you posted is good news of a sort.
The bad news is that the EU knows that May has a spine made from rubber, not steel, so she'll likely concede further ground to them in return for zero...
There's never been a negotiation this bad since the Native Americans sold New York for a crust of bread and a half-empty bottle of rum...
Whatever you may think of Brexit, the vote was the biggest in British political history for anything. It had a right to be respected and ver will be... :
Simple yes/no question for you. Are we leaving the EU? Give me a one word answer. No “not in any meaningful way” or “yes but” or any of that. Yes or no. Are we leaving the EU? That was the question at the referendum and those were the choices. There is no way anyone can say no to that. It may not be the way you wanted, but we are leaving the EU. If you wanted something in particular perhaps you should blaim the leave campaign for norelying on populism and vague pronouncements rather than setting out a clear vision.
I’m not expecting you to give a direct answer, but I hope you do. Yes or no to a simple question.
Don't think I'm only directing flak towards Remain.
I am blaming Leave. They were fething hopeless.
Juncker could have done a better job than Gove, Bojo, and Fox.
So is that a yes or a no? Are we leaving the EU?
I honestly don't know. With May in charge, I expect to see the March 2019 suspended indefinitely, and this time next year, I expect to be doing my shopping in Euros.
I looked at Barnier's twitter feed, and to my surprise, he wasn't at Checkers, because this is a deal that he could have written
Your not answering the question and you know it. It’s not a hyperthetical “will the government stop the process” or “will we have a never ending series of interim arrangements”. Not “do you think the government will follow through?”
It is, are we, today, as it stands, leaving the EU? Yes or no? As your statements about people being “cheated” and “not following the will of the people” are in relation to statements about how we are leaving the EU. Unless you believe that, as it stands today, we are no longer leaving the EU? In which case I would be interested to know what facts you have to back this up. Facts, not belief or opinion on what the government or the EU might or might not do.
GoatboyBeta wrote: So that's it? After all the posturing and strutting about I was expecting some kind of middle aged public school boy battle royale. But they all just meekly rolled over for the weekend? No doubt the spineless morons will be back to sniping at each other within the week, but what am I going to do with all this popcorn?
Send it to the Kremlin. They are running out again.
Actually assuming that the Tories are in charge for full term, then a soft brexit leaving us following EU laws and legislation is fine by me as it may reign in there most sociopathic tendencies.
It would be great if they have to implement all the social charter stuff they spent most of 80's worming there way out of.
Ultimately I would rather take my chances with faceless EU beaurcrats than the assorted toffs,spivs and sociopaths that make up the Tory Party.
May's plan is still a fudge. Changes in tone and wording but other than that it lacks precision and detailed language. Too many weasel words.
For example: "common rulebook". The whole idea of the common market is that rules may and do change, that's why there needs to be ECJ oversight. Worst of all is that they know that, and they added a nonsensic phrase trying to reassure themselves like "these rules are relatively stable". No, they don't.
Still, let's wait for that white book and see. This is just a glorified press release.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, you may as well start a campaign to get us back into the EU, and whilst you're at it, you can put my name down on the paper.
Hell, If we're staying in the EU anyway, we may as well try and salvage our rebate and opt outs back and grab a chair at the commission table.
If we're lucky, the EU might be in a generous mood.
Feth me, a 40 billion down payment and 2 years of bollocks just to end up back where we started...
If I were to vent my true feelings about the wretched and treacherous snakes that pass as the Tory party, I'd be banned from dakka.
They have been nothing but a millstone around this country's neck for 200 years!
May they rot in hell.
Welcome to the stance I've taken from the start. Brexit could work, with a plan, but we're as well staying in and wasting our money on something else.
Who seriously thinks that the free movement of money, goods and people benefits the working-classes of Europe?
Me and any working class person who took advantage of it. As a socialist I'm all for the EU. It's do it a better socialist job than the UK is
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the big question is: does May think the EU will accept any of this gak? From what I can tell most of this was already ruled out
It's been mentioned before, but maybe if England do lift the World Cup, it might go a long way to unite the country behind something positive rather than the relentless negative bs of politics, and in particular Brexit.
r_squared wrote: It's been mentioned before, but maybe if England do lift the World Cup, it might go a long way to unite the country behind something positive rather than the relentless negative bs of politics, and in particular Brexit.
Bizarrely, an ardent EU supporter has provided the only real, workable plan to withdraw ourselves in an orderly and agreeable fashion. I would actually have voted leave, if this was the way we were going to do it.
However, it's too long term for the electorate, and doesn't also carry the immediate satisfaction of telling the Tories and Europe to go feth itself, which is why it'd probably ever work.
Well done anyway chap, it's a shame it's a bit long winded to stick on the side of a bus.
Democracy is both a thing to be valued and a curse. It should be that the people decide how the country is run. However that becomes a problem when the options are limited to a few which for a fair number are self serving and keen to pander to the populace rather than argue for rational responses. China successfully achieved a change in their direction, but at what cost? Human rights are ignored, students shot, people that object to the government disappear and are re-educated and they have effectively given themselves an expansionist dictator. However they had a plan and stuck to it. The populace needs to vote for better politicians. The politiicians have to recognise that they are pretty rubbish at what they do and find a way to ensure that future generations of politicians really know what they are doing (or are willing to listen and argue even if it is against demagogue style thinking).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Nobody is seeing the bigger picture here, and this is what I've been warning about for 2 years.
Pot. Kettle. Black. You are self righteous. You are the zealous ideologue that is blind to the bigger picture, because you are so obsessed with 'headlines' that you don't care about any of the details and intricacies involved in this mess or who will suffer as a result. All you care about are sound bites and none for pragmatism or practicalities.
Can we not do this? Fine we have different views to DINLT and we can argue those views. However people can be just as passionate about one side as the other for whatever reason. Kicking someone when they are down doesn't win an argument. It's more a way of encouraging someone to fight back irrationally because they are backed into a corner...
Me? I doubt if I'll ever vote again. I'll pull up the drawbridge, withdraw from doing my civic duty, and let the country get on with it.
The money men have won, as they always do, and I say to everybody on this thread, be they Remain or Leave, that's bad, because they don't care about us, only the bottom line...
I would strongly encourage you not to do this. It may seem bad now and that things have not turned out how you wished, but there is never a reason to stop putting your voice forward. That sort of approach will keep the Tories in forever!
But, privately, the 27 EU leaders have already been informed by Brussels that May’s plans would cross red lines the leaders set out in the EU’s negotiating position, BuzzFeed News can reveal.
The EU27’s initial assessment, the details of which have been seen by BuzzFeed News, is that proposals included in the paper – such as remaining in the single market for goods without the single market’s other freedoms (people, services and capital), and a clear legal oversight mechanism – are unacceptable.
Brussels also feels that May’s new customs proposal, which would see Britain collect duties on behalf of the EU, looks a lot like the customs partnership they have already rejected, according to the assessment.
A pledge by the UK to not let standards on the environment, climate change, social, employment and consumer protection fall below their current levels, is welcome by Brussels, but EU capitals have been warned that it requires further detailed assessment.
good times.
It was never going to work based on the EU categories. If you want a customs union then you have to have freedom of movement. They aren't going to set up a new special customs union just for us. Even in her own interviews May doesn't sound convinced, I think she knows that she have to adjust again at which point the argument for leaving becomes lessened and a new vote becomes much louder. It's still a fudge to keep the arch Brexiters in cabinet at least not all walking out. I just don't think she is yet ready to see the Tories fall apart one way or another.
But I will say this. I have never voted Tory in my life, and wouldn't do so, even if they paid me
but the bulk of my life has been spent under Tory governments
I don't think my no show at a General Election will change that.
There's a website where you type in the year of your birth and it tells you how long you've had Tory governments in your life.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Tory Brexit negotiation debacle never happened, that we're still in the EU. There is still some of the worst incompetence you are ever likely to see from a Tory government: Windrush, Universal Credit, NHS, foreign policy, defence etc etc
But I will bet every penny I own that millions will trot out at the next election and cast a vote for that shower of horsegak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: It's been mentioned before, but maybe if England do lift the World Cup, it might go a long way to unite the country behind something positive rather than the relentless negative bs of politics, and in particular Brexit.
What does an England WC win do for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland??
Not voting means the Tories need less votes to win, and not voting also means you lose any right to complain about the consequences of a vote.
The brexit vote has had serious repercussions; political careers have been shot down, the Tories have talked themselves into a corner and people are a lot more politically aware.
We've also wasted millions of quid, thousands of hours and lost hundreds of jobs because of it. It's shown quite clearly what can happen when you take an electorate for granted and call them stupid. Or lie enough.
So your brexit vote meant something, even if you're not getting the brexit you want and I fully support your right to have done so.
It's funny, there was an article the other day about if NAFTA falls apart, should Canada try to get into the EU? I know we aren't technically in Europe, but it sounds like a great idea to me. At least you Europeans seem to have social goals more in line with Canada's than the United States does!
Crazyterran wrote: It's funny, there was an article the other day about if NAFTA falls apart, should Canada try to get into the EU? I know we aren't technically in Europe, but it sounds like a great idea to me. At least you Europeans seem to have social goals more in line with Canada's than the United States does!
That is an interesting question actually. Canada would probably be a great fit for the EU. They might even be able to be a bit of a counterweight to Germany. So when I went to Google to look it up, I typed in "can Canada" and '"can Canada join the EU?" popped up immediately. Apparently it is not as crazy as it sounds at first. I think France especially would be happy to have Canada in. They'd finally have someone to talk to apart from the Belgians.
But I will say this. I have never voted Tory in my life, and wouldn't do so, even if they paid me
but the bulk of my life has been spent under Tory governments
I don't think my no show at a General Election will change that.
Every vote matters, even if it is to show that increasing reason that we need PR as a way of representing the country in a better way. Amanda Rudd only got in with 300 votes. Suppose you were in the same situation in a couple of years, would you not curse yourself for not voting if they squeaked through and get the MP in even though it unfairly reflects the voting proportions? If you look back to some of your previous arguments that you want the country to grow and develop and be a world leader. We can never have that if the people that can actually change the status quo 'give up'. Sometimes you do get knocked to the ground and into the dirt. The best thing to do is dust yourself off and try again, learn from the experience and adapt so you can get a country you want.
r_squared wrote: It's been mentioned before, but maybe if England do lift the World Cup, it might go a long way to unite the country behind something positive rather than the relentless negative bs of politics, and in particular Brexit.
What does an England WC win do for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland??
Not much I guess, however, England's disatisfaction is what lead the whole union to this point.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People often ask me why I was anti-EU, but as a long time socialist, it's pretty self-evident.
Who seriously thinks that the free movement of money, goods and people benefits the working-classes of Europe?
I get what you mean but the free movement of money or goods was already kinda there (just with some hurdles). From the moment it was viable to outsource production of goods to Asia, companies used that to their benefit while workers everywhere had a hard time doing the same. The free movement of people is good for the people overall and at least something.
The EU as a bloc is about the economy first but at least it doesn't completely forget that there also people somewhere down there doing their thing and trying to survive. Without the EU, companies would have managed to get something like free movement of goods and money working while bigger economic blocs would have pushed each and every individual European country around and gotten their benefits while we would have gotten nothing out of it.
Yes, the EU could be better in a lot of ways but even as it is right now it's so much better than if it didn't exists.
It's starting to unravel already (after 1 day) and there are concerns that not all of the EU will go with it as it is still trying to carve up the 4 fundamental principles of the EU.
Expect Piffle Johnson to try and get fired again he wants of the hook so bad you can see the desperation dripping of him.
Mr 4hrs Thick as Mince will likely resign on "principle" because it turns out brexit is more work than he wants.
That invertebrate Gove is likely going to have to stick it out as Murdoch's representation in the cabinet.
The rest are likely to follow Lord Haw Haw Moggy and just snipe and bluster from the sidelines that the country must be destroyed as it is the Willy of the peeple and the vulture capitalist.
Fartgas will wail and nash about traitors while running round the world supporting Nazis at Putin's behest.
Well, we have certainly come back round to the original voting choice.
Looking back, was there really an alternative other than voting to stay? Entrenched EU Skeptics have always bemoaned technocratic adherence to EU rules as dogmatic And they are right for the wrong reasons!
The Irish border status is the only card available for negotiation and what if the EU simply decides that its far better for the whole that a full exit leads to an internationally accepted norm of border controls/hard border?
I'm seriously starting to swing round to a EFTA/EEA stop gap solution.
It's not my first choice, but it's clear that the nation has forgotten how to govern, and that the current crop of chancers and spivs are not up to the job.
Two years, two fething years down the drain.
I'm prepared to play the long game for Brexit (as it stands I don't have much choice anyway) so I'm cutting my cloth accordingly to fit the new reality.
EFTA/EEA will buy us some time, keep the Irish border calm and peaceful
and as long as it's a staging post to a gradual Brexit, then fine by me. Hopefully, these current incompetents will be swept away by then.
So there you have it. Not exactly a Damascus conversion from me. More an attempt to salvage something from this Brexit debacle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: It's funny, there was an article the other day about if NAFTA falls apart, should Canada try to get into the EU? I know we aren't technically in Europe, but it sounds like a great idea to me. At least you Europeans seem to have social goals more in line with Canada's than the United States does!
Well, you are a fellow NATO member and ally to a lot of EU countries, so there's already some co-operation there.
From what Robert Peston's being saying, Bojo was full of bluster and hot air, weasel Gove slithered in behind May, and Liam Fox got tangled up in detail from a vague promise from May about trade deals or something.
Expect Piffle Johnson to try and get fired again he wants of the hook so bad you can see the desperation dripping of him.
Mr 4hrs Thick as Mince will likely resign on "principle" because it turns out brexit is more work than he wants.
That invertebrate Gove is likely going to have to stick it out as Murdoch's representation in the cabinet.
The rest are likely to follow Lord Haw Haw Moggy and just snipe and bluster from the sidelines that the country must be destroyed as it is the Willy of the peeple and the vulture capitalist.
Fartgas will wail and nash about traitors while running round the world supporting Nazis at Putin's behest.
None of them have got the guts to stand up for Brexit.
It's true what they say: if you want something done, you have to do it yourself.
Also, it's doubtful the EU, EFTA and EEA countries will want to spend the effort to negotiate a second, part-way solution which demands immediate renegotiation for a third, full solution. Plus, at the moment, the eventual 3rd solution the UK is currently proposing isn't acceptable to the EU anyway.
I would rather be in EFTA/EEA than completely out, but I think it needs to be a final position, not an interim.
While we're on the subject of the current generation of politicians being incompetents, make note that it's the Brexiteers who are the incompetents. They haven't offered a single realistic point for Brexit, they've just carped and moaned about everything everyone else has said or done.
Bear in mind the Brexiteers ave had 45 years to get to this point. What makes you think another 2 years will improve things
Also, it's doubtful the EU, EFTA and EEA countries will want to spend the effort to negotiate a second, part-way solution which demands immediate renegotiation for a third, full solution. Plus, at the moment, the eventual 3rd solution the UK is currently proposing isn't acceptable to the EU anyway.
I would rather be in EFTA/EEA than completely out, but I think it needs to be a final position, not an interim.
While we're on the subject of the current generation of politicians being incompetents, make note that it's the Brexiteers who are the incompetents. They haven't offered a single realistic point for Brexit, they've just carped and moaned about everything everyone else has said or done.
Bear in mind the Brexiteers ave had 45 years to get to this point. What makes you think another 2 years will improve things
I agree, EFTA/EEA is not without its own hurdles, and if I'm being honest, I wouldn't blame the Norwegians for being bitter. We did abandon them back in the day after all.
EFTA/EEA can be all things to men and women. It could be sold to the Brexit side as a staging post to a complete de-coupling with the EU, and Remainers could see it as a springboard back to the EU. Both sides could claim victory, no bad thing given the 52/48 split.
The numbers add up in The Commons, it keeps Ireland happy for a few years, and calms some nerves in the world of business.
May's red lines are gone, and even so, the Brexiteers have shown the don't have the backbone to fight anyway.
Still, it's better than the Checkers solution of pulling magic beans from their rears and claiming it as a victory. It's already been shot down in flames by the EU, and it was only ever an attempt to stop the Tories from sliding into civil war.
We could have had two solid years of hiring, building, and making the necessary expansions needed for a no deal solution, whilst negotiating with the EU, That would have given us a solid fallback and strenghethed our hand.
Instead, we got a Tory party negotiating with itself.
Also, it's doubtful the EU, EFTA and EEA countries will want to spend the effort to negotiate a second, part-way solution which demands immediate renegotiation for a third, full solution. Plus, at the moment, the eventual 3rd solution the UK is currently proposing isn't acceptable to the EU anyway.
I would rather be in EFTA/EEA than completely out, but I think it needs to be a final position, not an interim.
While we're on the subject of the current generation of politicians being incompetents, make note that it's the Brexiteers who are the incompetents. They haven't offered a single realistic point for Brexit, they've just carped and moaned about everything everyone else has said or done.
Bear in mind the Brexiteers ave had 45 years to get to this point. What makes you think another 2 years will improve things
I agree, EFTA/EEA is not without its own hurdles, and if I'm being honest, I wouldn't blame the Norwegians for being bitter. We did abandon them back in the day after all.
EFTA/EEA can be all things to men and women. It could be sold to the Brexit side as a staging post to a complete de-coupling with the EU, and Remainers could see it as a springboard back to the EU. Both sides could claim victory, no bad thing given the 52/48 split.
The numbers add up in The Commons, it keeps Ireland happy for a few years, and calms some nerves in the world of business.
May's red lines are gone, and even so, the Brexiteers have shown the don't have the backbone to fight anyway.
Still, it's better than the Checkers solution of pulling magic beans from their rears and claiming it as a victory. It's already been shot down in flames by the EU, and it was only ever an attempt to stop the Tories from sliding into civil war.
We could have had two solid years of hiring, building, and making the necessary expansions needed for a no deal solution, whilst negotiating with the EU, That would have given us a solid fallback and strenghethed our hand.
Instead, we got a Tory party negotiating with itself.
And lest we forget, Cameron was on your side.
Honestly you did allready abandon the EFTA once, chances are, especially in Switzerland, pretty high that they will not accept you back.
Considering that ratification in Switzerland takes place via obligatory referendum and that the UK would be more disadvantagous for an allready strained relationship with the EU you have allready one Nation that will not accept you back in about 55% of the case.
Norway could still be bitter. Lichtenstein is basically another Kanton of Switzerland and Island is, well Island.
Basically EFTA is not a secure option, heck i would not even regard it as a option for a plan B/C.
Not Online!!! wrote: Basically EFTA is not a secure option, heck i would not even regard it as a option for a plan B/C.
Can something be considered as a plan B or C if there is no plan A?(and no, crossing your fingers and wishing really really hard for a magical technolgy fix does not count as a plan)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Seems July could be the end of May.....confidence vote being callled by Tories.
They'll be finished. No confidence vote will lead to pressure for a general election. Euro skeptics and the right of the party always fail to understand their past history.
They haven't got the guts. The time to walk was Friday night, but they bottled it. Again.
They are now relying on the EU to do their dirty work for them, and shoot this down in flames on the basis that the four freedoms are non-negotiable.
But if the EU are smart and devious, they will string this along for a few months to keep May afloat, then hit us in the Autumn with a triple whammy of demands, right on the eve of the deadline.
May being May will roll up the white flag, and the EU will well and truly have us over a barrel.
That is my great fear: that the EU might pretend to be flexible on the 4 freedoms. In private, we know they never could be, but if they're devious with faux public announcements, they could really hit us in the nuts.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: They haven't got the guts. The time to walk was Friday night, but they bottled it. Again.
They are now relying on the EU to do their dirty work for them, and shoot this down in flames on the basis that the four freedoms are non-negotiable.
But if the EU are smart and devious, they will string this along for a few months to keep May afloat, then hit us in the Autumn with a triple whammy of demands, right on the eve of the deadline.
May being May will roll up the white flag, and the EU will well and truly have us over a barrel.
That is my great fear: that the EU might pretend to be flexible on the 4 freedoms. In private, we know they never could be, but if they're devious with faux public announcements, they could really hit us in the nuts.
It pays the EU to be straight in their negotiations. The government is causing their own downfall, Cameron got out when the getting was good!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU has bigger fish to fry than pissant UK's nuts.
Playing it straight sends a stronger message to the member states especially those with governments whos members are vocal.
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU has bigger fish to fry than pissant UK's nuts.
It's all politics, and let's not forget, the UK press and politicians have been sending the insults to Brussels for years. They wouldn't be human if a tiny part of them secretly didn't want a chance to put a boot up our rear.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: They haven't got the guts. The time to walk was Friday night, but they bottled it. Again.
They are now relying on the EU to do their dirty work for them, and shoot this down in flames on the basis that the four freedoms are non-negotiable.
But if the EU are smart and devious, they will string this along for a few months to keep May afloat, then hit us in the Autumn with a triple whammy of demands, right on the eve of the deadline.
May being May will roll up the white flag, and the EU will well and truly have us over a barrel.
That is my great fear: that the EU might pretend to be flexible on the 4 freedoms. In private, we know they never could be, but if they're devious with faux public announcements, they could really hit us in the nuts.
It pays the EU to be straight in their negotiations. The government is causing their own downfall, Cameron got out when the getting was good!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The EU has bigger fish to fry than pissant UK's nuts.
Playing it straight sends a stronger message to the member states especially those with governments whos members are vocal.
Well they are, so it's up to the rest of us to get stuff done.
Lobby your MP, and your Labour candidate if you're in a Tory area. Push for soft Brexit.
If you're lucky enough to be in an LDP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein or Green Party area, you're on the side of the angels already. Send money to the Best For Britain campaign.
www.bestforbritain.org
If you're in a UKIP area, re-read this post for more information.
My SNPMP is a die-hard Remainer, so we have nothing in common in that regard.
None the less, I think you're missing an important point: if you're relying on MPs to get anything done, you've come to the wrong place.
On my side, the Brexiteers have shown themselves to be a spineless bunch.
On your Remain side, your lot could have stopped Brexit at any time and lived with the consequences at the ballot box, but they too rolled up the white flag.
There is not a single man or woman in the Commons who stands up for what they believe in anymore.
Why any of us bother with that lot anymore is beyond me.
The EU won't string us along; they can continue to remain squeaky clean and leave us to look like fools.
You're right; remain MPs could have killed this off long ago, but you'd be enraged with that too.
The brexiteers are spineless because they don't have the majority or any ideas to make it work. Let's not forget Johnson expected leave to fail and only backed it to position himself to take over from Cameron. That's the kind of liars you are backing.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:That is my great fear: that the EU might pretend to be flexible on the 4 freedoms. In private, we know they never could be, but if they're devious with faux public announcements, they could really hit us in the nuts.
From what I have read/heard of the situation it was the UK that was asking for flexibility on the four freedoms (because the UK wanted its own special solution) but the EU was always clear that this won't be happening and is not negotiable. The four freedoms are intertwined and you either accept all or none. But the UK kept "negotiating" as if that no was just a starting point while the EU was adamant and clear about this position.
I don't know what Brexit news you were reading if you don't know that and find reasons to speculate about some devious EU plan when it comes to the four freedoms.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:David ‘incompetence personified’ Davis has quit.
Did the penny finaly drop? Or has he just had a massive strop becouse he cant get his unicorn pony after all?
BaronIveagh wrote:Dawn Sturgess has died. I suspect that this will have implications for Britain's international relations with Russia.
Maybe, if we had a goverment that was half way competent and not engaged in constant damage control over self inflicted wounds for the sake of votes at the last election.
The man was a bullheaded, low browed, blow hard who got burned by Europe when he was part of the UK sugar industry and let that one event colour his entire skewed worldview. The fact that he made it to become a minister is an indictment of the low standards accepted for politicians and a result of Brexit "affirmitive action". May needed Brexiteers in her cabinet, and he was one of the noisiest.
No doubt he will return to the backbenches to shoot his mouth off about things he doesn't understand, the thick gakker.
In 2 years, Davis met for negotiations for about 4 hours, and couldn't even say whether his department were producing impact assessments etc over Brexit. It's just about justifiable given that with no agreed UK position there was very little that could really be agreed to, minor technical stuff mostly. All this whilst attending cabinet, being driven around in ministerial cars, etc.
But with a unified cabinet position on Brexit agreed on a Friday, it was looking dangerously like ol' Dave would be having to do some actual work on the Monday so made sure he resigned before that could happen.
Sir Bernard Jenkin on Radio 4 this morning, said Davies had no option but to resign because he's been working on a major plan for months and suddenly the PM comes up with her own one which replaces Davies's.
All well and good, but where was Davies's plan? He never had one, as far as I can see. He took months to produce the impact assessments and those turned out to be mere scamps.
Needless to say Jenkin is a major Brexiteer and fixated on delivering THEWILLOFTHEPEOPLE.
but you lot should be happy. Corbyn's probably picking out new wallpaper designs for No.10
I'd be happier about that if I thought that Corbyn would be able to work with both wings of the party, and also if I thought Labour had a viable plan to minimise the damage of Brexit or stop it completely.
Dominic Raab appointed to Brexit Sec. A prominent Leave campaigner but I don’t remember whether he was of the hard or soft variety. Guessing the latter if he’s picked up the reigns with Friday’s deal still the official line.
Raab's just a smokescreen. It's clear that May was rolling up the white flag to the EU from day 1.
A Remain PM, Remain Chancellor, Olly Robbins at the Civil Service, and now we're hearing the Chief Whip is doing the rounds with Labour MPs.
Brexit never stood a chance and if my side wants to save Brexit, it's clear what needs to happen.
EFTA/EEA is now the only game in town for the Brexit supporters, because otherwise, we have the risk of Remain seizing the reigns and us being back in the EU quicker than you can say Jean-Claude Juncker. And in such a weakened position, the EU's pound of flesh will be the Eurozone.
With EFTA/EEA, we can at least salvage something from this fiasco, regroup, sweep these incompetent fethers from power, and keep the Brexit battle going for another day.
I’ve said it before: draft Farage. Sack May, give Farage a peerage, make him party leader and PM – at least until UK really does properly leave the EU. Too fanciful? Desperate times need desperate measures; public faith in democratic process now in danger
Seems rational. Parachute Farage in to the top of the Tory party....
But in reality, does anything sum up being British more than the bolded part in the quote? There's no attempt to justify why the mooted 'desperate measure' will work... just the idea that when things are going to crap might as well do something crazy to see if that works.
I’ve said it before: draft Farage. Sack May, give Farage a peerage, make him party leader and PM – at least until UK really does properly leave the EU. Too fanciful? Desperate times need desperate measures; public faith in democratic process now in danger
Seems rational. Parachute Farage in to the top of the Tory party....
But in reality, does anything sum up being British more than the bolded part in the quote? There's no attempt to justify why the mooted 'desperate measure' will work... just the idea that when things are going to crap might as well do something crazy to see if that works.
As it stands, doing a Rudolf Hess and parachuting Farage into Brussels may be our only option left
Part of me is overjoyed, because ever since the 1980s, I've always wanted to see the day the Tories self-destructed.
But another part of me is bitterly disappointed that Brexit could end up going down the pan because of the sheer ineptitude of the Conservative party.
They have been nothing but a millstone around this nation's neck
Do you seriously want brexit so badly you're hoping Farage will become the gakking PM? Do you still think Farage cares about anyone but Farage and his banker mates?
As for May sabotaging brexit - you were expecting an incompetent politician, who only got where she did by hiding from controversy, to make a success of the nearly impossible with no mandate or clear idea?
The only chance Brexiteers have of getting the Brexit they want is fething off to a 3rd country and leave the rest of us to get on with our tragic prosperity.
Do you seriously want brexit so badly you're hoping Farage will become the gakking PM? Do you still think Farage cares about anyone but Farage and his banker mates?
As for May sabotaging brexit - you were expecting an incompetent politician, who only got where she did by hiding from controversy, to make a success of the nearly impossible with no mandate or clear idea?
The only chance Brexiteers have of getting the Brexit they want is fething off to a 3rd country and leave the rest of us to get on with our tragic prosperity.
I'm often accused of not owning Brexit, blaming Remain etc etc
But if I were in charge, I'd take the Norway option off the shelf and run with it. It's not the Brexit I wanted, but like I say, we have to salvage something from this sorry mess.
The red lines are not worth the paper they're written on anymore, and May and the Tories are so out of their depth, they're on another planet.
The numbers in Parliament could carry EFTA/EEA, it would suit most of the UK population who I believe are moderate on this issue, heal some wounds, keep Ireland happy, and calm business.
Hardcore Remainers and Brexiteers would not be happy, but I've reluctantly came to the conclusion that this is the best we can do in the short-term.
Norway+ it is then...assuming the EU will agree to it...
It should have been that from the beginning. It’s the compromise that bridges the gap between the two sides. Had we started from that position then the last two years would have just been haggling over fees and preparing for a new customs union. fething hell, this wasn’t rocket science.
Do you seriously want brexit so badly you're hoping Farage will become the gakking PM? Do you still think Farage cares about anyone but Farage and his banker mates?
As for May sabotaging brexit - you were expecting an incompetent politician, who only got where she did by hiding from controversy, to make a success of the nearly impossible with no mandate or clear idea?
The only chance Brexiteers have of getting the Brexit they want is fething off to a 3rd country and leave the rest of us to get on with our tragic prosperity.
I'm often accused of not owning Brexit, blaming Remain etc etc
But if I were in charge, I'd take the Norway option off the shelf and run with it. It's not the Brexit I wanted, but like I say, we have to salvage something from this sorry mess.
The red lines are not worth the paper they're written on anymore, and May and the Tories are so out of their depth, they're on another planet.
The numbers in Parliament could carry EFTA/EEA, it would suit most of the UK population who I believe are moderate on this issue, heal some wounds, keep Ireland happy, and calm business.
Hardcore Remainers and Brexiteers would not be happy, but I've reluctantly came to the conclusion that this is the best we can do in the short-term.
Norway+ it is then...assuming the EU will agree to it...
Again, what makes you think honestly that EFTA would want you back:
A) you allready left for the EU B) you can't stay constantly in organisations, or atleast it seems that way.
C) Allready strained relationsships from EFTA states torwards the EU, letting the UK in, would in such a case be really a bad move from all EFTA states.
That EFTA solution should be the emergency plan of the emergency plan. the guy above me pointed out the right decision from the beginning would've been to go for a soft brexit and another one pointed out that it should've been a slow and gradual process.
Norway pays into the EU budget, is subject to the ECJ, and accepts freedom of movement. On the plus side it can negotiate its own separate trade deals.
I'm not sure that Norway solves the Northern Ireland border problem. Norway does have customs checks on its border with Sweden, they are just very streamlined.
Future War Cultist wrote: It should have been that from the beginning. It’s the compromise that bridges the gap between the two sides. Had we started from that position then the last two years would have just been haggling over fees and preparing for a new customs union. fething hell, this wasn’t rocket science.
Agreed.
I dared to dream. I had a vision of a Britain doing a root and branch reform and getting itself fighting fit for the challenges of the 21st century heading our way. And they will still be heading our way. Time and tide don't give a bucket of horsegak for who occupies 10 Downing Street, and we needed to be ready to meet them head on.
I made the error of forgetting we didn't have the Gladstones, the Disraelis, the Lloyd Georges, in office any more.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Norway position breaks some of the red lines.
Norway pays into the EU budget, is subject to the ECJ, and accepts freedom of movement. On the plus side it can negotiate its own separate trade deals.
I'm not sure that Norway solves the Northern Ireland border problem. Norway does have customs checks on its border with Sweden, they are just very streamlined.
May's red lines carry no weight outside her office door. They're meaningless now - because she's a lame duck PM. Forget the red lines.
For me, the most important thing now is the psychological act of moving out of the EU, and even though it could be EFTA/EEA, I'll take it.
Given how much of a shambles the government is, half a Brexit is better than no Brexit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: It begs the question, that if this plan was the one presented before the referendum, who would've voted for it?
Plan and David Cameron in the same sentence?
No offence to you.
At least we know where Cameron is: sunning himself at Wimbledon, the swine
Do you seriously want brexit so badly you're hoping Farage will become the gakking PM? Do you still think Farage cares about anyone but Farage and his banker mates?
As for May sabotaging brexit - you were expecting an incompetent politician, who only got where she did by hiding from controversy, to make a success of the nearly impossible with no mandate or clear idea?
The only chance Brexiteers have of getting the Brexit they want is fething off to a 3rd country and leave the rest of us to get on with our tragic prosperity.
I'm often accused of not owning Brexit, blaming Remain etc etc
But if I were in charge, I'd take the Norway option off the shelf and run with it. It's not the Brexit I wanted, but like I say, we have to salvage something from this sorry mess.
The red lines are not worth the paper they're written on anymore, and May and the Tories are so out of their depth, they're on another planet.
The numbers in Parliament could carry EFTA/EEA, it would suit most of the UK population who I believe are moderate on this issue, heal some wounds, keep Ireland happy, and calm business.
Hardcore Remainers and Brexiteers would not be happy, but I've reluctantly came to the conclusion that this is the best we can do in the short-term.
Norway+ it is then...assuming the EU will agree to it...
Again, what makes you think honestly that EFTA would want you back:
A) you allready left for the EU B) you can't stay constantly in organisations, or atleast it seems that way.
C) Allready strained relationsships from EFTA states torwards the EU, letting the UK in, would in such a case be really a bad move from all EFTA states.
That EFTA solution should be the emergency plan of the emergency plan. the guy above me pointed out the right decision from the beginning would've been to go for a soft brexit and another one pointed out that it should've been a slow and gradual process.
I agree, but these are desperate times. As I say, half a Brexit is better than no Brexit. If EFTA and the EU are at loggerheads, then maybe having the UK in there will bolster EFTA somewhat?
I hope so. From my reading, the EFTA model has just enough wiggle room to satisfy my concerns (an immigration brake that doesn’t require the others permission, a veto by another name, and a loser customs union) whilst maintaining all the ties Remainers are concerned with like the single market.
I just hope there’s time to implement it.
Oh, and I see EFTA as merely the first stepping stone anyway. I play the long game.
There are three particularly keen Leavers in the forum. Two of them have now come to accept the Norway EFTA model as realistic and a good compromise.
I think it is probably the most acceptable model for Remainers too.
As far as I'm concerned, and surveying the debacle that is No.10 Downing Street, EFTA is the last chopper out of Saigon.
If Remainers take the wheel, it's the full Brussels: Euro, no opt outs, no rebate.
Australia have come out and said that May's proposal makes a trade deal with the UK pointless. After all, what's in it for them? Why deal with a UK using a watered down EU rulebook, when you can deal with the full EU?
To use a military analogy, EFTA is our Dunkirk. It saves the day, we can regroup, bide our time, and prepapre for D-Day.
It does if you put the boarder in the sea. Also, it’s only really freight that’s effected by it. The family in their car will be waved straight through. There was a similar system in place once many years ago.
It does if you put the boarder in the sea. Also, it’s only really freight that’s effected by it. The family in their car will be waved straight through. There was a similar system in place once many years ago.
Border in the sea is unacceptable for the unionists.
And there is no infrastructure in place for customs checks for anything along the Northern Ireland/Eire border. So it only being an issue for freight is still a huge issue.
Future War Cultist wrote: I hope so. From my reading, the EFTA model has just enough wiggle room to satisfy my concerns (an immigration brake that doesn’t require the others permission, a veto by another name, and a loser customs union) whilst maintaining all the ties Remainers are concerned with like the single market.
I just hope there’s time to implement it.
Oh, and I see EFTA as merely the first stepping stone anyway. I play the long game.
We've no choice but to play the long game.
The DUP will be spitting feathers if the border moves to the Irish Sea, but I can live with that.
It does if you put the boarder in the sea. Also, it’s only really freight that’s effected by it. The family in their car will be waved straight through. There was a similar system in place once many years ago.
Border in the sea is unacceptable for the loyalists.
And there is no infrastructure in place for customs checks for anything along the Northern Ireland/Eire border. So it only being an issue for freight is still a huge issue.
Stephen Kinnock and a few others in the Commons back EFTA. I believe some Remainers and Leavers will accept it as a agreeable half-way house arrangement that respects the referendum.
Do you seriously want brexit so badly you're hoping Farage will become the gakking PM? Do you still think Farage cares about anyone but Farage and his banker mates?
As for May sabotaging brexit - you were expecting an incompetent politician, who only got where she did by hiding from controversy, to make a success of the nearly impossible with no mandate or clear idea?
The only chance Brexiteers have of getting the Brexit they want is fething off to a 3rd country and leave the rest of us to get on with our tragic prosperity.
Well Farage is good way for complete wrecking of uk. So fits for wrexiteers who wants total wreckage.
It does if you put the boarder in the sea. Also, it’s only really freight that’s effected by it. The family in their car will be waved straight through. There was a similar system in place once many years ago.
Border in the sea is unacceptable for the loyalists.
And there is no infrastructure in place for customs checks for anything along the Northern Ireland/Eire border. So it only being an issue for freight is still a huge issue.
Had we adopted this position earlier and not had that stupid and pointless general election neither of those would have been an issue. But shoulda woulda coulda.
The question becomes (has always been) what do the Europeans want form us (apart from money) and do they get enough to make the proposed deal worth it for them.
They have to balance the need to discourage other nations form trying the same against damage to their own economies.
Stephen Kinnock and a few others in the Commons back EFTA. I believe some Remainers and Leavers will accept it as a agreeable half-way house arrangement that respects the referendum.
The numbers are there to send the DUP packing.
We've already established that just because you can vote for something does not make it good or even possible.
They could vote for EFTA, but then you're throwing away the sovereignty of Northern Ireland as a part of the UK.
How would a border in the sea work? Are goods not able to be imported into Northern Ireland if they would not be able to be freely transferred into the EU? So you have Northern Ireland unable to access goods and services available to the entire rest of the UK (which would also serve to make all the arguments that UK citizens should have equal rights moot, making the criticism of NI's abortion laws using that as their point of attack incredible hypocrisy).
If goods are able to be brought into Northern Ireland how do you prevent them from then being taken into Eire and, therefore, the EU?
I would have voted for EFTA/EEA. I initially dismissed it because I believed in the ‘governed by fax’ myth but doing some basic research changed my mind.
Stephen Kinnock and a few others in the Commons back EFTA. I believe some Remainers and Leavers will accept it as a agreeable half-way house arrangement that respects the referendum.
The numbers are there to send the DUP packing.
We've already established that just because you can vote for something does not make it good or even possible.
They could vote for EFTA, but then you're throwing away the sovereignty of Northern Ireland as a part of the UK.
How would a border in the sea work? Are goods not able to be imported into Northern Ireland if they would not be able to be freely transferred into the EU? So you have Northern Ireland unable to access goods and services available to the entire rest of the UK (which would also serve to make all the arguments that UK citizens should have equal rights moot, making the criticism of NI's abortion laws using that as their point of attack incredible hypocrisy).
If goods are able to be brought into Northern Ireland how do you prevent them from then being taken into Eire and, therefore, the EU?
These are good questions, and I'll let the man himself answer them for you.
Dodging the question? With David Cameron running the show at the time, there would never been that question anyway.
Would you have voted for EFTA membership on June 23rd?
No.
But two years have passed, and now we have to deal with the new reality of this debacle the Tories have inflicted on us.
I'm forced to be pragmatic, otherwise, Remain will seize the day and give us the full EU treatment.
Brexiteers inflicted this debacle on us. Nobody could have handled this issue any better because Leave promised everyone everything. The governments "red lines" were all promises made by the leave campaign. If the referendum is meant to be regarded as the will of the people then the leave campaign should be regarded as what the will of the brexiteers was. Which was uninterrupted trade with the EU whilst making trade deals with everywhere else in the world (which would be as good as the ones we had in the EU), end of freedom of movement, more money for the NHS, no ECJ jurisdiction, complete control over UK fishing waters etc.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Does the EFTA style still not mean you have very little say if the EU changes anything, other pulling out of it?
At times, there has been harsh words said on this forum between Remainers and Brexit supporters. That's understandable, because we all love this great nation. I bear no grudges towards people for that.
I voted for Brexit, and I would vote for it again tomorrow. I make no apologies for my anti-EU stance.
None the less, it's crystal clear the Tories couldn't find their backsides without a map and compass, so as a stopgap, a staging post to a complete Brexit down the line...
I'll take EFTA/EEA for a few years. It might also bridge this nation and this forum as an acceptable compromise.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Does the EFTA style still not mean you have very little say if the EU changes anything, other pulling out of it?
The Norwegians have a say, they just don't have a vote. Their advice is to keep very close to what's going on in the EU, get the earliest possible information about new proposals, and lobby hard and long.
May's red lines carry no weight outside her office door. They're meaningless now - because she's a lame duck PM. Forget the red lines.
Mays red lines were always a joke. We knew that from the second they came out of her mouth. We knew that when the Leave campaign promised them.
For me, the most important thing now is the psychological act of moving out of the EU, and even though it could be EFTA/EEA, I'll take it.
What benefit is the psychological act of moving out of the EU? The splitting of the UK politically? To make the Leavers feel like they "won" something whilst everyone else deals with the fall out.
And gak the psychological benefits if there are no physical benefits.
I voted for Brexit, and I would vote for it again tomorrow. I make no apologies for my anti-EU stance.
Yet you've been utterly unable to come up with any credible justifaction for it, beyond a stream of easily disproven hyperbole.
None the less, it's crystal clear the Tories couldn't find their backsides without a map and compass, so as a stopgap, a staging post to a complete Brexit down the line..
And seem to be completely oblivious to the consequences. You'd still vote for Brexit knowing it to be a clusterfeth, because (to us, anyway) it seems that all you care about is leaving the EU, even if it leaves us "bashing rocks in a cave" (paraphrasing yourself). You must understand why that hurts your credibility?
I've got nothing against you perfectly, and would gladly buy you a bru at a show, but gak me, you're not doing yourself any favours here.
But I've thought that so much over the last year, I dunno how she keeps going. Maybe everyone knows its an impossible job and nobody else wants it?
It depends on how much support Hard Brexit really has in the parliamentary Tory Party.
They may be able to muster the 48 letters to the 1922 Committee to trigger a leadership contest, but if they don't think they can manage to get a majority behind Gove, Johnson or A N Other, they may not want to do it.
Remember that changing the head of the Conservative Party doesn't in itself trigger a general election.
Can someone sum up in a paragraph what the heck is going on over there? Is May just not a good PM? Is the EU playing hardball screwing up Brexit? I have to admit I haven't been following this that closely.
I am paying attention to the London Real Estate Market tho, because when that starts to teeter, it's prob a sign of crappy economic times ahead.
What's going on is a war between the pro- and anti-EU wings of the Conservative Party, with a few of the top nobs (like Johnson) trying to position themselves as next Prime Minister.
KTG17 wrote: Can someone sum up in a paragraph what the heck is going on over there? Is May just not a good PM? Is the EU playing hardball screwing up Brexit? I have to admit I haven't been following this that closely.
I am paying attention to the London Real Estate Market tho, because when that starts to teeter, it's prob a sign of crappy economic times ahead.
May is weak. She called a snap general election to consolidate her parliamentary majority, and lost it instead, requiring a deal with the DUP party from Northern Ireland to form a majority.
Brexit is a shambles. The guy in charge of it, David Davis, has just quit after what sounds very much like being rumbled at having done about 4 hours of useful work in 2 years. The EU aren't playing hardball so much as just stating that, if you want the benefits of belonging to the EU, then you need to be a member of the EU. We seem to think we can argue that for some bloody reason.
I can't remember who it was, one of the EU countries' Prime Ministers, posted a beautiful tweet that summed it up in a nutshell. Was essentially "First they wanted to be in with a load of opt-outs. Now they want to be out with a load of opt-ins".
A leadership contest is bad news for Remainers and Brexit supporters.
3 months of navel gazing by the Tories puts us both up gak alley.
For Remain, it increases the chances of crashing out with no deal.
For the Brexit side, by the time 3 months is over, October is upon us and that deadline. The last man or woman standing might be desperate to grab any deal, no matter how bad...
This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.
If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.
When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.
Too much water under the bridge for that. I feel vindicated about pushing for EFTA/EEA, because it's the only thing that can pull us out of the fire, calm things down for a couple of years, and bridge the gap between the 52 and the 48.
This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.
If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues, show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.
When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again.
KTG17 wrote: Can someone sum up in a paragraph what the heck is going on over there? Is May just not a good PM? Is the EU playing hardball screwing up Brexit? I have to admit I haven't been following this that closely.
I am paying attention to the London Real Estate Market tho, because when that starts to teeter, it's prob a sign of crappy economic times ahead.
May is weak. She called a snap general election to consolidate her parliamentary majority, and lost it instead, requiring a deal with the DUP party from Northern Ireland to form a majority.
Brexit is a shambles. The guy in charge of it, David Davis, has just quit after what sounds very much like being rumbled at having done about 4 hours of useful work in 2 years. The EU aren't playing hardball so much as just stating that, if you want the benefits of belonging to the EU, then you need to be a member of the EU. We seem to think we can argue that for some bloody reason.
I can't remember who it was, one of the EU countries' Prime Ministers, posted a beautiful tweet that summed it up in a nutshell. Was essentially "First they wanted to be in with a load of opt-outs. Now they want to be out with a load of opt-ins".
Well, if May gets booted out, it does seem like a short stay. I feel like I am used to seeing these PMs last longer. Would this be REALLY embarrassing for her to get booted out this soon? Whats the shortest a PM has lasted in office?
I will say this, I am not English, but when I see May and listen to her talk, I don't get much of a confidence thing from her. She might be a smart woman, but she just doesn't come across as tough enough. Especially after that whole russian nerve agent attack thing. She just might not be the right person for the job at this time.
Boris seems like a clown to me. I am not sure how he has gotten as far as he has either.
To this day Canning's total period in office remains the shortest of any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a mere 119 days. He is buried in Westminster Abbey
BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.
But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.
KTG17 wrote: BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.
But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.
Immigration was never an issue for me - it was to some but not all, Imigration is a important part of our ecomony. I don't trust the Eu as a political institution which was one of my reasons for voting as i did.
It has been depressing how the negotiations have been handled from our side IMO.
I'm not bothered about immigration - I've never been too bothered about it. We need skilled workers and in this globalised world, you can't keep everybody out.
Hell, for two years, I've been saying that Britain should head over to India and grab 50,000 doctors, nurses, dentists, and engineers from them.
By grab, I mean, offer visas and well paid employment and maybe a tax break or something to lure them in.
This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.
If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.
When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.
The fact that this doesnt even appear to be an option, much less that it isn't being actively debated, is a sad reminder of how absurd politics are.
This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.
If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.
When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.
The fact that this doesnt even appear to be an option, much less that it isn't being actively debated, is a sad reminder of how absurd politics are.
I think that Donald Tusk just offered it again at a news conference?
At this point I'm not surprised by anything this lot fail to achieve. This was only a matter of time. Like the entirety of UK politics everything is thought of only in the short term. A referendum was offered to secure the Tory party. In the short term. Now they need to offer a deal to satisfy the proportion of half the country that cares as well as the hardliners in their party. For now. Oh look resignations to ensure that May topples or their demands are met. Yet another tiny narrow minded view.
Not like the opposition are much better. They're too busy chasing the next soundbite (or running from it in the case of Diane Abbot) in an attempt to try and appear as though they have a solution to reconcile the split in the country and thus their party.
And all the while the SNP are busy launching IndyRef 2.0, IndyRef Harder whilst schools and public services are stretched to breaking point and their policies are fairly anemic at best.
Honestly it doesn't matter at this point. Country is fractured into warring political tribes. No one will see eye to eye and were caught up in this gak show to actually make improvements for the lives of the citizens and prepare this county for the challenges that are to come as the world changes.
Time to sit back and watch it burn down, on the plus side freshly toast that popcorn as it does.
This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.
If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.
When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.
The fact that this doesnt even appear to be an option, much less that it isn't being actively debated, is a sad reminder of how absurd politics are.
I think that Donald Tusk just offered it again at a news conference?
Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain. I can only regret that the idea of #Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson. But...who knows?
Also, @DINLT, what the hell gives you the idea that Remainers will “go full Euro”? We were happy with the status quo, no one was proposing joining the Euro, or Schengen, or abandoning the rebate.
KTG17 wrote: BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.
So, you support Brexit based on what then?
KTG17 wrote: But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.
Being a member of the EU we have, and always had, complete control over our borders, our Govt just chose not to implement controls. The anti-EU right wing media blamed all problems on the EU, and as it suited the agenda of the various govts of the time they allowed them to carry the can for the last 30 years.
KTG17 wrote: BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.
So, you support Brexit based on what then?
KTG17 wrote: But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.
Being a member of the EU we have, and always had, complete control over our borders, our Govt just chose not to implement controls. The anti-EU right wing media blamed all problems on the EU, and as it suited the agenda of the various govts of the time they allowed them to carry the can for the last 30 years.
I was under the assumption that those within the EU can move wherever they want, and by being a member of the EU, the UK couldn't deny anyone in it, the ability to migrate to the UK. Which is one of the biggest issues I hear about it.
I support Brexit along the lines that if the people in the UK feel that their country is changing too much do to migration, mostly due to immigrants coming from other parts of the EU, and want more control over who comes in, then I can understand that. I am just saying I see that coming with a price. But if they think that's worth it...
KTG17 wrote: BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.
But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.
But we need migration to offset the elderly population and low unemployment, and nothing was done about it despite the UK having powers which were unused. The EU was a scapegoat from Wesminsters failings.
The Irony over UK membership of the EU is that a lot of directives and regulatory powers have been followed with a zeal other member states can barely muster.
It is no lie to say that successive governments have set whitehall to implement the latest rule whilst bemoaning that nasty technocratic bureaucracy in brussels for meddling in our own affairs.
Well, I am not assuming anyone would cut immigration completely off. Just have some system in place to follow, that's all. My understanding was that once you were accepted as a migrant to anywhere in the EU, well, that meant you could settle anywhere you wanted. So all those Syrians in Germany would be free to re-settle anywhere they wanted eventually.
And listen, you think there are migration issues in Europe now? Wait till global warming causes mass migration out of the middle east and africa. They are saying some parts along the Persian Gulf, like Kuwait, wont be able to sustain human life. So the UK might as well do this now, because I expect far more people to be knocking at the EU's door in a few decades. You guys will actually look like you were ahead of the curve.
KTG17 wrote: BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.
So, you support Brexit based on what then?
KTG17 wrote: But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.
Being a member of the EU we have, and always had, complete control over our borders, our Govt just chose not to implement controls. The anti-EU right wing media blamed all problems on the EU, and as it suited the agenda of the various govts of the time they allowed them to carry the can for the last 30 years.
I was under the assumption that those within the EU can move wherever they want, and by being a member of the EU, the UK couldn't deny anyone in it, the ability to migrate to the UK. Which is one of the biggest issues I hear about it.
I support Brexit along the lines that if the people in the UK feel that their country is changing too much do to migration, mostly due to immigrants coming from other parts of the EU, and want more control over who comes in, then I can understand that. I am just saying I see that coming with a price. But if they think that's worth it...
The big issue there is that there was no discussion, concensus or agreement on what immigration policy should be if the UK left the EU. It was like voting to go on a roadtrip but not having a destination or route planned and nobody wants to actually volunteer to drive, but they all want to go somewhere different
Mr. Burning wrote: The Irony over UK membership of the EU is that a lot of directives and regulatory powers have been followed with a zeal other member states can barely muster.
It is no lie to say that successive governments have set whitehall to implement the latest rule whilst bemoaning that nasty technocratic bureaucracy in brussels for meddling in our own affairs.
That’s right. We had one of the best track records for actually implementing EU rules. Not that it ever got us any recognition or favours. By comparison, France have one of the worst. If they don’t like the rule they just don’t implement it. And jack gak is said about it. And then there’s the second parliament building and all that bollocks.
Mr. Burning wrote: The Irony over UK membership of the EU is that a lot of directives and regulatory powers have been followed with a zeal other member states can barely muster.
It is no lie to say that successive governments have set whitehall to implement the latest rule whilst bemoaning that nasty technocratic bureaucracy in brussels for meddling in our own affairs.
True - its damming that not only did we implement everything but other nations often didn;t bother and without apparent consequences. rightly or wrongly it did feed into the idea that the set up was unfair.
Everyone hates the double parliment but its France's cash cow so no one can do anything about it.
KTG17 wrote: Well, I am not assuming anyone would cut immigration completely off. Just have some system in place to follow, that's all. My understanding was that once you were accepted as a migrant to anywhere in the EU, well, that meant you could settle anywhere you wanted. So all those Syrians in Germany would be free to re-settle anywhere they wanted eventually.
.
...the "eventually" there is a pretty big disclaimer is it not ?
and irrelevant to the UK anyway
Long-term residency is not enough to secure free movement rights
If refugees end up staying in Europe permanently they can acquire long-term resident status – subject to meeting certain conditions – as per the 2003 EU Directive on the status of non-EU nationals who are long-term residents. This gives them the same rights as that of EU member state’s nationals in certain areas, although it does not bestow an absolute right to free movement on par with EU nationals.
In any event, the UK, along with Ireland and Denmark, are exempt from this directive. This means that the UK does not have to allow non-EU nationals who are long-term residents of other member state into the UK if it does not want to. If it does allow them entry to the UK it is on the same basis as other non-EU nationals, i.e. meeting any relevant skills and income criteria. Therefore, the UK already has additional controls over immigration policy compared to other EU member states.
Migrants can however obtain full EU citizenship – how does this work?
It is true that if migrants or refugees were to obtain full citizenship of another EU member state they will then be able to exercise full EU free movement rights. EU citizenship can only be obtained via naturalisation, i.e. by obtaining the citizenship of a member state. This process varies from country to country, with each having its own conditions and criteria that need to be satisfied. Below is a summary of the conditions for acquiring the citizenship of the five EU member states that have experienced the highest influx of refugees/migrants:
Germany (288,800 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring German citizenship via naturalisation is conditional on eight years of legal residence, although this is shorter for spouses of German nationals. It also requires oral and written German language skills, a clean criminal record and a commitment to respecting the German constitution. In general, those applying for naturalisation must also give up their foreign nationality.
Hungary (175,960 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring Hungarian citizenship is conditional on having continuously lived in Hungary on the basis of permanent residence for three years, a clean criminal record, being financially self-sufficient, not posing a threat to the country’s public and national security, and passing an examination in basic constitutional studies in the Hungarian language. It should also be noted that Hungary has quite a high rejection rate for asylum applications.
Sweden (73,065 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring Swedish citizenship usually requires five years of legal residence in normal circumstances, although this drops to four years for refugees or stateless persons, and three years for people married to Swedish nationals.
Italy (59,165 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring Italian citizenship for non-EU nationals usually requires ten years of legal residence although this drops to five years for refugees or stateless persons.
France (50,840 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring French citizenship requires five years’ continuous residence and being able to demonstrate integration into French culture and society, providing evidence of a clean criminal record and of an employment history.
This means that not only do refugees/migrants have to live in another EU member state for a defined period of time – up to eight years in the case of Germany – they also have to be able to demonstrate a certain level of social and economic integration (typically being able to speak the language). This level of integration is likely to act as a brake on people’s willingness to subsequently move to another EU country, even if they acquire the right to do so.
In addition, as demonstrated above, many member states, including Germany explicitly state that a clean criminal record is also a precondition for acquiring citizenship. Finally, long-term residency comes with virtually all the same domestic benefits as full citizenship (in terms of access to jobs, social security and public services) which will further restrict the incentive for full naturalisation, as will the prospect of potentially having to give up their original citizenship which people may have an emotional or practical attachment to.
Will all refugees even be eligible for naturalisation?
As noted above, in most countries acquiring citizenship is dependent on permanent or formal residence, yet due to the high influx, Germany and Sweden are now only issuing temporary residence permits to new arrivals. In Germany, this runs up to three years after which “the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees examines whether there are grounds for a possible withdrawal of the status (e.g. a change of the political situation in the country of origin).” Only if no such reasons are identified can the temporary residence permit be converted into a permanent one.
Likewise in Sweden, the naturalisation rules depend on long-term residence or formal refugee status: “As a rule you must have been resident in Sweden for a continuous period of five years… Whether you are allowed to count all your time in Sweden as a period of habitual residence depends on why you settled here and what permit you have had during your time here.”
Conditions
You have a right to naturalisation if you fulfil the following conditions:
you have an unrestricted right of residence at the time of being naturalised,
you have passed the naturalisation test (knowledge of the legal and social system, as well as living conditions in Germany),
your habitual, lawful place of residence has been in Germany for eight years (this period can be reduced to seven years if you attend an integration course successfully, and can be reduced to as few as six years in the case of special integration measures),
you have independent means of securing a living (including for family members entitled to maintenance) without resorting to welfare payments and unemployment benefit II,
you have adequate German-language skills,
you do not have any convictions on account of a criminal offence,
you are committed to the free democratic constitutional order of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, and
you have lost or given up your former nationality (exceptions apply with regard to this point, depending on the country of origin; please contact the naturalisation authority).
I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit
That's the case with most of the pro Brexit brigade, fret not.
Client received a letter from the Passport Office yesterday advising that her 8 year old son who is British and has a British passport and British father named on his birth certficate, cannot have his passport renewed without a paternity test.
Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.
Kilkrazy wrote: Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.
Ah, then I fail to see what all the hysterics are about. I only really heard about complaints about immigration.
Kilkrazy wrote: Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.
Ah, then I fail to see what all the hysterics are about. I only really heard about complaints about immigration.
Some people in Britain think other EU citizens from Poland and the Baltics and such are trying to steal their jobs.
Looks like May will live to fight another day, reportedly leaving the 1922 meeting to cheers. It would seem that the threat of a Corbyn government is still enough to cow the Tories into submission.
The existential horror of perhaps waking up to find a Hungarian moving in next door.
But that is to be flippant. There are mixtures of various reasons why people voted Leave.
A lot of it is to do with a sense of English identity, and the immigration fed into that by exposing people in various "local" places to foreigners for the first time. It's notable, for example, that places in London with high immigration nonetheless voted Remain, perhaps because the local population were already used to immigrants.
Another issue was economic deprivation, which often overlapped with the immigration point by making people think the immigrants were responsible for it.
Then you got the Brexiteers lying about the EU being responsible for the UK's problems, by imposing red tape, for example, and preventing the country from making trade deals (the UK has trade deals with over 70 nations, thanks to membership of the EU.) And the bendy bananas, and so on.
40 years of that kind of stuff and a lot of people were affected. W've even got our own government spreading similar lies, such as the blue passports and the fishing quotas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GoatboyBeta wrote: Looks like May will live to fight another day, reportedly leaving the 1922 meeting to cheers. It would seem that the threat of a Corbyn government is still enough to cow the Tories into submission.
Replacing the PM doesn't trigger a general election. The fact that May has won shows the Hard Brexiteers either are too weaker to force the issue, or too scared of the consequences of a three month leadership contest in the three months the government has left to agree a deal with the EU.
Replacing the PM doesn't trigger a general election. The fact that May has won shows the Hard Brexiteers either are too weaker to force the issue, or too scared of the consequences of a three month leadership contest in the three months the government has left to agree a deal with the EU.
True replacing May by itself wouldn't do it. But as you said the potential fallout(internal and external) from a leadership contest at this time could deal the Tories a heavy blow that they would struggle to come back from. Basicaly they are fine with letting Rome burn as long as they are the ones in charge.
Kilkrazy wrote: Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.
Ah, then I fail to see what all the hysterics are about. I only really heard about complaints about immigration.
Neither do most of us. Apparently surveys show people thought migration was about 7x higher than it was, and the right wing press has been blaming foreigners for everything for decades.
The UK also had various powers to kick out EU migrants who weren't self sufficient after 3 months, but they were never used.
So it's an almost non issue but whipped up into hysterics by populists for their own gains.
Leaving EU just because of immigrants is nonsense.
But that is a symptom of a basic EU problems.
And Basic EU problems is self-identification. The thought - we will have a common foreign policy, but different national policy would never work the way current EU try to.
And you may see this difference in various topics. There is no EU country that wouldn't have some sort of problems.
In Germany there is the same immigrant problems - but the real problems is not immigrants itself - problem is inability to make mutual agreement across not just all the members of EU - but even on a national parlaments level.
So The Brexit, is not just short term problem - Brexit is the thought that make agreement in one country would be easier than in 27.
And plan for Brexit is not as bad as it sounds - but only under one condition - if you have unified country willing to change for the better.
In a long run - that is a safer position - it's like moving in adaulthood where you take all the responsobilities for your life.
But if you plan to lay on couch like you do in parents house - of course your life will quickly falls apart.
And remainers should be aware of Greece fate - greeks have only so much influence on their government -so they suffer and can't do anything about it.
And remainers do know how it feels when your opinion doesn't matter.
Silver lining is - inability to communicate with each other is the greatest modern problem and it exists on the very basic level - not just politics.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Looks like May will live to fight another day, reportedly leaving the 1922 meeting to cheers. It would seem that the threat of a Corbyn government is still enough to cow the Tories into submission.
Replacing the PM doesn't trigger a general election. The fact that May has won shows the Hard Brexiteers either are too weaker to force the issue, or too scared of the consequences of a three month leadership contest in the three months the government has left to agree a deal with the EU.
The issue May has is that she has to take this proposal to Parliament. Assuming Labour vote against it, then the agreement comes crashing down and May has nowhere to go. It's likely only those that prefer remain that are cheering. They know that the EU will not accept some of the suggestions and May is softening to an ultrasoft Wrexit which at that point you may as well have another referendum.
This however is perhaps May's get out card though. Call another referendum on either the proposals or stay in. If as likely will happen from the polls that it favours remain then it undermines the legitamcy of the hard Wrexiters. Of course it will probably destroy the Tories and send 20% of their vote packing to UKIP again. However regardless now the damage to the Tories is likely to quite severe as it is showing just how incompetent the Tories and Government is.
That's it. I'm out. Somebody phone up North Korea, because I'm defecting!!!
Long live Marxism-Leninism. Workers of the world unite!!!
I need a drink...
Yes but he is a better choice for the job than Boris(that said Larry the number 10 cat would have been a better choice than Boris).
Putting the cat in charge of Brexit negotiation would probably be a smart move at this point as well.
Also, welcome comrade DINLT. Let's build the people's paradise and advance together towards the shining horizons of communism! I hope you like the colour red, motivational slogans and overly long speeches.
The BBC has mentioned that all four great offices of state are now held by people who voted Remain -- PM, chancellor, home office minister, foreign minister.
This risks upsetting May's careful balance between Remainers and Leavers in the cabinet.
I suppose the problem is that though Leavers are noisier, Remainers actually are thicker on the ground and it's getting hard to avoid tapping them as the Leave talent resigns.
All seems like political manoeuvring to me. Boris is hoping May’s government will collapse, as it’s on the verge now, and he can make a run at leadership. Boris looks after himself at the expense of everything else, his resignation was a publicity stunt as he got photographers in to take posed pictures of him during his resignation. It plays into Boris’ hands to go now, he again can make the claim he’s going because May is betraying brexit, which undermines May and puts himself at the front for a pro brexit leadership bid.
May should have had the strength to get rid of Boris long ago for being an incompetent but he’s been deciding when to come and go of his own accord, working up his personal profile, and she’s gone along with it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.
Also there is a perception that Europe is getting flooded with refugees and economic migrants through the Mediterranean.
Actually the situation has stabilised to pre-Syrian war levels.
Kilkrazy wrote: The BBC has mentioned that all four great offices of state are now held by people who voted Remain -- PM, chancellor, home office minister, foreign minister.
This risks upsetting May's careful balance between Remainers and Leavers in the cabinet.
I suppose the problem is that though Leavers are noisier, Remainers actually are thicker on the ground and it's getting hard to avoid tapping them as the Leave talent resigns.
Kilkrazy wrote: Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.
Also there is a perception that Europe is getting flooded with refugees and economic migrants through the Mediterranean.
Actually the situation has stabilised to pre-Syrian war levels.
Yes, that influx was down to destabilised regions that the UK and France both had a hand in creating. The numbers have reduced significantly now because simply the people that want to get out have left or the people that try to get out of Syria are given a chemical weapon hand grenade as a going away present.
That's it. I'm out. Somebody phone up North Korea, because I'm defecting!!!
Long live Marxism-Leninism. Workers of the world unite!!!
I need a drink...
Yes but he is a better choice for the job than Boris(that said Larry the number 10 cat would have been a better choice than Boris).
Putting the cat in charge of Brexit negotiation would probably be a smart move at this point as well.
Also, welcome comrade DINLT. Let's build the people's paradise and advance together towards the shining horizons of communism! I hope you like the colour red, motivational slogans and overly long speeches.
I heard the reason for those overlong speeches was to make the wait in the breadline more acceptable.
No all jokes aside, newspaper i got today thinks that the whole thing was a attempt of Johnson to overthrow the government and get himself a chance at beeing PM.
My question now is, is that even feasible for him?
Kilkrazy wrote: The BBC has mentioned that all four great offices of state are now held by people who voted Remain -- PM, chancellor, home office minister, foreign minister.
This risks upsetting May's careful balance between Remainers and Leavers in the cabinet.
I suppose the problem is that though Leavers are noisier, Remainers actually are thicker on the ground and it's getting hard to avoid tapping them as the Leave talent resigns.
I think talent is overly generous.
The quality of the replacements is not great either. I think we are at the stage of scraping the bottom of the barrel in the Tory party.
We have a housing minister (Malthouse) who is on record taking a zero tolerance against homeless people on wealthy streets and forcibly moving them on
and is quoted as saying
We certainly instituted a policy of making life - it sounds counterintuitive and cruel - more uncomfortable; that is absolutely right,
Conveniently he disn't realise he was a member. Does that really wash these days? and his views on equality are equally 'fascinating' such as
In fact, the gender pay gap also reflects the higher numbers of women in work in Britain compared to other European countries. Keeping women out of work is one of the easiest ways to bridge the gap: Swaziland and Sir Lanka have the lowest pay gaps.
So the solution to the pay gap, stop women working and then they can't complain?
The “I didn’t know i was a member of that Facebook group” is the modern version of “I didn’t click anything. The porn website opened itself. It’s one of those pop ups”.
The reason these Torys get away with it is because far too many of their voters either fall in to the “you could put a blue rosette on a potato” camp or the “I don’t use internet banking because internet hackers will steal my money. I much rather take £1000 out of a cash point and keep it on my mantelpiece” group of voters (the same ones who would phone me up in credit control and want to give me car details over the phone because it is safer than putting them in to some website...)
Meeting the worst Foreign Secretary we’ve ever had amongst the destruction of Hurricane Irma in Anguilla. Disinterested and out of his depth he cared nothing for our situation. Good riddance
Meeting the worst Foreign Secretary we’ve ever had amongst the destruction of Hurricane Irma in Anguilla. Disinterested and out of his depth he cared nothing for our situation. Good riddance
Attorney General of Anguilla
I seriously hope for you, that that is a joke....
If not, good ridance i say.
That's it. I'm out. Somebody phone up North Korea, because I'm defecting!!!
Long live Marxism-Leninism. Workers of the world unite!!!
I need a drink...
Brexit's in the news nowadays more than the NHS - more chances for journalists to "accidentally" mispronounce his name ...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The BBC has mentioned that all four great offices of state are now held by people who voted Remain -- PM, chancellor, home office minister, foreign minister.
This risks upsetting May's careful balance between Remainers and Leavers in the cabinet.
I suppose the problem is that though Leavers are noisier, Remainers actually are thicker on the ground and it's getting hard to avoid tapping them as the Leave talent resigns.
Did the PM vote for Remain? I know she said she did, but she's shown no evidence of it subsequently.
I'm pretty sure that May (Home sec. at the time remember) was on record before the referendum saying that she supported the single market etc but would be interested in scrapping anything that safeguarded human rights etc. When it was put to her that wasn't on the table she came down on the remain side.
I think the plan put forward by the government is a basis for negotiation and adaptation. The key points about it are that it has unified Cabinet approval, and it's softer than the Hard Brexiteers would like.
There's plenty in it which can be argued with, particularly the reliance on magic technology to operate the customs system. That said, let's look at things from the end state.
3. There can't be an agreement with the EU without a negotiation.
2. There can't be a negotiation without the UK presenting a confirmed set of proposals.
1. There can't be a set of proposals without cabinet agreement.
We now have step 1 completed, hopefully, after a wait of many months. We have about three months to get through steps 2 and 3.
I've said this before, and working on the basis that a stopped clock is right twice a day
I'm predicting a winter of discontent.
The Tory Shires are on the verge of mutiny, informed observers on twitter are convinced the grassroots are deserting in droves and heading back to UKIP.
There are murmurings of discontent from the DUP.
Farage is threatening to pop up again in 2019, which coincidentally, is when he stops being an MEP.
We have crunch time in October. The EU will probably demand more. These conflicting forces are likely to tear the Tories apart in the Autumn.
We know it was UKIP voters who helped May to 'victory' last year. When they go, and they will go this time, the Tories can't win and they know it...
Batten down the hatches and prepare for a long winter...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said this before, and working on the basis that a stopped clock is right twice a day
I'm predicting a winter of discontent.
They''ll be out in the streets with shaking their walking canes at the sky I'm sure.
The Tory Shires are on the verge of mutiny, informed observers on twitter are convinced the grassroots are deserting in droves and heading back to UKIP.
There are murmurings of discontent from the DUP.
Well we can hope that this is the end of the Tory party. If 15% abscond to the UKIP then that will stop them winning the next election. Labour have by far less to lose because 3/4's of their voters support staying in the EU.
We may get two new parties "New Conservatives" and "Old Conservatives" being both literally and metaphorically correct.
We have crunch time in October. The EU will probably demand more. These conflicting forces are likely to tear the Tories apart in the Autumn.
There are still an awful lot of issues that need reconciling. May really has moved only on one area which is accepting control of the ECJ. That helps. However she still wants an open customs arrangement in the long term without freedom of movement. That isn't going to fly. She wants to align on certain goods but that UK parliament can push back on any legislation that it doesn't want. That either makes the UK too powerful as it has an arbitrary decision to halt such approval or it brings the existing arrangements to a collapse. The EU won't accept this. The EU have already said that the services arrangements, like banking, require alignment of the market but May doesn't want that (or wants power of overall veto). That isn't going to happen. The EU now know which side May is swinging towards and with a bit more prodding will likely end up in the full customs union. At that point you may as well not leave).
It's more and more likely a new referendum will be called. Labour have already stated they won't vote for the proposals, hence there is almost certainly enough rebels (Wrexiters) to stop it as they will see it as a way of bringing May down. Hence if she wants to survive she can't take it to a vote or she has to silence the Wrexit rebels.
Batten down the hatches and prepare for a long winter...
1. Play for time and hope for something to turn up.
2. Play for time until it runs out and a very soft Brexit has to be agreed to prevent chaos.
3. Play for time until it runs out and a Hard Brexit is forced on everyone.
I could stomach joining EFTA/EEA as it allowed just enough wiggle room to call ourselves independent. If we don’t get that, or an equivalent, then there’s no point doing anything else. I don’t believe in cutting our noses off to spite our faces by crashing out of the EU without a plan. It would only feed into the remainer narrative and encourage us to rejoin on terrible turns.
Christ, to have had even one competent politician on our side.
I would wonder if this was Remainer May’s plan all along but I don’t think she has that kind of machiavellian streak. Or maybe she’s so Machiavellian the blusterling idiot we see before us is an elaborate ruse.
I think when everything’s said and done, brexit is going to be cancelled. So You Win Again. I think I will pack up and join my friends in Australia. Funny how it’s a smaller country than us (population and gdp wise at least) but it does ok on its own.
I'm convinced it's #1 - stall until some solution presents itself.
We all win if Brexit is cancelled. Apart from the poor buggers who've jobs have already been axed.
In other news, that EU conference about Balkans joining that we insisted was held in London happened yesterday, including a no-show from the first speaker, UK Foreign Secretary, because the last one had just resigned. Deliberate or did he just forget about it?
Kilkrazy wrote: I can't make up my mind if May's strategy is:
1. Play for time and hope for something to turn up.
2. Play for time until it runs out and a very soft Brexit has to be agreed to prevent chaos.
3. Play for time until it runs out and a Hard Brexit is forced on everyone.
There is no more time. It's up. May has to gak or get off the pot, as the old saying goes.
One side of the Tory party will have to be jettisoned. May however, has succeeded in alienating both sides, which takes a special kind of incompetence.
We're looking at the smashed toes of a lame duck government.
I like General Elections. I like going out to vote, and I love sitting up all night and watching the BBC's coverage, so if there's another one, I don't mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I'm convinced it's #1 - stall until some solution presents itself.
In other news, that EU conference about Balkans joining that we insisted was held in London happened yesterday, including a no-show from the first speaker, UK Foreign Secretary, because the last one had just resigned. Deliberate or did he just forget about it?
Thankfully, we have Trump as a supporting gig, so I think we might be all right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: I could stomach joining EFTA/EEA as it allowed just enough wiggle room to call ourselves independent. If we don’t get that, or an equivalent, then there’s no point doing anything else. I don’t believe in cutting our noses off to spite our faces by crashing out of the EU without a plan. It would only feed into the remainer narrative and encourage us to rejoin on terrible turns.
Christ, to have had even one competent politician on our side.
I would wonder if this was Remainer May’s plan all along but I don’t think she has that kind of machiavellian streak. Or maybe she’s so Machiavellian the blusterling idiot we see before us is an elaborate ruse.
I think when everything’s said and done, brexit is going to be cancelled. So You Win Again.
As you know I'm Brexit through and through, but I now reluctantly support EFTA/EEA because:
1. Our government is a shambles and we need to salvage something before Remain seize the day and take us back into the EU
2. We have forgotten how to govern or negotiate, because the EU has done that for us for 40 years.
A few years of learning the old skills again will allow us to gradually phase out of the EU.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said this before, and working on the basis that a stopped clock is right twice a day
I'm predicting a winter of discontent.
They''ll be out in the streets with shaking their walking canes at the sky I'm sure.
The Tory Shires are on the verge of mutiny, informed observers on twitter are convinced the grassroots are deserting in droves and heading back to UKIP.
There are murmurings of discontent from the DUP.
Well we can hope that this is the end of the Tory party. If 15% abscond to the UKIP then that will stop them winning the next election. Labour have by far less to lose because 3/4's of their voters support staying in the EU.
We may get two new parties "New Conservatives" and "Old Conservatives" being both literally and metaphorically correct.
We have crunch time in October. The EU will probably demand more. These conflicting forces are likely to tear the Tories apart in the Autumn.
There are still an awful lot of issues that need reconciling. May really has moved only on one area which is accepting control of the ECJ. That helps. However she still wants an open customs arrangement in the long term without freedom of movement. That isn't going to fly. She wants to align on certain goods but that UK parliament can push back on any legislation that it doesn't want. That either makes the UK too powerful as it has an arbitrary decision to halt such approval or it brings the existing arrangements to a collapse. The EU won't accept this. The EU have already said that the services arrangements, like banking, require alignment of the market but May doesn't want that (or wants power of overall veto). That isn't going to happen. The EU now know which side May is swinging towards and with a bit more prodding will likely end up in the full customs union. At that point you may as well not leave).
It's more and more likely a new referendum will be called. Labour have already stated they won't vote for the proposals, hence there is almost certainly enough rebels (Wrexiters) to stop it as they will see it as a way of bringing May down. Hence if she wants to survive she can't take it to a vote or she has to silence the Wrexit rebels.
Batten down the hatches and prepare for a long winter...
This is why I've now moved to EFTA/EEA. Not my first choice, but it's the last chopper out of Saigon given our debacle of a government. What's your take on EFTA/EEA? An acceptable compromise for you?
Future War Cultist wrote: I could stomach joining EFTA/EEA as it allowed just enough wiggle room to call ourselves independent. If we don’t get that, or an equivalent, then there’s no point doing anything else. I don’t believe in cutting our noses off to spite our faces by crashing out of the EU without a plan. It would only feed into the remainer narrative and encourage us to rejoin on terrible turns.
Christ, to have had even one competent politician on our side.
I would wonder if this was Remainer May’s plan all along but I don’t think she has that kind of machiavellian streak. Or maybe she’s so Machiavellian the blusterling idiot we see before us is an elaborate ruse.
I think when everything’s said and done, brexit is going to be cancelled. So You Win Again. I think I will pack up and join my friends in Australia. Funny how it’s a smaller country than us (population and gdp wise at least) but it does ok on its own.
The Australian economy is much more based on mining and tourism. It's a different kind of economy to the UK.
I like General Elections. I like going out to vote, and I love sitting up all night and watching the BBC's coverage, so if there's another one, I don't mind.
I thought you were never voting again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As you know I'm Brexit through and through, but I now reluctantly support EFTA/EEA because:
1. Our government is a shambles and we need to salvage something before Remain seize the day and take us back into the EU
Why the need to salvage something just for a victory? This is people lives at stake, not a game. If you have a reason to go to EEA beyond feeling like you've won, I'd love to hear them.
2. We have forgotten how to govern or negotiate, because the EU has done that for us for 40 years.
And we're been better for it. Bear in mind that we've been governing ourselves the whole time anyway - most EU directives are up to the nation state to decide on implementation. We're not a puppet nation.
A few years of learning the old skills again will allow us to gradually phase out of the EU.
Which is a good plan, if the end game of leaving the EU makes sense. I think this is more or less what Farage suggested - go straight to EEA and then allow the economy to adjust whilst we negotiate a better deal.
Personally I still think it's stupid. EEA is better than leaving, but staying is better than EEA. We may as well stay in until we've got some credible (a) reason and (b) plan for leaving.
Not that I'm getting too worked up about it, as it sits we're looking like we'll either stay or just re-join in a few years anyway.
Future War Cultist wrote: Funny how it’s a smaller country than us (population and gdp wise at least) but it does ok on its own.
Australia is a member of the ASEAN Plus mechanism, United Nations, G20, Commonwealth of Nations, ANZUS, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, and the Pacific Islands Forum
..Ben Bradley quits ?!>!
lest we forget
Spoiler:
Still in years to come, we can all remember that when a murder investigation was launched into a chemical attack on a British mother, the chief suspect being the Russian state, the Foreign Secretary skipped the emergency meeting because he was too busy doing a photo shoot for his own resignation.
Spoiler:
whilst his colleagues described him as brave and principled.
Still least he'll have time to campaign against that third runway now then right ?
Jacob Rees Mogg tells me he would certainly not accept the post of Foreign Secretary on the basis of having to defend the Chequers deal.
Similarly I will not be captaining England's football team tomorrow as I really do not like Southgate's waistcoats.
The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said a deal is 80 per cent agreed, in an apparent softening of tone as Theresa May faces down Tory rebels over the direction Britain should take in talks.
Speaking on a visit to the United States, Michel Barnier said he was determined to negotiate the remaining 20 per cent of the deal, with the Brussels deadline for an agreement just around three months away.
“After 12 months of negotiations we have agreed on 80 per cent of the negotiations,” he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
I was surprised that that much has actually been agreed?
“I can tell you that it is crystal clear at the end of this negotiation, that the best situation, with the best relationship with the EU, will remain to be a member of the EU.”
The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator has said a deal is 80 per cent agreed, in an apparent softening of tone as Theresa May faces down Tory rebels over the direction Britain should take in talks.
Speaking on a visit to the United States, Michel Barnier said he was determined to negotiate the remaining 20 per cent of the deal, with the Brussels deadline for an agreement just around three months away.
“After 12 months of negotiations we have agreed on 80 per cent of the negotiations,” he told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
I was surprised that that much has actually been agreed?
General rule of thumb for you. The first 80% of any project takes 20% of the time. The remaining 20% takes 80% of the time. Simply there are generally lots of easy things that we can agree to (paying to be part of the airline network etc). It's the bits that you can't agree on that take the time.
And the latter statement tells you what we need to know. They EU will always protect their interests. It is in the interests of the EU and UK to stay in the EU. Everything else is a sliding scale of pain.
Riquende wrote: Because avoiding Eurocrat smugness is a key aim of Brexit, beyond things like jobs, the economy, workers rights, environmental protections...
I do care about the others, which is why I’m saying go with efta rarher than just crashing out, but I completely and utterly despise the hierarchy of the EU, the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.
Riquende wrote: Because avoiding Eurocrat smugness is a key aim of Brexit, beyond things like jobs, the economy, workers rights, environmental protections...
I do care about the others, which is why I’m saying go with efta rarher than just crashing out, but I completely and utterly despise the hierarchy of the EU, the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.
If Britain took its rightful place, a lot of those "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards" would be our "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards"
Riquende wrote: Because avoiding Eurocrat smugness is a key aim of Brexit, beyond things like jobs, the economy, workers rights, environmental protections...
I do care about the others, which is why I’m saying go with efta rarher than just crashing out, but I completely and utterly despise the hierarchy of the EU, the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.
If Britain took its rightful place, a lot of those "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards" would be our "smug, aloft, over-paid, unaccountable bastards"
I don’t know. We couldn’t stop Drunker getting the top spot. Then there was the result of Cameron’s negotiation...
“I can tell you that it is crystal clear at the end of this negotiation, that the best situation, with the best relationship with the EU, will remain to be a member of the EU.”
Interesting that that is still on the table.
It was never off the table. Only the brexiteers have been pretending it's a done deal.
I don’t want to rehash my reasons for wanting to leave the eu, but it is clear that the real villains in all of this are our politicians, wbo’ve always fethed everything up and gotten themselves outplayed at every turn. As much as I hate her, at least Maggie had a semblance of competence. But then again, we get the politicians we vote for. So actually the real villains are the voters. Like me.
Actually, I guess I should restate why I backed leave.
My entire politically conscious life, it’s always bugged me how our relationship with the eu just hinges on who’s Prime Minister and who controls Parliament. The eu only has to please them to get what it wants, and that’s easily done. Remember, it’s only by the grace of Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the euro. You think if him and Blair wanted it, they would have given us a referendum on that? Hell no. And once signed up to it, that’s permeant. No backsies. Sure we could vote them out but the damage is done. Same for when the eastern bloc countries began to join. Did Blair put a break on immigration from them to keep it under control? Did he balls. Same for the Lisbon treaty.
My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’
Geographical term referring to the fact that England, Scotland and Wales inhabit the largest ('greatest') of the British Isles.
Future War Cultist wrote:the smug, aloft, over paid, unaccountable bastards.
Is that a unique set of descriptors to EU politicians? Let's assume that you're using 'unaccountable' to mean unaccountable to you, and not to anybody at all.
Are there any smug, aloof, overpaid, unaccountable bastards:
Working in the City, hedging against a strong economy and making money when the rest of us are losing jobs and capital?
In directorships everywhere, downsizing companies to increase profit margins by laying off workers and forcing families under the poverty line?
In safe UK commons seats, where they only have to be 'in' with a small selection committee and not their consituents at large?
In the Civil Service, working anonymously everyday to implement and guide policy?
Luxuriously living in a variety of large historical mansions around the country in return for attending public events a few times a year?
Unaccountable bastards are an unfortunate fact of life unless you're in the 1% (because then they're accountable to you). Almost all of the history of human conflict is down to various groups of unaccountable bastards arguing between themselves and managing to convince the general populace that some other set of unaccountable bastards are so unaccountable, and so bastardly (bastardish?) that they're worth taking up arms against.
My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’
You can always back out of anything. Leaving the Euro would be the hardest because the value of the new currency would take time to adjust and that could cause significant inflation. However for larger economic powers that shouldn't be too problematic as they have intrinsic value (it's not like Greece going back to being non-Euro). Schengen and the EU Army (which in itself is a fallacy) are also able to be left. Despite what the right wing press say there was no EU army and individual nations would still have control over their own military and could pull them out if they want.
Surely though that the PM is voted in by the populace and if they voted for them (or the party) then if they join that is just democratic process?
It’s weird, I don’t like us being told what to do but I don’t particularly like telling others what to do either. Except when we’re paying for it.
And, if brexit was cancelled before article 50 ran out, I can’t help but wonder what would happen. Could be really awkward...
Our MEPs (excluding the idiot UKIPers) decided that they didn't want to join one of the main 'factions' and tried to go it alone. They ended up being massively isolated when the sort of decisions you are referring to come up. If they joined one of the main factions then we would have had a bigger say and influence (sound familiar?)
My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it.
Would that be so terrible?
I mean, if you went back a thousand-odd years and told the people of the kingdoms of Wessex , Mercia, Northumbria and so on that they would be united as a single kingdom along with the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish they'd probably say much the same sort of thing. But we look on it now as the norm.
My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it.
Would that be so terrible?
I mean, if you went back a thousand-odd years and told the people of the kingdoms of Wessex , Mercia, Northumbria and so on that they would be united as a single kingdom along with the Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish they'd probably say much the same sort of thing. But we look on it now as the norm.
That's what I always think when I hear people insist that sovereignty is this inviolable right of nations. Humans always exist in a snapshot of time and struggle to accept that it's all transitory.
And if you want to go another thousand years back and tell the Catuvelauni, Iceni, Durotriges et al (Latin names, but I'm sure they had a way of referring to themselves and others) that their tribal identity would be long gone, hardly anybody would remember them and they would be many-times subsumed into a United Kingdom and see how much push back you get of people needing to respect culture, tradition and I'll be damned if I step into the shieldwall with even one of those Iceni bastards do you hear!?
Instead of saying "I told you so" beyond this sentence, I'd like to ask the thread how we rehabilitate British politics so your politicians aren't such tosspots. At first I thought I'd mention proportional representation and have a rehash of that debate, but honestly, I don't know that PR would necessarily help. We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Instead of saying "I told you so" beyond this sentence, I'd like to ask the thread how we rehabilitate British politics so your politicians aren't such tosspots. At first I thought I'd mention proportional representation and have a rehash of that debate, but honestly, I don't know that PR would necessarily help. We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?
I don't think you'll ever get rid of it. Educating everyone to PhD level in a science subject might help (or any other where you learn how to objectively assess evidence). However as it's likely an evolved trait the likely solution is to get rid of the human race. That would solve the problem permanently. Ironically considering what we are doing to the planet that might not be so far off...
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Instead of saying "I told you so" beyond this sentence, I'd like to ask the thread how we rehabilitate British politics so your politicians aren't such tosspots. At first I thought I'd mention proportional representation and have a rehash of that debate, but honestly, I don't know that PR would necessarily help. We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?
Abolition of political parties? Every MP stands as an independent, with sole, sworn, responsibility to represent the best interests of their constituents, over all other interests.
Requirement for MPs to have been resident in their constituency for at least 5 years before standing, to prevent candidates being parachuted in.
Right of recall for constituents and implementation of various other professional codes of conduct that apply to other careers (if I lie or mislead in my professional capacity I can be fired or even prosecuted, if it causes harm. If a politician does it, it’s Tuesday.)
Term limits, to end career politicians (not so convinced on that one, some career backbenchers do very good work).
Move parliament out of London. They need to completely overhaul Westminster anyway, build a new one in Birmingham or Manchester and leave Westminster for formal occasions and as a tourist attraction.
Federalise the UK, preferably with several regional parliaments in England, rather than one big one. Give regional governments much greater authority and funding to manage things at a local level.
Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head.
Presumably displeased at how easy this week is looking for him, and desperate to throw his open-goal PMQs away, Corbyn has appointed Naz Shah to equalities minister.
I think parliament should be a bit like jury duty; at least some should be randomly selected from the population based on some criteria on a relatively short term.
And/or insisting that the minister for something should have some qualification or experience in that something. Ideally a prior career, but at minimum some kind of diploma course.
Canada manages it.
My entire politically conscious life, it’s always bugged me how our relationship with the eu just hinges on who’s Prime Minister and who controls Parliament. The eu only has to please them to get what it wants, and that’s easily done. Remember, it’s only by the grace of Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the euro. You think if him and Blair wanted it, they would have given us a referendum on that? Hell no. And once signed up to it, that’s permeant. No backsies. Sure we could vote them out but the damage is done. Same for when the eastern bloc countries began to join. Did Blair put a break on immigration from them to keep it under control? Did he balls. Same for the Lisbon treaty.
My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’
My biggest fear is our current prime minister taking us out of the EU to try and keep some extremists happy, and forcing us to give away all of our power when someone undoes it.
What I don't get is this "we need to leave the EU in case our PM agrees to something we don't like" argument. Why not try to prevent our PM getting up? Why not wait til something we don't like has happened? Why don't we insist our MEPs actually represent us?
It's like amputating your foot in case you stub your toe.
Herzlos wrote: I think parliament should be a bit like jury duty; at least some should be randomly selected from the population based on some criteria on a relatively short term.
And/or insisting that the minister for something should have some qualification or experience in that something. Ideally a prior career, but at minimum some kind of diploma course.
Canada manages it.
My entire politically conscious life, it’s always bugged me how our relationship with the eu just hinges on who’s Prime Minister and who controls Parliament. The eu only has to please them to get what it wants, and that’s easily done. Remember, it’s only by the grace of Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the euro. You think if him and Blair wanted it, they would have given us a referendum on that? Hell no. And once signed up to it, that’s permeant. No backsies. Sure we could vote them out but the damage is done. Same for when the eastern bloc countries began to join. Did Blair put a break on immigration from them to keep it under control? Did he balls. Same for the Lisbon treaty.
My fear would be some future pm signing us up to the euro or Schengen or an eu army and we wouldn’t be able to stop it. Because again, once it’s done it’s done. No backsies. There never is with the eu. By backing leave, but hoping for something like efta, I wanted to say ‘ok that’s far enough with the intergration’. No more giving up powers to Brussels, and if you want to try anything else you will ask us first. I could never back remain. That didn’t mean backing the status quo. That would have been taken as a green light by the eu and the Remainers who pollute the corridors of power here to rush on with even more intergration. Any complaints would have been met with ‘but you voted to stay so there.’
My biggest fear is our current prime minister taking us out of the EU to try and keep some extremists happy, and forcing us to give away all of our power when someone undoes it.
What I don't get is this "we need to leave the EU in case our PM agrees to something we don't like" argument. Why not try to prevent our PM getting up? Why not wait til something we don't like has happened? Why don't we insist our MEPs actually represent us?
It's like amputating your foot in case you stub your toe.
Why not implement obligatory referendi in such a case, would integrate the general public more and letigimate policy more.
Also ads in a hurdle for politicians to push through extreme policy.
For feths sake, there always a patronising smart ass in here playing clever dick.
Right that’s it, I’m done for the night. Possibly even the week.
O...kay? Seriously, I've talked to many people who don't know this and seem to think that the 'Great' is some sort of honorific bestowed by the Pope or something for England being so damn awesome.
Don't worry though, we can pick up the "unaccountable bastards everywhere" part when you come back.
The feelings around identity, nationality and control are to some degree uncontrollable. In the current situation we have Scottish nationalists eager to escape the iron fist of the Westminster parliament, and simultaneously anrgy about losing EU membership. I give that as a point of illustration, not as a point of blame.
Kilkrazy wrote: The feelings around identity, nationality and control are to some degree uncontrollable. In the current situation we have Scottish nationalists eager to escape the iron fist of the Westminster parliament, and simultaneously anrgy about losing EU membership. I give that as a point of illustration, not as a point of blame.
That's not about national identity though*, it's about not getting shafted by an unaccountable parliament, which doesn't treat them as an equal partner, steals their powers and overrules them on everything. Part of that is that Scotland seems a lot more socialist/lefty than England, and Englands size means that even with all Scottish seats being held by SNPMPs, they still don't have any meaningful say.
*The "Nationalist" part does throw some though, as it's not the same nationalist as the national socialists or the British Nationalist Party. It's better to treat it as "standing up for everyone *in* Scotland" Vs "standing up for everyone *from* Britain". SNP are fighting for everyone in Scotland, BNP are fighting against everyone that's not "British" (white).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Why not implement obligatory referendi in such a case, would integrate the general public more and letigimate policy more.
Also ads in a hurdle for politicians to push through extreme policy.
As far as I can tell, referendi are a terrible way to decide on much, because most of the public don't know enough to answer properly and it's not worth everyone becoming experts on everything. But that relies on electing representatives that will take the time to learn stuff and can be trusted to act on the best interests of everyone.
Kind of the same as why I hire a plumber/electricial/mechanic/plasterer instead of doing it myself; I'm capable of doing it but I don't have the time to learn all of the skills.
There have been some interesting suggestions abut poltical reform and reform of parliament.
We need to keep in mind that elected politicians are representatives of the general political will of the people. They are not actually supposed to formulate technical solutions. That is the job of the civil service. The government is meant to formulate political/social policy.
I think part of what's gone wrong in the UK since Thatcher is politicians downgrading the civil service and putting their own policies into action with a lot of direct control by unelected, non-civil servants like Cabinet Office advisors.
One example of this is the policy on drugs, which is completely at odds with the expert panel's advice.
Another important area is the role of different levels of local government.
In short, I'm in favour of various ideas of reforming parliament, but I don't think they will work without consideration of the other parts of the British governing structure.
"As far as I can tell, electing mp's is a terrible way to decide on much, because most of the public don't know enough to elect properly( the most competetent person that will represent them) and it's not worth everyone becoming experts on the live of a MP."
Kind of the same as why I hire a plumber/electricial/mechanic/plasterer instead of doing it myself; I'm capable of doing it but I don't have the time to learn all of the skills.
Herzlos, pls read the first statement. That is an argument against all democratic systems, ever. Period. If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory. Additionally democracy is not about competence or good rule. No that is not the seller of a democratic system.
Democracy is about legitimisation, and a parlamentary system, which does exclude policy from people loses legitimisation depending on the behaviour of MP's regardless of their position if they vote against the will of the people they represent, that includes Coalitions which are one of the main reasons especially in germany why a big part of the population began voting for far left/right parties.
Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?
Thirdly: "Because the public does not know....etc" Those arguments are common, and a missconception when we regard the numbers of Switzerland.
Voting turnout is around 45-55% of the population. Yet the remaining 55-45% answered to have no problem with the politics, in fact most of them answered that they did not vote because they were not directly impacted from the policy, had a neutral outlook on the policy or regarded the consequences for their vote as not predictable.
In a parlamentary system there would be a large part of the population that would say that they don't trust policy making. --> those are the same people that flock populist parties if they get desilusioned with the policy making.
I will cede the point that it would require a whole new structure of the system, in many cases a whole new perception of the system but frankly you voted on "competent" personell that messed up since Cameron and seems to have no plan at all, whilest party internally there is the constant threat of sabotage for personal gains.
I don’t want to put a dampener on this story but ....Processed food has flavourings - flavourings come in from Europe - they are also hazardous in their pure form - you need an ADR licence to transport them . The licence won’t be valid post brexit - we have a problem
Like this ? This is hot x bun flavouring .. class 3 UN 1203 - nasty stuff - same classification as petrol
I don’t want to put a dampener on this story but ....Processed food has flavourings - flavourings come in from Europe - they are also hazardous in their pure form - you need an ADR licence to transport them . The licence won’t be valid post brexit - we have a problem
Like this ? This is hot x bun flavouring .. class 3 UN 1203 - nasty stuff - same classification as petrol
flavourless noodles too.
this is fine.
That comment about using those flavourings again that have carcinogenes in it......
If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory.
Not at all. I can have enough understanding to select a good plumber, based on how they present themselves and past work, without having had to spend years training to be a plumber. Electing representatives works the same way - you can make a reasonable decision based on their track record and policies with a minimal understanding of the details.
Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?
That's why it's an example. They have a trained skill I don't, thus I outsource the work to them instead of learning it myself. There's no practical difference between that and an MP, beyond the effect is more global (where my MP isn't ignored due to being in a smaller 'partner' country).
If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory.
Not at all. I can have enough understanding to select a good plumber, based on how they present themselves and past work, without having had to spend years training to be a plumber. Electing representatives works the same way - you can make a reasonable decision based on their track record and policies with a minimal understanding of the details.
Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?
That's why it's an example. They have a trained skill I don't, thus I outsource the work to them instead of learning it myself. There's no practical difference between that and an MP, beyond the effect is more global (where my MP isn't ignored due to being in a smaller 'partner' country).
See but here's the problem, their representation means nothing in regards to their competence.
Secondly how can you have enough understanding of plumbing, if you never have seen proper infrastucture?
See the problem, the argument is authoritharian. Also you relly on informed decisions if you formulate the voting pocess like that, which you stated can't be trusted for the majority of the people. There is virtually no difference between an election and a vote in such a case. Ergo why should you be allowed to elect / vote in the first place. Instead we just should nominate Technocrats.
Thirdly: No just no. Power corrupts, no matter how good a person is. You have no idea how a person is going to behave in a parlament, and you have no influence about their decision which will lead to selfprofiting policy.
Again, a plumber has experience, can that be said about your MP's or your ministers? I don't think so, however their decisions affect the whole country, so still you want to get competent personell, which ultimately gets put in via PM for their ministries, yet they have potentially no clue about what they do.
Basically in the end it matters little if you allow the masses to vote or the parliament. Except the legitimisation is far superior if all people have a right to vote on policy.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?
Democracy is all good and fun until the other team wins
If you don't trust the people to make an informed decision, then you can't trust them to elect personell that is competent, ergo that argument is self contradictory.
Not at all. I can have enough understanding to select a good plumber, based on how they present themselves and past work, without having had to spend years training to be a plumber. Electing representatives works the same way - you can make a reasonable decision based on their track record and policies with a minimal understanding of the details.
Secondly: Your plumber argument makes no sense. Why? Because i don't need to live with your plumbing with the rest of the people in a country. I however need to live under the rules and laws and policy under a country. I should have a say in it no? Else why not reeimplement monarchy/ dictartorship?
That's why it's an example. They have a trained skill I don't, thus I outsource the work to them instead of learning it myself. There's no practical difference between that and an MP, beyond the effect is more global (where my MP isn't ignored due to being in a smaller 'partner' country).
See but here's the problem, their representation means nothing in regards to their competence.
Secondly how can you have enough understanding of plumbing, if you never have seen proper infrastucture?
See the problem, the argument is authoritharian. Also you relly on informed decisions if you formulate the voting pocess like that, which you stated can't be trusted for the majority of the people. There is virtually no difference between an election and a vote in such a case. Ergo why should you be allowed to elect / vote in the first place. Instead we just should nominate Technocrats.
Thirdly: No just no. Power corrupts, no matter how good a person is. You have no idea how a person is going to behave in a parlament, and you have no influence about their decision which will lead to selfprofiting policy.
Again, a plumber has experience, can that be said about your MP's or your ministers? I don't think so, however their decisions affect the whole country, so still you want to get competent personell, which ultimately gets put in via PM for their ministries, yet they have potentially no clue about what they do.
Basically in the end it matters little if you allow the masses to vote or the parliament. Except the legitimisation is far superior if all people have a right to vote on policy.
It's a trade off between reward and effort. For any decision that needs to be made, you can run a referendum and hope that all the voters will spend a reasonable amount of time researching it before voting (which we know doesn't happen), or you can outsource that to a representative that is elected every 5 years, and hope that all the voters will at least spend a reasonable amount of time researching before voting (which still doesn't happen).
No system is perfect, so it's just down to how much effort you expect the public to put in to getting something decided. Referendi for everything means the public will easily need to spend a day a week learning about the subject. It's just not practical in the same way it's not practical to expect everyone to know how to do everything around the house.
If it was not practical or workable it would literally lead to the complete failure of Switzerland.
Secondly i never said Referendi on everything. That would be outright idiotic, no instead there should always be a looming threat of Referendi, in order to discipline MP's and give the opposition a tool to force a more compromise heavy solution. Or basically bringing the Parler into parliament back.
The point is that neither the general public nor politicians should be deciding how to run the country because they don't have the skills and knowledge needed.
They should be deciding the direction they want the country to go. The way of getting there should be planned by technocrats (civil servants) and approved (or not) by parliament.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: We've got an election coming up this year in Sweden, we've got proportional representation and there's still around 20% of the population being willing to vote for a party that explicitly believes that culture is biologically inherited. PR alone clearly isn't enough to keep people away from the dumbest ideas we've ever tried, so what else would be required?
Democracy is all good and fun until the other team wins
In a scenario where 1/5th of the population of a country is willing to vote for old-fashioned racism, no one wins.
It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
Kilkrazy wrote: There have been some interesting suggestions abut poltical reform and reform of parliament.
We need to keep in mind that elected politicians are representatives of the general political will of the people. They are not actually supposed to formulate technical solutions. That is the job of the civil service. The government is meant to formulate political/social policy.
I think part of what's gone wrong in the UK since Thatcher is politicians downgrading the civil service and putting their own policies into action with a lot of direct control by unelected, non-civil servants like Cabinet Office advisors.
One example of this is the policy on drugs, which is completely at odds with the expert panel's advice.
Another important area is the role of different levels of local government.
In short, I'm in favour of various ideas of reforming parliament, but I don't think they will work without consideration of the other parts of the British governing structure.
When it comes to drugs, I get it when people point to the evidence and say that X is not as harmful as previously believed and thus should be made illegal.
But people always forget there's a moral and a political element to these kind of decisions, and sometimes that has to trump science.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
From a purely military history perspective and a historical wargames perspective, the Battle of the Boyne is a fascinating and interesting period of history. And of course, there are some great miniatures out there to collect and paint for the period.
But for the rest of the stuff you highlight, we can do without that kind of thing.
But people always forget there's a moral and a political element to these kind of decisions, and sometimes that has to trump science.
Nothing should trump science.
Experts: These drugs aren't actually that bad for you, do useful things, would raise a fortune in tax and making them illegal doesn't work; it just makes them dangerous.
Politicians: But they are immoral, so they are staying illegal (though my husbands company is making a fortune from them).
But people always forget there's a moral and a political element to these kind of decisions, and sometimes that has to trump science.
Nothing should trump science.
Experts: These drugs aren't actually that bad for you, do useful things, would raise a fortune in tax and making them illegal doesn't work; it just makes them dangerous.
Politicians: But they are immoral, so they are staying illegal (though my husbands company is making a fortune from them).
Naturally, I disagree
When I talk about morality and politics, I'm not going on about drugs or hypocritical politicians like the one you reference in your post.
There are some decisions where morals, ethics and politics must always trump science. Eugenics being a prime example of this.
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
I’ve never touched weed in my life. I really don’t care for it, and personally I find stoners to be absolute donkey-caves. And I say we should legalise it and tax the gak out of it. There’s got to be a few billion at least to be clawed back there.
I’ve dabbled, but no more. It either does nothing to me, or major ‘head out the window for the foreesable future’ whitey.
Yet I also smoke ciggies, and consider 6 pints a quiet drinky.
The worst thing for me is the kids dabbling who still consider it the height of rebellion. It’s not. And it hasn’t been for at least my lifetime!
Legalise it. Challenge the criminal element and all that comes with it. You’ll also remove the market for far more dangerous ‘legal highs’. Yes, we’ll still see nobbers monged out in the street - but at least the NHS and the country as a whole will see some kind of benefit from it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm obviously no expert on this, but what does the science say about cannabis?
You always seem to hear these stories about cannabis damaging people's mental health.
Is there any truth to this?
Basic weed is no more harmful than stuff like alcohol. But, modern stuff is sprayed with other substances to increase the high, and I believe the consensus is that that’s what’s doing the damage.
I only mentioned the drugs point because it was a classic example where the government set up an expert committee to advise on a specific topic -- which is a very good idea -- then completely ignored the advice because they didn't like it.
You can put that down to moral or political reasons. As an elector, you can prioritise things according to different criteria.
Reality may have different ideas about things, though.
Not so long ago, it was ‘moral’ for homosexuality to be illegal and a time serving offence.
It was ‘moral’ to post openly racist political leaflets during a campaign.
It was ‘moral’ to drink and drive.
It was ‘moral’ to deny all but the wealthy an education.
The War On Drugs is an ideological campaign. Not a moral one.
You want to shut down organised drug cartels? Legalise it, grow it, sell it, tax it. Take away their incentive for doing it - massive profits.
As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.
But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.
That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.
From both a personal and professional stand point I've seen the effects cannabis can have on people's mental health and the things it can do to people is scary but they same could be said for a lot of things. One of the problems surrounding it however is the stigma meaning institutions are less likely to do research on it.
I do still feel however that legalisation is the way forward, not only would it allow for taxation and a level of quality control but I think it would help cut down some of it's usage I've always felt that a lot of people seem to smoke too try and make themselves look a bit hard that they're breaking the law. There's also the question that should the government really be stopping people doing something if they aren't hurting anyone else, a person can chose what other drugs they take so why is this one?
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
I've got a horrible feeling that this marching season in particular is going to be a grim one, as someone described it on twitter loyalists have gone full 'No Surrender' with the amount of paramilitary flags going up even more than normal and the attack in Portadown last week.
But as someone from Derry I'd just like to say that the wee sh*ts out attacking the fountain don't represent the people of the city and I've been proud to see a similar reaction by the rest of the city in coming out to condemn the actions of these hoods and protesting in solidarity. I'm also hoping that out of this relations between the fountain's residents and others within the city can improve as the violent exchanges across this interface have been going on for far too long!
As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.
So you agree it's an expensive waste of time to try and prevent/incarcerate them for it? That it doesn't make sense to force the purchase through illegal means where there's no brakes, tax or quality control?
Lots of other places have legalised cannabis and are reaping the rewards. It seems to have genuine medical advantages. It makes a great environmentally friendly alternative to all sorts of things. Stoners tend to be dull but not particularly violent.
Just think what we could do if we mass-produced cannabis and charged the same tax as cigarettes, didn't waste police time on cannabis possesion and took money away from the dealers?
It'd easily pay for rehab facilities and any health problems caused by cannabis, and then some.
But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.
So you'd be all for making alcohol illegal too then, on the basis that a sedated population is a compliant one?
That alcohol is moral but cannabis is immoral is a broken argument - it just doesn't make sense.
I'm against people being drugged up or drunk, because they leave themselves vulnerable, prone to doing stupid things or harming their health. I've never once considered the Orwellian nature of it. I still think it's a non-issue.
That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.
That's a bit tinfoil hat. But are you saying that because some politicians agree with a thing you're automatically against it? How does that work is one politiican is for it and the other isnt'?
Future War Cultist wrote: It’s that time of year again; The Twelfth. The bonfires don’t seem as big this year, but there has been trouble. I believe the worst was coming out of Derry. Shootouts with the police and so on:
As a libertarian, I have no problem with people taking the stuff.
But I'm always uneasy with people being drugged up or drunk, for the sole reason that a sedated population is not a population that gets angry or pays attention to what the government is doing. Bread and circuses and all that.
That some politicians support this is reason enough to make uneasy about their ulterior motives.
While I cannot speak to UK culture on marijuana, living in Portland, where we have more marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops, the city definitively remains one of the most politically active cities in the US, if anything its become even more politically active over the issue.
. no, the people here/elsewhere who voted remain or kept explaining why the Brexit idea -- cannot really call it a plan can you eh ? -- kept talking about the big picture, or reality as we called it, since the start.
