Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We haven't had any concessions.

Exactly. The UK lost all leverage when they announced they were leaving.

Remain supporters better head over to the Guardian live politics feed: alarming news for your side.

Seems Mogg is on manoeuvres again and has just come out of a meeting with the Tory whips...

Strokes chin...

Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.

As I've said before, I bet Remain wished they had their own version of Mogg fighting to keep Britain in the EU.

I say this as an honest, constructive critique of Remain, but by God, there are times when you lot need to fight with the heart as well as the head.

Sometimes in politics you need to appeal to the emotions...

That's not entirely correct.

The EU wants to have a good trading relationship with the UK in the future, so there is a certain amount of appetite on both sides to reach a compromise, though of course there are limits to this.

However, the key point is deciding to leave the EU isn't a way to get concessions based on staying in the EU.

The UK achieved a number of concessions from the EU, starting with Thatcher's rebate, and finishing with Cameron's emergency brake, without deciding to leave.

From the above, there's no reason why the EU would not let the UK rescind its announcement of leaving. There would be no concessions to give, because the UK isn't asking for any. There would be no reason not to allow other countries to decide to leave and then change their mind.

To be fair, the UK is a major player in the EU, and the EU might not be so compliant with a small country with 1/10th the wealth and power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remain supporters better head over to the Guardian live politics feed: alarming news for your side.

Seems Mogg is on manoeuvres again and has just come out of a meeting with the Tory whips...

Strokes chin...

Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.

As I've said before, I bet Remain wished they had their own version of Mogg fighting to keep Britain in the EU.

I say this as an honest, constructive critique of Remain, but by God, there are times when you lot need to fight with the heart as well as the head.

Sometimes in politics you need to appeal to the emotions...

I don't know what you mean. Everyone knows the majority of MPs are against Brexit.

No-one knows what the mood of the nation is, without a second referundum. The opinion polls tell us that the majority are against a Hard Brexit, which is what Ress-Mogg wants.

DINLT Well, you point to one of the problems with Remain, alright. There was little passion, always the support for the EU was given with mealy mouthed caveats about the need for "reform" (what this reform was, was never explained) or with a quick acknowledgement that "the EU has problems".

I can see where it comes from, but why did no one stand up and point out how awesome the EU is? In the EU Ireland has absolutely transformed in my lifetime. My parents grew up in crushing poverty and the development that took place over their lifetimes, accelerated massively by us joining the EU, is staggering. My primary and national schools, the road outside my parents house, much of the structure of law that I grew up in, the french food I got to know as a kid, the currency in my pocket, all due to the influence of the EU.

The difficulty in trying to present the benefits of the EU is the large crowd of people who won't believe it because of 'gut feeling'. They should have taken the Brexit threat more seriously and put more effort in though. Maybe they'd try and do so now? It'd maybe pick up some of the waverers (worth doing because it's so close) but will still fall on a lot of deaf ears.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.

Yet still not providing any credible plan or direction. Like he's throwing about demands and posturing to become PM but not actually trying to drive Brexit forwards.

In other news, I am very pleased to see that Scotland is going to get a space port!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/16/spaceport-receives-go-ahead-on-scottish-peninsula

 Da Boss wrote:
DINLT Well, you point to one of the problems with Remain, alright. There was little passion, always the support for the EU was given with mealy mouthed caveats about the need for "reform" (what this reform was, was never explained) or with a quick acknowledgement that "the EU has problems".

I can see where it comes from, but why did no one stand up and point out how awesome the EU is? In the EU Ireland has absolutely transformed in my lifetime. My parents grew up in crushing poverty and the development that took place over their lifetimes, accelerated massively by us joining the EU, is staggering. My primary and national schools, the road outside my parents house, much of the structure of law that I grew up in, the french food I got to know as a kid, the currency in my pocket, all due to the influence of the EU.

I hope I don't sound patronising, but people like you were exactly what was required to win the referendum for Remain. I would have scoured Europe for human interest stories of how the EU has changed lives for the better and made them the poster boys.

I would have focused on peace, prosperity, bringing families together, frictionless travel, cultural exchanges, EU projects changing communities. And above all, I would have been honest. Yeah, the EU has its faults, yeah, Britian has used the EU as an alibi for 40 years of incompetent ministers, but lets do things better etc etc

What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?

Utter madness.

They voted in part, because for the first time in a long time, their voted meant a damn.

The Remain strategy towards these people was incompetence on a grand scale.

Part of the problem with remain was the lack of passion mixed with the threats. And the put downs. The patriotic working class types who probably helped leave win probably didn’t appreciate their home being described as a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” by the likes ofEmma Thompson for example. And don’t forget old Bob Geldof flicking the v at those fishermen from his massive yacht with his champagne swigging entourage too. See, when you tell someone like, say, the people of Britain, that they’re gak and worthless without you, there’s a strong possibility that they might go and try to prove you wrong. And that ‘deal’ Cameron came back with? It was still a pittance imo. But that’s more his problem tbh.

If we end up staying in the eu, I think any goodwill with the public a large will be destroyed, because there will be the narrative that the EU successfully bullied and coerced a relucant member into staying like some sort of domestic abuser.

Herzlos wrote:
The difficulty in trying to present the benefits of the EU is the large crowd of people who won't believe it because of 'gut feeling'. They should have taken the Brexit threat more seriously and put more effort in though. Maybe they'd try and do so now? It'd maybe pick up some of the waverers (worth doing because it's so close) but will still fall on a lot of deaf ears.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Whatever you may think of Mogg, he's front and centre, fighting his case, rallying his troops and engaging in 'guerrilla' warfare.

Yet still not providing any credible plan or direction. Like he's throwing about demands and posturing to become PM but not actually trying to drive Brexit forwards.

I honestly thought Remain would win. Because there are enough floating voters out there for Remain to win at a canter.


Mogg on the other hand doesn't really need a plan for his strategy which has always been WTO terms. His mere presence is enough to force the government's hand, because he knows they are weak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Part of the problem with remain was the lack of passion mixed with the threats. And the put downs. The patriotic working class types who probably helped leave win probably didn’t appreciate their home being described as a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” by the likes ofEmma Thompson for example. And don’t forget old Bob Geldof flicking the v at those fishermen from his massive yacht with his champagne swigging entourage too. See, when you tell someone like, say, the people of Britain, that they’re gak and worthless without you, there’s a strong possibility that they might go and try to prove you wrong. And that ‘deal’ Cameron came back with? It was still a pittance imo. But that’s more his problem tbh.

If we end up staying in the eu, I think any goodwill with the public a large will be destroyed, because there will be the narrative that the EU successfully bullied and coerced a relucant member into staying like some sort of domestic abuser.

Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.

Posted this in an edit but took so long to confirm it's now well up the page so reposting:

The more I think about it, the more I think we should just ignore the deal. Nobody would like it. Instead: Referendum called - "We, the conservatives, have spent years fannying about, wasting the country's time calling general elections, setting unhelpful red lines, losing ministers left and right and basically being incompetent. Despite that incompetency we have determined that there is no possible way to work out a deal with the EU so have it people - should we stay or should we go? No campaigning, no lies - either everything stays as it was before the first referendum or we go out, no deal, nothing to soften the blow. Decide."

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.

You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
. There would be no reason not to allow other countries to decide to leave and then change their mind.

Well except leave-no-leave circle would burn up eu's money for nothing. Why the 2 year time limit is. If it starts to become habit eu will stop it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Part of the problem with remain was the lack of passion mixed with the threats. And the put downs. The patriotic working class types who probably helped leave win probably didn’t appreciate their home being described as a “cake-filled misery-laden grey old island” by the likes ofEmma Thompson for example. And don’t forget old Bob Geldof flicking the v at those fishermen from his massive yacht with his champagne swigging entourage too. See, when you tell someone like, say, the people of Britain, that they’re gak and worthless without you, there’s a strong possibility that they might go and try to prove you wrong. And that ‘deal’ Cameron came back with? It was still a pittance imo. But that’s more his problem tbh.

If we end up staying in the eu, I think any goodwill with the public a large will be destroyed, because there will be the narrative that the EU successfully bullied and coerced a relucant member into staying like some sort of domestic abuser.

Heh. Bullied by saying you want to leave then leave

 Riquende wrote:
Posted this in an edit but took so long to confirm it's now well up the page so reposting:

The more I think about it, the more I think we should just ignore the deal. Nobody would like it. Instead: Referendum called - "We, the conservatives, have spent years fannying about, wasting the country's time calling general elections, setting unhelpful red lines, losing ministers left and right and basically being incompetent. Despite that incompetency we have determined that there is no possible way to work out a deal with the EU so have it people - should we stay or should we go? No campaigning, no lies - either everything stays as it was before the first referendum or we go out, no deal, nothing to soften the blow. Decide."

I wish I had £1 for every time I said this.

But Parliament could stop Brexit at tea time today if they wished. They're all there for a vote.

Sadly for the Remain side, MPs are unwilling to stand up for their beliefs and answer for it at the ballot box.

Obviously I'm glad, but as I always say, Remain MPs won't die in a ditch for their side.

I would say to Remain dakka members you're better off without them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.

You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.

Remain would be hoist by their own petard. You can't go around shouting non-binding referendum for two years, then win another referendum, and then tell everybody to respect the vote.

That would be seen as being two-faced...

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.

You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.

Well remain doesn't result in complete wrecking of uk so...not good for him

tneva82 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...
Agreed. Naturally, I'm biased, but we have to leave the EU, because if we don't public trust will be destroyed for generations, huge swathes of the populace will give up voting, and that will be bad for British democracy.

You mean if we have a second referundum which results in a majority vote to stay in the EU we would have to leave the EU or else destroy all confidence in popular democracy.

Well remain doesn't result in complete wrecking of uk so...not good for him

It's foolish to predict anything at the best of times. Remember the doom and gloom voices who's said we'd suffer if we didn't join the Euro?

They were convinced that we'd head back to ration book Britain, spivs selling parachute silk in the dead of night, and dig for victory.

But not foolish to predict generations of public trust in democracy?

Despite that point that a lot of Leave voters will die of old age before a generation is out, and the under-35s are strongly in favour of Remain.

Remain would be hoist by their own petard. You can't go around shouting non-binding referendum for two years, then win another referendum, and then tell everybody to respect the vote.

It is how the EU do referendums......

However if you do ask the people again for specific reasons - ie we can't get the deal we want, and they vote to stay - can't see how that's not valid until /if you have a reason to hold a new one.

You're only as good as your last referendum.

Putting the referendums on one side, does anyone think May's plan can work?

Firstly, can she get it through parliament?
Secondly, can she get it agreed with the EU?
Thirdly, can the magic border technology be invented and installed by Dec 2020?

1) Parliament: No, I don't think it is likely.
2) The EU will not accept the 4 freedoms being compromised, so that is also not likely.
3) Probably not?

This was always just a political gambit to slowly move toward Soft Brexit.

Perhaps May thinks she can push Parliament towards a soft Brexit by gaining the support of the Labour Party to offset the DUP and her backbencher Brexiteers.

That is the only way, I think. And it is what should be done- if May comes back with a Soft Brexit plan that the EU agrees to, Labour need to back it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?

You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.

They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I wish I had £1 for every time I said this.

Yes, I've seen you mention it before, I don't know why you keep posting it though. Today alone I posted that there isn't the political will within parliament to disregard the referendum result (just as there isn't the will for a Hard or Soft Brexit) and that's what's leading to the impasse. You seem to think you're posting some killer point but you're stating a very obvious fact each time.

Obviously I'm glad, but as I always say, Remain MPs won't die in a ditch for their side.

I would say to Remain dakka members you're better off without them.

I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. Be without them and instead be with who?

For a lot of people it isn't about the economy, it's about immigration.

@ Da Boss and Kilkrazy.

Regrading the point you both made about Labour, it's all about party politics.

Are Labour seriously going to support May's white paper and thus prop up her crumbling government?

Never in a million years.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?

You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.

They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.

Exactly. People who think they have "literally nothing to lose" are going to find out just how far the government-funded services they rely on have been stretched so far by austerity when they disappear entirely thanks to new post-Hard Brexit-imposed 'superausterity'.

"Don't worry folks, it'll only be for the short term - 10 or 20 years, then we'll be back on an even keel"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For a lot of people it isn't about the economy, it's about immigration.

For me, it is about immigration, but using immigration smartly to solve a lot of UK problems.


My plan would be for us to grab 50,000 doctors, nurses, dentists and engineers from India.


Nobody would argue against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I wish I had £1 for every time I said this.

Yes, I've seen you mention it before, I don't know why you keep posting it though. Today alone I posted that there isn't the political will within parliament to disregard the referendum result (just as there isn't the will for a Hard or Soft Brexit) and that's what's leading to the impasse. You seem to think you're posting some killer point but you're stating a very obvious fact each time.

Obviously I'm glad, but as I always say, Remain MPs won't die in a ditch for their side.

I would say to Remain dakka members you're better off without them.

I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. Be without them and instead be with who?

I'm making the point that Remain MPs talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. What you need are people who will defend their principals and walk away if need be as a matter of honour.

If they claim that Brexit is as bad as they think it'll be, why haven't they resigned en masse?

The Home Office spent a lot of effort refusing 1,200 working visas for doctors from India only a couple of months ago, in order to achieve the immigration limit.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What we got instead was doom and gloom. There are people in Britain who have nothing. Literally nothing to lose And Remain were saying that those people were going to lose money they never had?

You'd think that, but those very people are the ones that are going to be most badly hurt by Brexit. They are more likely to be relying on council/government funded services and manufacturing/service jobs. Trading gets hard and they may find their jobs lost. Economy gets damaged and they'll see service cuts. Tories get their way without the HRA and they'll get their rights taken away. The cost of their food, accomodation, energy etc will all go up.

They stand to gain almost nothing - none of their problems will be fixed by reducing migration.

Even if we stayed in the EU, wouldn't they face those problems anyway with automation on the rise?

At least now, the government will have to roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For a lot of people it isn't about the economy, it's about immigration.

For me, it is about immigration, but using immigration smartly to solve a lot of UK problems.


My plan would be for us to grab 50,000 doctors, nurses, dentists and engineers from India.

Nobody would argue against that.

There is absolutely nothing stopping us from doing that in the EU.

So what exactly is your argument for leaving the EU if it is based on immigration?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Even if we stayed in the EU, wouldn't they face those problems anyway with automation on the rise?

At least now, the government will have to roll up their sleeves and tackle the problem.

Why? What about leaving the EU will force them to tackle those issues? How has being in the EU prevented, in any way, us tackling those issues?