***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 68 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Dave.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 22 Nov 18 at 11:37
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46230281 says Gove was offered the BREXIT job but declined because he wouldn't be allowed to re-negotiate it. Quite right too, it's already been negotiated.
But I suspect it's more that he didn't want to get caught holding the ticking time bomb, poison chalice or whatever you will.
I'm fast coming to the conclusion that most MPs do not really deserve to be MPs. They are only about scoring points at the expense of others - in their own party these days, as well as the opposition.
I was musing earlier that there aren't really any strong characters like there were when I was becoming politically aware, in about the 70s. How times change...
|
Bit like pass the parcel...
|
I left this discussion before 7 pm last night and I return to find loads of links and reading I need to do before answering any of the points. Thanks to those for posting them.
The third option was one discussed at length on the BBC News programme yesterday morning and no-one interviewed seemed to know where it came from.
Another coffee, one ear on the news and much reading next, I think:)
Pat
|
>>
>> The third option was one discussed at length on the BBC News programme yesterday morning
>> and no-one interviewed seemed to know where it came from.
>>
I thought we had agreed that it came from Theresa May, in a rather badly-phrased statement that appeared to be offering a third option but was in reality intended to be a warning of what could happen if we didn't seize one of the other options?
A bit like the captain of a sinking ship addressing the passengers and giving two options:
queue up for one of the few lifeboats, or jump in the sea and swim clear as fast as you can. If you don't decide you'll get drowned as the sink sinks.
It's not really meant as an option in the full sense of the word. A sort of backstop :)
|
|
These rapid Volume changes are annoying. How come Terrible Old Jokes is allowed 629 Replies so far but Brexit gets a new Volume every 100 or so?
|
I think you'll find this discussion more interesting to some than a few old dad jokes.
However, we can leave this one until it gets to 629+ replies if you like ;)
|
ok, if you want something slightly humorous
www.facebook.com/richardmayes/videos/10155677754191237/ (couldn't find this one on youtube)
youtu.be/pjEiB59yn1Q - No Deal Brexit vs Vanilla Ice
|
>> These rapid Volume changes are annoying. How come Terrible Old Jokes is allowed 629 Replies
>> so far but Brexit gets a new Volume every 100 or so?
Its a very effective way of chopping short the bickering.
|
>> These rapid Volume changes are annoying. How come Terrible Old Jokes is allowed 629 Replies
>> so far but Brexit gets a new Volume every 100 or so?
The reason is quite mundane. They were chopped into volumes in the early days as long threads took an age to load due to slow internet connections. Fast forward to faster connections, it's useful now to be in 100 segment threads to scroll down on a phone screen.
|
>>The reason is quite mundane. They were chopped into volumes in the early days as long threads took an age to load due to slow internet connections
Just out of interest, it was implemented to break up bickering, it was justified as long threads being difficult to download as an easy excuse for some stealth quietening down of difficult stuff.
Though at the time it was the Speeding thread which caused the need.
|
|
Before my time ! The other reason was the one I was aware of.
|
|
Sigh, sometimes I feel very old.
|
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46230281
What a bunch of absolute clowns. It's got difficult, so they're all running away with not one of them able to say what they would do differently.
A travesty. If they don't like it they should vote against it not sulk and quit. And if they lose that vote then they should follow the advice they so sanctimoniously give everybody else about the referendum; Accept the result.
It is no wonder this country is in chaos with such a bunch of self-motivated, self-centered spineless clowns running it.
And why don't they like it? What would they change? What would they do differently? and how would they do it? They don't seem to be able to say anything other than they want "better".
These clowns are the biggest threat to Brexit, and they are doing it for their own ulterior motivations.
Pitiful and pathetic.
|
A tweet by Nicholas Soames, who ISTR has a less than perfect past, is quoted in that article.
"I am truly dismayed at the dismal behaviour of some of my Colleagues parading their letters to Graham Brady on TV in a vulgar and pathetic display of inferior virtue signalling #getagripwhatabouttheNationalInterest"
I fully agree with it, and it's a good hashtag too.
I wonder if many others are getting fed up with politicians of all colours interfering. I know I am.
|
I haven't had a proper chance to read those links yet and try and keep up with today's goings-on as I'm working all weekend and by default, that means I'm working from home today and Monday too.
But surely Michael Gove had some ideas as to what he wanted to try and change but wasn't allowed to try and re-negotiate?
I suspect his decision not to resign will be conditional on him accepting the previous job offer but also on his own terms.
Smokie, why do you feel it is wrong for him to want to go back to EU and ask for a better offer, surely that has always got to be the next step?
I don't know anyone who accepts the first full and final offer they get.
Pat
|
>>I don't know anyone who accepts the first full and final offer they get.
This isn't the first offer. It may well be the final offer though.
Which bits would you want improved or changed?
|
OK, please bear in mind I haven't read the links yet and I do really want to. I appreciate that Mark has posted his views on it and it makes interesting reading but I need to read it for myself too.
In the limited time I've had today, one thing I would like changed is a definite end date and the ability to leave without the agreement of the EU in the future.
I fear there will be no agreement about the Irish Border and that will be used to keep us in with all the benefits lost, but all the deficts payable forever.
As I understand it we need to wait to see details of the Political Declaration to get the full details and I think that Gove thinks he can have a bit of influence on that at this stage.....I think he may well be right.
I think it unreasonable of TM not to let him try where she may have failed.
Small concessions would be good and help acceptance from everyone.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 15:47
|
>>one thing I would like changed is a definite end date and the ability to leave without the agreement of the EU in the future.
The end date can only be changed with our agreement. And we can always leave without permission. It would result in a catastrophic situation, as it would be No Deal but with added confusion and anger, but we could do it.
Nobody will enter into a negotiation or compromise with a party that can just wander off whenever they like without ramifications. Not the EU, not the UK and not any commercial organisation.
>>I fear there will be no agreement about the Irish Border and that will be used to keep us in with all the benefits lost, but all the deficts payable forever.
There are some safeguards in there about how the EU must behave, what it's attitude must be, and what level of justification it needs to reject an agreement.
The backstop of the Customs Area covering the EU and the UK is, I think, a good one. HOWEVER, there is no doubt that we would have to define the detail of that agreement and ensure that the conditions that came with such an agreement were acceptable.
To be honest I quite like the idea that we could have a Customs agreement *with* the EU* rather than being part of the EU customs area. That ought to come with quite a lot of the benefits but without a lot of annoying intrusions.
But, it would come with conditions and we'd have to go through it carefully and watch what we signed up to. It may well be in this are that Gove thinks he could add value. And he's probably right.
>>Small concessions would be good and help acceptance from everyone.
Such as what? I cannot think of anything which would not already have been argued.
>>I think it unreasonable of TM not to let him try where she may have failed.
Difficult to say. When one is negotiating, especially in a difficult negotiation, it is very important that the other side believes that you are the one they should be negotiating with. If they think it is perhaps someone else, then concessions are difficult to achieve.
So I can quite see that in this case it is quite reasonable for her to say that someone else may not interfere. However, if Gove comes up with something that she hasn't thought of, then it would be reasonable for HER to go back to negotiate that point. But I think that is quite unlikely.
As I said yesterday, there may be things not to like, but it is difficult to see improvements, alternatives or room for change. That's what makes the behaviour of some of the idiot politicians so reprehensible.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:31
|
It hurt to do it, but I have given you a thumbs up for that post:)
Pat
|
>>It hurt to do it, but I have given you a thumbs up for that post:)
Well, thank you. And don't worry, it'll get easier with practice.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 16:23
|
The sad thing is....I would have loved to have had this type of discussion on here over the last 2 years.
I have felt politically deprived!
Pat
|
>>The sad thing is....I would have loved to have had this type of discussion on here over the last 2 years.
Well I have been having them for the past two years. I take my comments seriously and, believe it or not, if I don't know what I'm talking about I don't say it in the first place. It doesn't stop me being wrong of course, but it makes it less likely than you might think.
But I suggest we forget the past. We're having them now.
|
>> The sad thing is....I would have loved to have had this type of discussion on here over the last 2 years.
You're not the only one, I'm sure ;)
|
>>It hurt to do it, but I have given you a thumbs up for that post:)
If you are going to read the 500 page document then well done, but let me give you some tips.
For your first pass read only the first part (or thereabouts) of each Article within the Protocol. This will enable you to build up a picture of how it fits together without initially going into the detail.
The stuff about right to remain is reciprocal and reasonable, but quite long. I'd leave that till last and perhaps not bother with it at all. It stops all new immigration, though you may think the rights given to those who have come to the UK before the end of the transition period a bit loose, but I think that's quite minor in the scheme of things..
NI is around page 300. You should read that entirely. [and remember there are implications relevant to this in the relevant Annex].
If I were you I wouldn't bother with the financial stuff. It is all in accordance with our legal obligations and whilst you may not like it, it is what it is.
The Annex after the Protocol is very important. That you ought to read with care.
It does do some stuff you will think important. e.g. Whilst the ECJ has jurisdiction during the transition is states that it does not afterwards. Be prepared for the future though, because this will be a prime target for BEANO and will get compromised or worked around..
Overall remember that this is a transition agreement, not the final exit deal, though obviously some parts of it will be carried forward.
|
Thanks. in all honesty it's likely to be the early hours of Tuesday morning now. I did have a quick look this morning but realised that I needed to read it carefully and devote some time to it.
Political Declaration...any guidance on that?
Pat
|
At some stage we have to accept that the deal is what it is. Mark has spent a long time reading and summarising the deal here and from what he says it appears to me to be a fair outcome which ultimately delivers what the politicians think you voted for.
Based on what TM said yesterday ( - that this is the result of thousands of man hours of effort), and what I've previously read , it is far from being the first full and final offer. Negotiations have been going on for ages, way too long in some peoples view, but my own view it was right that it should be done in an orderly fashion.
However this is only a draft. If someone other than the rather excitable politicians or media can describe why it's not a reasonable compromise, and what needs to be done to improve that, and if that is a reasonable and appropriate then it seems to me is scope to adjust it. But we could go on forever not achieving anything except pandering to a few egos.
What do you think is wrong with it then?
|
|
Not only is it a draft, it is a draft of the transition agreement, not of the future position outside the EU.
|
>> a fair outcome which ultimately delivers what the politicians think you voted for.
The referendum outcome was to leave EU.
TM's deal is about remaining in EU, in worse term than present.*
Because:
During transition period UK has to follow all EU rules (which is same as staying in EU).
UK will have to pay £40-£50 billion yet no say.
Transition can be extended (without any limit specified).
* = may be that's intentional to gather support in favour of remaining in EU
|
What do you believe a transition period is for?
What do you mean the UK must pay with no say? We only have to pay what we signed up to and agreed to pay. And there will also be money coming our way over the next 9 years.
The transition can ONLY be extended with our agreement.
And how is it worse? The only decisions or discussions we are excluded from are those that will take effect *AFTER* the end of transition.
Really, go and read the document. Newspapers in general, and their headlines in particular, are not the place to inform your opinions.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 16:07
|
>> What do you believe a transition period is for?
Article 50 extension.
I tried to read the 580+ page document. Lost interest. Don't have time either. Language is very terse - not something I use on a day to day work.
If message is not clear and unambiguous, people with fill the blanks with imagination i.e. their own interpretation.
It is less important what the document contains. It is more important what people think about what it contains. It is the perception that matters.
You might get upset about it but world moves on perception (and not always on facts).
How many people you personally know have read the 580+ pages end to end?
|
>>I tried to read the 580+ page document. Lost interest.
Your words are the words of a fool. I could not possibly add to the image you create.
We'll leave the conversation there, shall we.
I undertook not to rise to silliness.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 18:51
|
>> >> What do you believe a transition period is for?
>>
>> Article 50 extension.
>>
>> I tried to read the 580+ page document. Lost interest.
And at that point you lost the credibility to comment about the agreement, or make any of your famous summaries. In fact you just admitted you became an irrelevance.
|
>>
>> I don't know anyone who accepts the first full and final offer they get.
>>
>> Pat
>>
I take it that you support a second referendum then, Pat
|
>> I don't know anyone who accepts the first full and final offer they get.
>>
>> Pat
Its not the first final offer, its the end of a series of backwards and forwards proposals. So its the last offer.
|
www.bbc.com/news/uk-46241693
Comment on Steve Barclay and a bit more on the replacement of resigning twits.
Also, there is a video on this link.
It's a bit dumbed down, but fundamentally it appears to be factually correct.
The one comment I would make is that when the lady is talking about the DUP position on NI, do notice that she says "could", not "will".
It is not a replacement for reading the document, but you should realise that these are the most important and newsworthy things that the BBC could find to say. Kind of making you wonder what the furore is about.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:30
|
Read all of this. *THIS* is why people who want to leave should be telling their MPs to support this deal.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46233813
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 16 Nov 18 at 18:52
|
A mild ticking orf for Cameron and, if the cap fits:
1. Cameron failed to invoke Article 50 the day after the referendum as he had promised
2. Cameron ran away in pique despite his promise to see it through and left a rudderless ship of state
3. The Tories elected a Remainer from a cast of one with a proven track record of scheming, briefing and relying on a secretive coterie of advisers
4. The government delays and procrastination allowed Parliament and third parties to muscle in on what should have been a straightforward execution of government policy. In effect the referendum campaign was allowed to continue after the referendum. The Remain bloc were allowed to operate like an opposition party.
5. The EU nationals in UK issue was a massive, manufactured red herring, totally premature but created an atmosphere of reaction rather than action by government
6. The government accepted the EU timetable and schedule for negotiation. They should have walked away at that stage, declaring the EU impossible to negotiate with on the basis of equals
7. The EU operated divide and rule from the start, interfering in UK domestic politics with Barnier agreeing to meet with UK third parties who had no business negotiating anything. The UK government should have immediately demanded Barnier's disqualification as negotiator
8. The whole process has been dragged out rather than delivered as a short, sharp shock. This allowed vested interests to peddle a confidence sapping continuum of Project Fear and at the same time allowed concerns about an unknown future to become a massive whingefest. All concerned would have had to rapidly adapt to a fait accompli and would have done so, as they have for 40 years of imposed EU rules, regulation and red tape.
9. Ireland was allowed to interfere instead of being firmly told to keep out of it. The British government should have declared that whatever happened regarding their border with the Irish Republic they would tolerate no return of 'troubles' and would take whatever action was necessary to protect the people of Northern Ireland.
10. Instead of backing Britain the EU fifth column worked against the interests of their own country from the start and the government allowed it with no harsh words, no attempt to shame them, no threats of retribution post-Brexit for those who had failed to get behind the country.
www.conservativewoman.co.uk/where-do-we-go-from-here/
|
|
'Fifth column' really? I don't think such articles are helpful, especially now.
|
1. Not really important other than as a judgement of Cameron
2. Ditto
3. She's done ok, I think.
4. "allowed to continue"? There was nothing top be done about controlling the people or their media. Not really a very valid point.
5. EU Freedom of movement is a massive red herring in its entirety. We make a significant profit, (Billions) from EU immigrants.
6. Not a valid point. It was mostly dictated by process.
7. I don't agree. Even were it true surely that is as much the fault of the people sticking their nose in
8. Not accurate. The schedule was determined by the documented process and was inevitable. If you mean the length of the transition, then let me tell you it is not long enough and will need to be at least a year longer in my opinion.
9. Ireland is not interfering. It has very legitimate concerns. In fact, if you look at the websites the Irish government maintains informing its people and companies of the situation, I would say that they are probably the most informative and objective in Europe.
10. Fifth column? Really? In league with the Tooth Fairies and Father Christmas I assume. Such a comment devalues anything else you might say.
|
>> 9. Ireland was allowed to interfere instead of being firmly told to keep out of
>> it. The British government should have declared that whatever happened regarding their border with the
>> Irish Republic they would tolerate no return of 'troubles' and would take whatever action was
>> necessary to protect the people of Northern Ireland.
How would that work then?
|
How would that work then?
Maybe by not colluding with republican terrorists ?
|
>> The British government should have declared that whatever happened regarding their border with the
>> Irish Republic they would tolerate no return of 'troubles' and would take whatever action was
>> necessary to protect the people of Northern Ireland.
Perhaps they should have used this opportunity to get rid of Northern Ireland, although I suspect The Republic of Ireland doesn't want Northern Ireland either.
|
Perhaps they should have used this opportunity to get rid of Northern Ireland, although I suspect The Republic of Ireland doesn't want Northern Ireland either
A province of the UK that voted democratically to remain part of the UK (A bit like the democratic process that's taking us out of the EU only more so)
|
You can see what';s going to happen here can't you.
TM took responsibility for the lion's share of producing the document while other sat in the wings watching her suffering at the hands of the press, and generally being, at best, less than supportive, but at times downright disruptive and disloyal.
Press and MPs moan about the finished draft.
Along comes MP number 2 (currently seems to be Andrea Leadsom), very publicly tweaks it around a bit around the edges and fluffs it up without making much significant change, gets approving press, then takes all the credit, and possibly the top job.
Where were the magnificent five when TM< was drafting it? Did they not see any obligation to offer some assistance at that time?
Slimeballs, the lot of them.
(Or maybe that was always the game plan. Who knows?)
|
|
We need a revolution. Heads need to go on spikes. Its a pity the Armed forces are so weakened, a military coup would go down well.
|
>> We need a revolution. Heads need to go on spikes. Its a pity the Armed
>> forces are so weakened, a military coup would go down well.
>>
Indeed, at least the current CDS isn't as puritanical as the last one we had. I'm sure dancing won't be outlawed. ;-)
|
> Where were the magnificent five when TM< was drafting it? Did they not see any
>> obligation to offer some assistance at that time?
>>
My understanding of it is that the PM was hands on throughout and didn't let many come near it. She wasn't open to much in the way of suggestions.
Now how true that is, I don't know but that is one of the accusations levelled at her. It would explain why they can only get their ideas (valid or not) heard now.
How true it is, again I don't know, but it is possible imo.
|
>> My understanding of it is that the PM was hands on throughout and didn't let
>> many come near it. She wasn't open to much in the way of suggestions.
That was reputedly her MO in the Home Office. Explains why both Davis and Raab had necessary deniability when they resigned.
|
That was reputedly her MO in the Home Office. Explains why both Davis and Raab had necessary deniability when they resigned.
Which is how the Police got filleted no doubt. "It's all about crime"- when front line cops were and still are part time paramedics, mental health workers and social workers.
|
Surely TM didn't hold all the necessary thousands of hours of talks and go on to write a 580+ page document single handed, all while running a country...? She demands the utmost respect if she did!!
No, there was a whole BREXIT department working on it. What was David Davies up to for all that time if it wasn't leading to this document? Are we saying they didn't know what TM was up to?
Anyway even if it that is the case, they are still slimeballs :-)
|
|
My guess is that there were few different versions of this document based on different strategies. At the end TM decided on which version to go for, some final tweaks were made and then revealed to public.
|
>> My guess is that there were few different versions of this document based on different
>> strategies. At the end TM decided on which version to go for, some final tweaks
>> were made and then revealed to public.
So your guess is that various streams of negotiations were developed, complete with different compromises, agreements and terms, and all were accepted by both parties, nd then TM chose one?
I assume that you have never been involved in contract negotiations because not only would that be a nonsense, it wouldn't work. You couldn't make a compromise in one stream and then refuse to do it in another, you couldn't sat that something was acceptable in on document and then say it was not in the other.
Even without any practical experience, surely common sense would tell you that?
|
>> No, there was a whole BREXIT department working on it. What was David Davies up
>> to for all that time if it wasn't leading to this document? Are we saying
>> they didn't know what TM was up to?
Of course there is an army of Civil Servants involved. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
What's widely stated is that neither Raab nor Davis had much of a role in negotiation most of which rested with the PM and her Europe Advisor Olly Robbins whom she also appointed Perm Sec of Department for exiting EU.
At one stage satirists were having a field day over how little time Davis spent in Brussels.
|
>> Surely TM didn't hold all the necessary thousands of hours of talks and go on
>> to write a 580+ page document single handed, all while running a country...? She demands
>> the utmost respect if she did!!
>>
>
No of course not, but she (by all accounts ) doesn't know how to delegate nor come up with a plan that is/was acceptable to those carrying out the task.
Now it almost certainly is political opportunism but there may be two sides to the story.
|
|
Julia Hartley-Brewer's Brexit Special: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gpqZtRD5oc
|
|
I managed 3mins 31 seconds. What utterly mindless dross.
|
|
I do agree this lady talks out her backside.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46212838
The transition can last until 20xx.
|
Article 132.
The UK and the EU MUST agree to an extension. If the UK does not agree, it cannot happen.
Guess you got tired too soon.
Brexit Discussion - Volume 67 - movilogo - Fri 16 Nov 18 18:44
"I tried to read the 580+ page document. Lost interest."
|
If UK and EU both agree then transition can last up to 2099.
Full document is here.
tinyurl.com/ycvv953w
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 18 Nov 18 at 07:07
|
>> If UK and EU both agree then transition can last up to 2099.
But I thought your line was that EU had a veto on us leaving........
|
As I understand unless EU agrees, UK can't exit Ireland backstop unless treating NI differently from GB.
Which UK unlikely to do.
So one hand it says transition can be extended upon both UK EU agreement, on other hand UK can't end Ireland backstop.
Since there is a strong force in UK government supporting remain and rules are written in ambiguous manner, and no hard end date is written to exit EU, very likely that both UK and EU will always agree to keep UK forever in EU.
Here UK politicans at fault more than EU.
My opinion is that this draft is written simply to push back any discussion until 2020. Then depending on whether TM still remains PM she will extend it until 20XX and doesn't care any more because she will take herself out of politics by then and it will become someone else's problem.
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 18 Nov 18 at 09:14
|
|
As an aside, does the PM actually need to get the vote in parliament? I thought it was mentioned she could use royal perogative ?
|
|
The Goverment long back promised parliament a vote on the final agreement.
|
|
I know, I'm wondering if the vote actually means anything in a technical sense. I get the symbolism of losing the vote.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 18 Nov 18 at 09:50
|
>> The Goverment long back promised parliament a vote on the final agreement.
Yes but did parliament win a vote on that? I cant rememberer, because if they didn't the gov doesn't need to hold one. "political promises = valueless"
|
I've recently read that legally or constitutionally only the government can conclude deals. Apparently in the whole of our history parliament has never negotiated or concluded a deal, and has no power to do so.
Perhaps analogous to shareholders and directors?
|
>>As I understand unless EU agrees, UK can't exit Ireland backstop unless treating NI differently from GB.
The UK can exit from anything it chooses. Not without ramifications of course.
Let me try to make it simple for you.
Imagine you take a job at a company and sign a contract that says you will give 6 months notice of resignation. Then, one day, you tell them that you are not going to work the next day or ever returning.
Presumably you understand that they cannot force you to remain in that job and cannot force you to keep coming to work?
Of course, they won't pay you a notice period, your last salary, may refuse to give you references etc. etc. So typically unless you had a very good reason then it would not be a good thing to do.
But you could.
Have you finally read the whole document, because you previously said it was too tiring for you but now you are passing judgement on the language?
There is no ambiguity in the document. There are more areas to be agreed, but no ambiguity. I understand that English is your second language, perhaps that is causing you problems in understanding the phrasing? Perfectly understandable, but you might want to bear it in mind.
>>My opinion is that this draft is written simply to push back any discussion until 2020.
But didn't you say TM had loads of different variations negotiated, agreed and documented before she chose one. Why on earth would she do all that just to push back any discussion until 2020.
And what do you mean *any discussion*? What do you think is going on now?
And I think you are getting hung up on the date written as "20xx". It is written like that simply because nobody knows if the UK will ask for an extension or what extension it might ask for.
Surely you understand that?
|
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/parliament-and-brexit-deal
The link is to a think tank. I don't know what angle, if any they have. But it seems a serious and sensible website.
|
>> CandUB.
>>
What's that mean?
|
|
Sorry, from another place. "Complete and Utter Bastard"
|
Of course whilst all this brexit soap opera is going on, the country is going to the dogs.
record poverty
record homelessness
record use of foodbanks
ficticious use of employment stats
and sanctions and universal credits continue to make these figures worse.
never mind, forget all them, let the Tory millionaires continue their infighting and **** the rest of us.
|
|
If you don't like it, then get involved. Bitching from the sidelines won't change much.
|
How do you get involved?
Many , many people more powerful and important than me trying to do that and failing because it doesn't matter to those in charge who rule.
Sanctions, universal credit system are causing poverty, suicides, mental health issues, deaths but the current elected government think thats ok. Or at least its an acceptable by product of their policies.
|
>>How do you get involved?
Well, firstly I can assure you that however much success or attention you may achieve if you try, it'll be considerably more than sitting on your backside bitching.
Vote responsibly. Turn up to council meetings. Stand for council. Stand up for political meetings. Write to newspapers. Write to MPs. Write to anyone who can read. Put some effort into understand the issues and compromises that takes you beyond just botching into actually understanding. Explain the issues to everyone you meet. Put forward well thought-out alternatives and suggestions not just making sarky and facetious comments about Tory millionaires. Join focus groups, join opinion groups, stand up on public forums, become respected or recognised for the quality of your opinions. etc. etc. etc.
A sign of your lack of willingness to put any actual effort in would be asking someone else what effort you could put in.
I don't really think my opinion has much weight in the world, but I am d.f. sure it has more impact than if I said nothing. And everybody I come across knows my opinions on things I think are important.
If you put as much effort into trying to be involved as you seemingly put into complaining about what others do and excusing your lack of participation because you don't think people would listen, then perhaps you could make a difference.
Who knows? but not trying is unforgivable in my mind.
[ and yes, I do or have done *all* of those things, and more.]
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:32
|
>> I don't really think my opinion has much weight in the world, but I am
>> d.f. sure it has more impact than if I said nothing. And everybody I come
>> across knows my opinions on things I think are important.
You should join Mumsnet. Far more people to tell there than on here.
|
|
I am a member and I find it unbearably awful.
|
Oh I dunno, I've had some good suggestions from the mums on paint colours for my east-facing dining room.
Done it in B&Q Antique White cos brilliant white is no bueno for my 18th century cottidge.
|
Record poverty?
Really? Where is your proof? How far back are you going? Define “poverty”.
|
OK maybe not record poverty but according to Joseph Rowntree foundation, one in 5 of the UK population is in poverty. 14 million people .
i'd say thats a pretty crap state of affairs wouldnt you?
|
>>OK maybe not record poverty
And so why say it? Because it is that sort of emotional, tabloid, inaccurate rhetoric that devalues anything else you might say.
|
you taken the bad mood pills tonight?
|
>>you taken the bad mood pills tonight?
Yes, sorry, my apologies.
But whilst I should have been more polite and respectful, I do think it is possible to be more involved rather than throw rocks for the sidelines
|
No FM2R, I am just very frustrated that the whole brexit debates have taken the eye off, for me, is a much more pressing issue.
Every day, through my personal and working life, I see the harsh realities for the poorer members of society and I do not believe the current government is doing anything to help them.
And apologies for throwing rocks but sometimes I think its justified to remind people (in my personal life as opposed to here) that whilst all this brexit talk is taking the headlines, more people are landing on the streets, more people cannot feed themselves, people are dying through this governments actions.
For some people, this is just not on their radar, they either do not see it, do not believe it, are not bothered by it or deliberately turn a blind eye to it.
And it annoys me. It annoys me in a country of this wealth, that this is happening.
Yes I tweet about it, I involve local groups, I attend Councillor meetings, I use social media to highlight it, I join protests, I collect and help at foodbanks. But there is such a vast balance of power in favour of the wealthy that sadly I do not see an end to it. Far too many stats are able to be hidden in red tape bureaucracy. People commit suicide due to sanctions, people die waiting for judgements but there is never anything done about it. Just another statistic.
Too many politicians are in this for themselves and for vote pleasers. And for the record, I do not necessarily think a change to Labour would make any difference. And that is a sad indictment on Labour and what is is "supposed" to stand for.
We have became a media and celeb and power society, unless someone famous takes this up as a cause and gathers momentum, then it wont happen. And I don't mean Bono and Geldof!!
|
Bobby,
If I could give your 20:57 post five thumbs I would.
|
>> Too many politicians are in this for themselves and for vote pleasers. And for the
>> record, I do not necessarily think a change to Labour would make any difference. And
>> that is a sad indictment on Labour and what is is "supposed" to stand for.
You are 100% correct. And it annoys me every bit as is annoys you.
However, is that a reflection of the stupidity of the politician or the voter?
Because politicians will do whatever it takes to be voted back into power. Whatever opinions, stances, behaviour or attitudes.
And they are clearly good at it, because they are still in power.
That, in fact, is one of the key reasons I end up in ranting in places like this forum. It's a desperate need to get through to the voters.
So what worries me about Farage, Trump and the rest of the pathetic, shallow, lazy, self-centred, hypocritical, two-faced, facetious, lying twits?
The people who voted for them.
>> We have became a media and celeb and power society, unless someone famous takes this
>> up as a cause and gathers momentum, then it wont happen. And I don't mean
>> Bono and Geldof!!
If it is not on the front page of a tabloid, then it doesn't exist. If it is on the front page of a tabloid, then it is gospel.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:32
|
>>there is such a vast balance of power in favour of the wealthy
There we disagree.
It is not an excess of power to the wealthy that is the issue, it is the inability of the electorate to get their faces out of the latest salacious celebrity gossip which causes the imbalance.
|
It is power to the wealthy - wealth buys you power. It buys silence, it buys lobbying power, it buys bribes, it buys advertising space. It buys entry into wealthy circles. It buys coverage. it buys better solicitors, accountants. It buys you writs!
>>It is not an excess of power to the wealthy that is the issue, it is the inability of the electorate to get their faces out of the latest salacious celebrity gossip which causes the imbalance.
a total thread drift but I do not like the latest JL advert because it goes back to celeb power - using a Celeb to plug your product. JL has always been about the magic of Christmas, the man on the moon etc. Its the easiest, and laziest form of advertising, just to pay a celeb to plug your product. And yes, the fact that so many speak about it means it has served its purpose, doesn't stop me not liking it though!
|
>>i'd say thats a pretty crap state of affairs wouldnt you?
obviously you don't
|
The first thing you need to establish is whether it is trie or not. This is a useful source for impartial statistics,
fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/
|
>> Record poverty?
>>
>> Really? Where is your proof? How far back are you going? Define “poverty”.
There are some numbers here:
fullfact.org/economy/one-in-five-poverty/
And some explanation of the terminology here:
fullfact.org/economy/poverty-uk-guide-facts-and-figures/
Key number (IMHO) is poverty after housing costs.
In brief the percentage in relative poverty, excluded from the activities and opportunities that the average person enjoys, is rising slightly but has bounced around in same quartile for years. Maybe that tells us something about averages...
I find the chart for absolute poverty (eat or heat) showing a steep fall either side of turn of century followed by 'steady state' more difficult to comprehend. Were 40% of population really in that state in early nineties? I guess the answer must be yes.
The sharp drop is presumably the impact of reforms to 'in work' benefits and in particular Working/Child Tax Credits.
I would be interested to see another graph focused on very recent years, particularly since the benefit cap, and also one comparing people on Universal Credit with those with legacy benefits.
|
FFS.
As one of the commenters noted, “The intellect of a boiled cabbage.”
Leave-voting MP Nadine Dorries slams May's Brexit deal because UK won’t have seats in European parliament
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nadie-dorries-slams-brexit-deal-leave-remain-jk-rowling-a8639216.html
|
|
Whats your thoughts on all the information Carole Cadwalladr is uncovering between Farage, Banks, Trump, Cambridge Analytica etc?
|
Mine?
Complete and utter lack of surprise.
I detest party or partisan politics. I am not a Labour voter or a Tory voter, I try and vote how seems sensible at the moment in time. However I largely think that party politics has had its day.
How can one possibly think that a politician's stance on Health care, his stance on corporation taxation and his stance on immigration are all connected and will suit me because of the party he is in?
Labour, party of the common man, Conservative, party of the privilege person, and Liberals, some kind of wish washy in between is just not how it is. The right doesn't care what you want, the left tells you what you want.
These are [mostly] not honourable people trying to do their best for the country, they are people trying to do what they want and say anything that will get them elected.
What we need, what we desperately need, more than anything else, is for people to have a proper look at what and who they are voting for.
I don't care if someone votes or thinks differently to me, that's what the system is for. But vote the way you do because you understand the issues and the implications, not because The Sun or the Daily Mail tell you to. [And I do not mean any person in particular]
As an aside...
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/18/the-chilling-undertones-of-andrew-neil-mad-cat-woman-tweet
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 18 Nov 18 at 22:19
|
I agree with you and yes I meant you! :)
One of the problems we have with our democracy is do our elected represenatives vote in Parliament based on what the people who voted them into power would want, or what their party leader / whip would want?
This is very clear in Brexit, an MP will know whether their constituency voted stay or leave so should they be voting in parliament accordingly in line with that?
Historically lib dems campaigned on no tuition fees but then allowed them in return for coalition.
Not sure if twitter links work here, but this MP's stance of going straight into party spin really annoys me. Going back to one of my early points, this is someone who just does not want to know about whats happening in real world. Maybe its not the real world for him?
twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1064108567869952000
|
We vote for these clowns,
What is needed is huge mass boycott at the next election. If the turnout is low, and I mean really low, say 5% or lower those elected will realise, quite starkly, they dont have a mandate.
It might, just might be possible to get an idea like that viral on social media
|
It wouldn't work. As far as they would be concerned, they're in power which is what they wanted.
Now, if you could get Boaty McBoatface to stand in an election and actually get elected, that might work. Might make the clowns wake up and pay attention.
But then the US tried that and it hasn't gone well
|
We vote for these clowns,
What is needed is huge mass boycott at the next election. If the turnout is low, and I mean really low, say 5% or lower those elected will realise, quite starkly, they dont have a mandate.
It might, just might be possible to get an idea like that viral on social media
|
I think that what you are overlooking is that it was a vote by the population of the UK that got us into this mess. Parliament, however dumb you may consider some MPs to be would not have voted to leave let alone consider a hard. Brexit had there not been a referendum.
We had a representative system for a reason that has long been recognised. The population as a whole are not in a position to make decisions on complex issues. You have only to listen to any radio phone in on Brexit to prove this.
|
>>however dumb you may consider some MPs to be
Whilst some are a dumb as clay, most of them are not. They are simply motivated by being in power and will do or say whatever it takes to keep themselves there.
If we judged them by the stuff that matters, for example their keeping of promises and commitments, then it'd work fine. But we don't.
As long as they don't get busted by the media for doing something naughty, then we'll just keep voting for them for as long as they are a member of the right party.
|
>>What is needed is huge mass boycott at the next election. If the turnout is low, and I mean really low, say 5% or lower those elected will realise, quite starkly, they dont have a mandate.
I reckon that's a given anyway, plus there are multitudes, like me who will vote Labour as a scorched-earth policy.
|
>> I reckon that's a given anyway, plus there are multitudes, like me who will vote
>> Labour as a scorched-earth policy.
That you cant be trusted with a vote is beyond doubt.
|
>>That you cant be trusted with a vote is beyond doubt.
What good is that vote, if the political party Con-cerned doesn't carry out their manifesto (public declaration of policy)
|
>>I agree with you and yes I meant you! :)
Careful, that sort of behaviour can play havoc with your sanity. And your credibility.
|
My points are:
1. 99.99% of UK population would not read the 585 pages (including leader of opposition) and it is not even necessary for everyone to read the document. A lot of people will make comments even without reading the document but this is normail.
2. It is not necessary to read entire document line by line to understand what it content. There is a concept called "skim reading" which is often useful for reading long documents. Skim reading is a skill that can be acquired with practice.
Everyone has different opinion of the document and people might validate it differently from others.
I judged its worth via following question:
Q: As per the document, how long the EU 4 freedoms will continue?
A: Untill 20XX with no value defined for XX.
So, I concluded that this document is more about how to remain in EU (and claiming it is about leaving) under the name of transition period for an indefinite period of time.
Barnier is already talking about extending it to 2022.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/18/brexit-transition-could-be-extended-to-2022-says-barnier
|
>> Barnier is already talking about extending it to 2022.
Now to put this into a different context, one not coloured and misrepresented
Barnier is offering us the option to extend.
See the subtle, sorry glaringly obvious difference? No you dont do you.
|
>>Now to put this into a different context, one not coloured and misrepresented
>>Barnier is offering us the option to extend.
Precisely, because if we don't agree to it, then it can't happen.
|
>>Everyone has different opinion of the document and people might validate it differently from others.
Not if they've read it.
>>So, I concluded that this document is more about how to remain in EU
On what have you based that?
This?
>>I judged its worth via following question:
>>Q: As per the document, how long the EU 4 freedoms will continue?
>>A: Untill 20XX with no value defined for XX.
The correct answer is the end of 2020 UNLESS WE AGREE TO AN EXTENSION.
Why is that so difficult?
I think I cannot be bothered answering your dross anymore, you put no effort into understanding or listening and just recycle headlines and the same points.
If someone else wishes to pick up your points then that is up to them. For me I see no value in doing so.
So crack on....
|
>> My points are:
>>
>> 1. 99.99% of UK population would not read the 585 pages (including leader of opposition)
>> and it is not even necessary for everyone to read the document. A lot of
>> people will make comments even without reading the document but this is normail.
Normal, but of little value unless they have looked at a competent summary instead
>> 2. It is not necessary to read entire document line by line to understand what
>> it content. There is a concept called "skim reading" which is often useful for reading
>> long documents. Skim reading is a skill that can be acquired with practice.
Maybe hot shot lawyers who live and breathe documents like this can rapid-read them, but I don't think skim reading for the rest of us (including me and I have done a lot of contract negotiations) is of any value. You only need to miss a sentence, or even a single word such as "not" in the middle of a paragraph, and you will get completely the wrong sense of it. Clauses with qualifying sub-clauses and cross references also need good verbal reasoning skills. Line byline is the only way.
Most of the contracts I have done needed CEO authority. They never read them, but I did provide a plain-language summary and if I had left anything material out that had come to light with adverse consequences I would have been fired - I always got the in-house lawyers to read it through for me.
>>
>> I judged its worth via following question:
>>
>> Q: As per the document, how long the EU 4 freedoms will continue?
>> A: Untill 20XX with no value defined for XX.
>>
>> So, I concluded that this document is more about how to remain in EU (and
>> claiming it is about leaving) under the name of transition period for an indefinite period
>> of time.
I wouldn't say that is significant at all. It is the date to which the transition agreement can be extended, which would be one of the things to agree. IMO it will be UK that will be wanting an extension, and the Union is obliged to act reasonably and therefore try in good faith to agree a date that works for us. What more would you demand?
This is a draft, albeit it 'final' one - I suspect that bit should have been tidied up without changing the sense, as it will be in the executed document if it comes to it.
|
So, I have beeb listening to Corbyn's speech and his objections, and quite honestly I don't really understand his points. Well, most of them anyway.
Given that he is the Leader of the Opposition and speaking in the House one has to at least admit the possibility that I am missing something. I need to read more of his stuff, but for now...
Corbyn says this is an indefinite agreement and the UK has no real say.
Well, it's not indefinite. There are real end dates in there. It says that by the end of 2020 it must be agreed unless we request an extension.
He made big of the 20XX comment, which surely he understands is simply a place holder for an unknown date. And it is not the date the agreement will run to, it is the date that an extension could be required to.
He also makes big of the fact that we must pay for any extension. What it actually says is that if we ask for an extension to the transition period, then we must continue to keep paying our contributions for as long as we continue. Pretty obvious really, is it not?
And if we don't agree to an extension, it doesn't apply.
I think he is fundamentally confused between a document which describes transition and the finally Relationship Document for after Exit.
He is enthusiastic that the NI Backstop agreement makes NI face different rules to the rest of the UK. It doesn't. In fact we don't have to have the Backstop at all, but we don't ant any hard borders between NI & I or NI & UK, so what does he want to happen?
He then says we cannot get out of it without EU Agreement. That isn't true. There are safeguards about the EU behaviour, and if we cannot agree with them, then it goes to independent arbitration. What does he want to happen instead?
Because, we can walk away any time we like with a hard border. Absolutely any time we like. That is what the law says must be there, that is what we have agreed should be there, it is just NOT what we want. Neither does the EU of course.
*WE* are after something extra here, a soft border.
He says that we have agreed to ECJ jurisdiction. We haven't. The transition draft says that ECJ jurisdiction applies until the end of transition, and then it emphatically does not.
He then says that it should be fully aligned on the EU laws around Workers' Rights. Well I don't know much about those, and I don't think I care enough to look since what he is asking for is alignment to a set of laws WHICH ARE OVERSEEN BY THE ECJ.
Either his response is very shabby relying on grandstanding and impressing the tabloids, or I am missing something.
The one thing he said which seems to be valid is the comment about Workers Rights, though I am not clear on what the difference is. I presume he is talking about the standard Labour stuff around Unions and Workers. And that seems to be the one area where he wants more and continued alignment with the EU and the ECJ.
~Unless he is talking about Workers Right to Remain, and that *IS* covered. Albeit by the longest section in a document which he accepts he has not actually read anyway.
I don't know nor have I ever met Corbyn. But it would appear to me that he is not all that bright and is being told what to say. He appears to be there to throw mud, without really explaining either the mud or the alternative.
May be it's me.
Got an Opinion on Corbyn's reaction Bromp??
|
>>www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-46253745/don-t-try-and-patronise-me-marr-tells-chakrabarti
Again Labour with their stated desire for the closest possible relationship with the EU and Workers Rights.
Is this the entirety of their disagreement with the draft?
|
>>Got an Opinion on Corbyn's reaction Bromp??
Looks as though he was speaking to CBI conference. Guardian report here:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/18/jeremy-corbyn-to-set-out-labour-alternative-to-pms-brexit-plan
I'm working all day today and it's pretty manic so no time to look further for detail.
Fairly clear though that Corbyn and Keir Starmer are singing from different sheets. KS seems committed to idea of referendum #2. In spite of conference decision in favour of that Jezza is still resiling from option.
|
|
I recently posted a link to the Political Statement. That document will be involving so it ought to be worth checking back to it. Also there should be / will be a mirror document from the EU.
|
I've been trying to read through Withdrawal document bit by bit before work each morning and I've only got to Page 204 but reading the posts on here, and also noting how quickly things are changing on the Political scene I thought it might make it easier to catch up to date (if only to all VX to have his OCD about splitting threads!)
Yes, it's not an easy read and there's a couple of questions I could do with answering before I get to the important parts.
Who has actually put the document together?
Who and what jurisdiction does The Joint Committee have?
Google isn't much help on these two.
Thoughts to date: Part 2 Article 9 Citizens Rights.
I am very happy with all aspects of this section and it does contain all that I had hoped for.
Article 50 & 53 Goods placed on the Market
More or less ok with all of this just a little concerned with the references to this 'United Kingdom shall pay without delay to the Union the best estimates amount and the Joint Committee shall determine the manner in which the difference between the actual costs incurred and the best estimates amount is to be addressed.'
There doesn't seem to be much negotiating on the correct amount.
ECJ section, I'm happy with that.
I'll press on with the important part in the morning but in other news I'm finding it hard to understand TM's refusal to let anyone else try and re-negotiate a better deal. She has nothing to lose (only reputation) and we would have everything to gain. I feel she has lost some really competent people during these negotiations simply because of her reluctance to allow them to do the job they should be doing and not letting them be privy to the talks she's been having.
Even our local lad James Barclay isn't going to be allowed to to do anything meaningful.
Pat
|
Missed the edit: That should read Steve Barclay!
Pat
|
Pat;
Yet more, I suggest that you don't read much of the following in detail, just skim it so that you know it's there in case it becomes relevant in the future.
This is the EU Press information. Clearly the BBC hasn't read it. It'll help give you the salient points;
- The transition period can only be extended once
- It can only be extended with our agreement etc. etc. etc.
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-18-6422_en.htm
If you really have the time and energy, then you can see all the documents that have appeared or been used throughout the negotiation here; I wouldn't bother if I were you, but perhaps you feel better knowing that they are there and available.
ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en
In particular you may find this interesting; (I've linked to it before, I think)…
ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en
The EU Negotiating management team. Each one will have a team beneath them.
ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/organisation_charts/organisation-chart-tf50_en.pdf
This will give you some indication of what people are objecting to.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-46214526
It ignores the protection, guarantees of behaviour and arbitration steps in the agreement.
>>Who and what jurisdiction does The Joint Committee have?
Who, I don't know. But it is a joint commission to be put together by the UK and the EU. It is there to decide on all issues, and if a decision is ratified it is binding. Their behaviour is regulated and is subject to Arbitration. Ultimately legal resolution will be the responsibility of the ECJ.
|
This is what I believe you will find (of course satisfy yourself that I'm not talking rubbish)
The agreement is reasonable and is about as good as I can see it being. Perhaps there will be some rewording to quieten down the mouthpieces, but I shall be surprised if there is material movement in a good way.
The problem is what we want and their interconnection, and there actually is no resolution other than BEANO.
Consider this one, of many examples;
An agreed customs area allows free movement within a secure area. With Brexit NI is outside that area, I is within.
So the default position is that there must be a border between I & NI. Surely you see the logic of that?
But nobody wants that, so the next thought is perhaps that I is inside, NI is inside, and the rest of the UK is outside. But that means a border between NI and the rest of [tro] the UK and nobody wants that.
So then the agreement is surely that I, is in, NI is in and the rest of the UK is in. That way NI and tro UK are treated equally, there is no hard border between I and NI, or NI and tro UK.
So that gives us free movement.
However, free movement of what?
Two possible choices; everything or not everything.
If it Is everything, then no checks as to what is actually being carried are necessary. But then there must be some assurance that *everything* is acceptable. That means rules on what we can import, what we can call it and what tariffs we can use to maintain that acceptability.
Or we decide it is not *everything* and then border checks will be necessary to ensure that only acceptable stuff is carried.
But who determines what is acceptable? well clearly the courts, but which courts? The ECJ.
So we go from exiting Brexit in a full and firm manner with no intention of having any interaction with the ECJ, but that gives us a hard border. Or we have no hard border but then we have to live with some jurisdiction of the ECJ and various protocols, standards and formulas from the EU.
How do you sort that out? BEANO is all I can see, but that is not acceptable to anybody. But all those people saying it is unacceptable are not coming up with any alternative approaches.
If one is a determined leaver, then there is no acceptable answer.
If one is a determined remainer, then one has already lost.
So, BEANO or EU Lite? Philosophically mush the same but one much more reasonable and well thought out than the other.
|
Thanks, I'll check those out in the morning.
Pat
|
>>I'm finding it hard to understand TM's refusal to let anyone else try and re-negotiate a better deal.
Bear in mind that I am not necessarily overcome with TM's ability at this, or suitability for it, and so a possible answer is always that she is flat out wrong.
However, other than that it is important that she represent to the EU that she *is* the authority.
As stupid example to help;
Imagine You want to buy a car from me and started at £10,000 we have now negotiated down to £9,000.
I actually know I will go down another £500, but I will only do that if I know this is the final negotiation I will have. If I am going to drop that £500 with you and then someone else will show up to "finish off" the negotiation, then I'm not going to concede anything to you, I'll wait for them, perhaps the person after that.
So if they believe that she is not the authority, then they will wait. So we then send along another person and we say that *they* are the authority. But we know that they will come back and be subject to the same attack, and the EU will think that as well, so they won't negotiate with that person.
etc. etc. etc.
When [if] they say that they are not involved with or aware of any discussions, they are liars. Barefaced liars. But if you notice they don't quite say that, they let others say it for them.
You must look at *exactly* what they say, and consider why they are saying it.
It is also entirely possible that the document is a take it or leave it. i.e. accept it in it's entirety or go back to square one and do it all again.
Perhaps the EU gave something on issue x in return for something on issue y. Well if you want to renegotiate y, then they want to renegotiate x.
On top of all of that, what, I mean really what, could be improved?
The terms of right to remain? Seem reasonable to me.
The NI Backstop? Seems reasonable to me.
Jurisdiction and relationship during transition? Seems reasonable to me.
Workers rights? I don't know, not my area. Perhaps. But since Corbyn wants that to be closer to the EU, I don't see the leavers being happy with that.
This is a nightmare position where everybody on both sides wants everything. That is simply physically impossible. Not a political opinion, a fact of nature.
|
|
p.s. please ask smaller questions or my head is going to explode.
|
>>Who has actually put the document together?
Consultants within the negotiating structure have been doing the actually drafting, with the points argued ad infinitum by the teams themselves and then presented to the main committee.
It is an iterative process involving breaking down of areas of attention and then reassembly of the summary document.
I suspect that 20XX was an editing error, for example.
|
I think the problem is, with the way TM is behaving over this that we're all worried she doesn't actually ever intend to come to any mutual agreement to end the transition period.
She is a Remainer, she has played her cards very close to her chest, she has no prospects in UK politics after this is finalised and I feel the EU has her weighed up totally, and have worded the agreement accordingly.
Dealing with one person only IMHO is never a good idea when they are representing so many people.
I would have liked to have seen a cross-party Brexit committee formed after the referendum to deal with this.
Pat
|
To an extent she can't stop it.
If there is a vote and it is agreed, then I cannot she how she wouldn't simply be removed if she messed about. Ditto anybody who follows here.
Don't forget she can only extend once.
As for cross-party, this bunch of clowns cannot manage a public debate on the matter, Goodness only knows how they would manage being party to it.
Notice that other than the one comment about Workers Rights they still have given absolutely no clue as to what they would change and how they would do it.
All the politicians capable of doing this decently would not be acceptable to the Daily Mail.
|
>> As for cross-party, this bunch of clowns cannot manage a public debate on the matter,
>> Goodness only knows how they would manage being party to it.
>
Too many vested interests at work
Corbyn, wants greater union control of the workplace ala the French, so sees his more socialist bothers in the EU as a help. Plus he is pro IRA so seeks the reunification of Ireland.
Certain wealthy Tories seek less rigid financial controls, oversight and the ability to pay much less taxation (avoidance or evasion)
Unionists think its a papal plot.
Jocks want independence but cant do it without EU subsidy.
None of them have the countries interests at heart, so jobs, prospects and prosperity can go whistle.
To be fair, TM is trying to achieve least pain in the face of ^^^^^ this mob above.
|
The idea that TM has been done up like a kipper because she is a Remainer is I'm sure mistaken.
She won't even have been in the working sessions unless she turned up once or twice as a figurehead. The most obvious reason she has kept it reasonably close is because it is very difficult to hold negotiations in public - we have seen how the hard brexiters have not hesitated to air their objections publicly at every opportunity.
The most obvious problem with the transition agreement is that nobody knows what it is a transition to, as the eventual basis on which we will trade with the EU has not yet been agreed. That is also the reason the draft pretty much has to be the way it is.
The objections from those Tory brexiters who want to renegotiate this (draft) agreement are
- that it is largely a prototype for the eventual arrangement and that what has been "conceded" (this is a daft word in this context because if negotiation is anything it is giving to get) will be very difficult to take back; and
- that under the backstop we will not to be able to leave the customs union without the agreement of the Union.
There may well be something in the first one; but that could be less because of what's in the transition draft than that the final leaving treaty will require unanimity from the 27 so it is quite likely that it will be tough to secure whatever terms they have in mind regardless.
The second objection is really not a problem with the draft -
This draft, as far as the post transition arrangements are concerned, is an agreement to agree. As such, it must to cater for what happens if the parties fail to agree and put a clear obligation on the parties to act reasonably and try to agree (which it does, although this is always arguable - failure to use best endeavours or whatever phrase is used would be a breach, but is difficult to prove). This 'failure to agree' clause is where the backstop comes in.
The issue here for the objectors is that the backstop will obtain unless and until the UK and the Union agree something else. And because the only thing everybody agrees on is that there will not be a hard border in Ireland then, in the absence of another solution, under 'backstop' the UK must remain more or less in the customs union.
If the post-backstop 'something else' were to include the UK leaving the customs union and having the ability to make trade deals with non-EU countries, then that implies -
(a) a hard border in Ireland - generally unacceptable; or
(b) NI staying in the customs union, with border controls between it and the rest of the UK - generally unacceptable as it means NI is being treated very differently from the rest of the UK; or
(c) some sort of fantasy "technology solution" that nobody has been able to describe.
The hard Brexiters I have to say have been pretty poor at articulating their own proposals and it's easy to see why.
They can try and blame the EU or TM, but the problem is Northern Ireland.
Before Rees-Mogg started touting the unspecified technology solution, he said this -
“Ireland would not be a free for all. It would be perfectly possible to continue with historic arrangements to ensure that there wasn’t a great loophole in the way people can get into the UK, to leave us in as bad a position as we are already in,” Rees-Mogg says.
“There would be our ability, as we had during the Troubles, to have people inspected. It’s not a border that everyone has to go through every day, but of course for security reasons during the Troubles, we kept a very close eye on the border, to try and stop gun-running and things like that.”
which makes him no more than a plausible idiot, or somebody so cynical and scheming that he can peddle something he knows to be unachievable for reasons unknown? He can't have seen the Irish border.
Sorry if that's a bit repetitive, run out of editing time.
|
>>Sorry if that's a bit repetitive, run out of editing time.
On the contrary.
I'd only add the bit about the arbitration facilities which will have some impact on the "failure to agree".
Rees-Mogg is a prime example of the nasty politician willing to say anything to further his own position. Like Johnson, Farage and several others.
I'm not sure the DUP get this at all. I cannot believe that they are that stupid, so they must be after some concession or other from the Government and are playing a game of bluff and blackmail. Whatever the rest of the UK thinks, how can this possibly work out badly for NI?
I'm a bit surprised at Corbyn though, I thought he'd got past his inability to manage unified communication. It would appear not. And he's made some very amateurish comments.
|
>> I thought it might make it easier to catch up to date (if only to all VX to have his OCD about splitting threads!)
Don't worry Pat, We've made a collective decision not to bother creating any more Brexit Discussion threads once they reach approx. 100 replies. We're just going to let this one run and run.
And if I get a spare 5 minutes, I might even compile all the other 66 volumes into just one Brexit thread, before then attaching this one to it as well.
Maybe then you'll be satisfied that all the replies are in one thread, rather than having to jump to the next thread, and the one after that, etc.
You of all people should know moderating is a thankless task. This just goes to prove it. We do a lot of tidying up behind the scenes, making the place more presentable, etc. I sometimes wonder why we bother when a small minority of you just whinge all the time.
Oh, and btw, whether I have OCD is neither here nor there. But I'm sure you're aware OCD is a recognised medical condition, but if you're happy to be making fun about it, then who am I to argue?
|
Oh for goodness sake Dave there was a smiley AND an exclamation mark, it was a joke.
It makes no odds to me where you split the threads and I'd made no comment on splitting them at all.
On the contrary, I made a determined effort to break off from what I was doing to post an update in here so you could bring it to a conclusion where you wanted to since I had been busy since Friday.
I think when we do try and help the mods they try and create a problem where there isn't one and could you be a bit bored that we're not arguing, I wonder?
As for OCD, I don't think I was the first on to joke about it, did you miss that one?
Pat
|
>> Oh for goodness sake Dave there was a smiley AND an exclamation mark, it was a joke.
Saw no smiley, only the exclamation mark.
>> It makes no odds to me where you split the threads and I'd made no comment on splitting them at all.
It must have been someone else then with the same name as you that typed the comment "I thought it might make it easier to catch up to date (if only to all VX to have his OCD about splitting threads!)"
>> As for OCD, I don't think I was the first one to joke about it, did you miss that one?
So, you just thought you'd jump on the same bandwagon then? Hmmm!
|
|
I sent you a message Dave.
|
|
Nothing received in my inbox.
|
Ok, dunno why.
Essentially I don't understand the churlish reply or the rock you seem to be throwing at me.
I asked about it being extended more than 100 replies. I asked politely and even said that I understand it was your decision.
Why get into a major sulk and state that you're going to put all the threads together, let this one go on forever etc. etc. etc.
That seems a silly stance, especially at a time when you're asking others (i.e. me) to be grown up.
|
Yep, I'm getting asked to behave and try and when I try and be helpful and I get slated yet again.
...and a frownie from someone for pointing it out but never mind, crack on Dave.
It's really not worth the effort.
Pat
|
>> ...and a frownie from someone for pointing it out but never mind, crack on Dave.
Why do you take it so personally when someone gives you a frownie? If someone disproves of what you've written, so what. Surely they're allowed to anonymously do so if they so wish. I'm sure you've done the same to others.
btw, it wasn't me, before you ask.
|
I wasn't aware I was throwing rocks at you. I was replying to Pat in this thread about it.
In the other thread, I tried to explain and justify to you why we split threads at approx. 100 replies. I can't recall getting into a major sulk with you about it either.
Like I previously said, it's not difficult to read one thread, and if it's locked and a new volume has been started, to then reply in that thread instead, making reference to what was said in the earlier thread.
But some people want it all contained in one thread, so therefore I am happy to oblige with their request if it makes it easier for them. Trouble is, we cannot please everyone.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 11:10
|
It is too petty to argue.
I asked that there be a more flexible approach to thread splitting generally and certainly for a few days while Pat caught up.
That seems to have offended you to the point that you're now going to keep it all in one thread and even join all the others in as well.
What a waste of time and what a very immature attitude.
But you do what you will, there is little point in asking for one thing or another,.as your current approach shows.
My last word.on the matter.
|
Well, I have to say it because no-one else will.
Well done Dave. You have certainly succeeded in totally killing a lively and interesting forum with your complete misunderstanding of what was posted and your inability to back down and apologise.
Just 16 posts today in over 17 hours, what a contrast.
You asked us to discuss politely and with respect. We did just that but you couldn't resist trying to make something out of nothing, could you? And this is the result.
You were wrong, very wrong, with the post you made to me about splitting threads, so in future, as I've said before, I may just as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb and enjoy life upon the way.
Hope you feel proud of yourself.
Pat
|
Well done Dave. You have certainly succeeded in totally killing a lively and interesting forum
>> with your complete misunderstanding of what was posted and your inability to back down and
>> apologise.
>>
>>
>
I'm not sure that's the case, sometimes the forum goes quiet. I doubt that the posts above would put anyone off from posting.
|
Well, it's put me off, and Mark as well by the looks of it.
There was no need for it at all, we were doing exactly as asked but as always, that wasn't good enough.
It also proves whether I decide to be the normal 'me' which seems to annoy some of you, or make a supreme effort and do as the Mods ask of me, I'm still going to be wrong so therefore the effort isn't worth it.
It also proves it isn't good for forum traffic too, but no-one seems to care about that.
It's all about the power of the clipboard....H&S, give a man a clipboard and he becomes 'important' in his own eyes, we've all met them!
To the person giving the frownies, try growing a pair and tell me what's bothering you about my posts, or is that too hard to do?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 21 Nov 18 at 18:13
|
|
I can't tell you what to be bothered about, but i think you're making mountains out of molehills.
|
Not at all, probably the other way round actually!
I really made an effort at the Mods request, but got condemned anyway so why would I bother to keep it up?
It's an internet forum for goodness sake, I have no one I need to impress, I just want to enjoy it and enjoy it I will.
Pat
|
|
I think in all honesty both of you did, but this is the internet.
|
>>Well, it's put me off, and Mark as well by the looks of it.
Just to be clear, I am driving around Santiago picking up RBL poppy collection boxes, a miserable job, never mind on a spring day when it's 37 degrees, so no time today.
Dave and I have been arguing for years, more than 20 I think, it'd take more than that to put either of us off.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 21 Nov 18 at 20:06
|
|
p.s. Frownies nothing to do with me, I'm trying to be nice.
|
>> Dave and I have been arguing for years, more than 20 I think, it'd take more than that to put either of us off.
Nah, you're wrong as per usual ;)
sometime back in 2002 IIRC.
|
>> >>
>> sometime back in 2002 IIRC.
Really? I thought it was earlier than that. Must just seem much much much longer.
|
>> Really? I thought it was earlier than that. Must just seem much much much longer.
lol.
Actually in 2002 you made that awful decision to ask me to help you moderate HJ ;o) so it was probably a couple of years later than that we had the occasional ding dong.
|
>> It's all about the power of the clipboard....H&S, give a person a clipboard and they
>> become 'important' in their own eyes, we've all met them!
Corrected it for you. We'll have none of those sexist remarks when we get out of Europe. Everyone will be equal, and women can return to the kitchen ;)
>> To the person giving the frownies, try growing a pair and tell me what's bothering
>> you about my posts, or is that too hard to do?
Come on Pat, I'm sure you've given a few anonymous ones to people over the years.
|
It's most unlike 'you' to be making patronising remarks Pat.
Still, when in Rome.
Hardly my fault if you're incapable of reading a locked thread, and then replying in the next one that's been created. You wanted this one kept open. You got your wish.
I have nothing to apologise for.
|
|
p,s, try asking me nicely, and I might start volume 68.
|
>>>Hardly my fault if you're incapable of reading a locked thread, and then replying in the next one that's been created. You wanted this one kept open. You got your wish.<<
And that is the problem, it wasn't me who asked for it to be left open at all but you insist upon blaming me for it.
Go back and read it again .
Pat
|
Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will), but at some point you accused me of being OCD about creating new threads and it not being easy for you to catch up.
If you look back at the last few volumes that have been created, you'll see that not many have been started by me.
In fact from volume 51 through to 66, I only created 4 of them. Hardly OCD is it?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 22 Nov 18 at 02:20
|
>> Pat, correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will), but at some point you
>> accused me of being OCD about creating new threads <<<
Correct
>>>and it not being easy for you to catch up. <<
Totally 100% incorrect.
Pat
|
>> >>>and it not being easy for you to catch up. <<
>>
>> Totally 100% incorrect.
Hmmm, really?!
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=26463&m=580104&v=e
"I thought it might make it easier to catch up to date (if only to all VX to have his OCD about splitting threads!)"
So glad we cleared up that misunderstanding ;o)
|
So part of Corbyn's objection is apparently the Backstop plan, how that isn't actually Brexit and how it will just run on and on and we can't exit it..
So what does he want instead?
"Instead of the temporary customs arrangement May has signed up to as a backstop, to prevent a hard border in Ireland, Corbyn will underline Labour’s backing for a permanent customs union."
Urrrrrrrrrrrrr………..?
Dumb as mud.
|
Pat, you've gone quiet again.
Are you making headway with this?
|
My day started at 12.30 am yesterday morning and again at 1 am today so there is no way I will be making headway, other than with a pillow after around 7 pm!
Pat
|
Early morning food for thought here.
Reading any proposed document really depends upon where you're coming from and has a bearing on how you interpret it.
I have to admit, I tend to be coming from this direction.
www.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/tony-abbott-how-to-save-brexit/
Pat
|
I understand the attraction of such a battle cry, but one needs to actually read his words. And it's a pretty awful understanding of the position or the future.
"there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules."
But that's not true. He seems to be confusing the transition deal with the exit deal.
" Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. "
No, it doesn't. Australia has free trade agreements with China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, USA, Thailand, Chile and Malaysia as well as a Free Trade Area between themselves sand New Zealand all of which it has established over the last 20 years.
If it needed to dump them all, it could do that. But presumably it would need a transition period to set up new deals?
And he advocates allowing freedom of movement for goods and just assuming that "If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate". So just do it with no reciprocal arrangement and hope??
"The UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently " … "If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are."
Seriously? And our citizens will be happy with the idea of "if the EU knows what's good for it..."??
"there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain "
Really? I thought that was one of the things that many people don't want?
"there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic.
Of course it does!!! They're the EU product standards overseen by the ECJ! So is he saying we should forever simply copy them and it'll be ok? Because that is pretty much exactly the deal on offer!!
Like I said, I understand the attraction of the battle cry, but the rest of it isn't very good. I would guess it either wasn't written by him or it was heavily edited.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:33
|
I seem to remember saying about three months ago that we were going to get held to ransom over Gibraltar.
The transition agreement isn't very comforting in this regard, either.
I feel that this might be something that TM bargained away in the cause of support for something else..
|
Likewise France has issues over Fisheries policy. One of the main reasons Barnier will be reluctant to reopen negotiations with the U.K. is that once EU aagrees to discuss changes from UK the EU would have to in turn consider proposed changes from all the other countries and the whole agreement will become unravelled.
|
Laughable.
Not even worth a proper reply.
|
|
Funny how you always have to find stuff in extreme right wing press.
|
How can it fail with articles such as...
World leaders should look up to Trump, not laugh at him
By Kathy Gyngell - October 1, 2018
Welcome, President Trump, we are proud to have you here
By The Conservative Woman - July 12, 2018
And so much more.
|
I was asked a question by someone this morning which leads me to ask here;
Does anybody care or read the endless posts I place here or am I just wasting my time and boring / annoying everybody else?
I'd appreciate your views on the matter, you can always thumb/frownie if you'd rather than not say openly.
|
|
I mean, posts on the subject of Brexit, before anybody gets smart.
|
>> Does anybody care or read the endless posts I place here or am I just
>> wasting my time and boring / annoying everybody else?
No. You're bringing a depth of research and insight that nobody else, with possible exception of Manatee comes near.
Keep it up.
|
I've read most of your analysis of the withdrawal draft which has been helpful IMO.
It's been quite helpful to have a document to critique, rather than everybody having to make up their own story which is what most politicians and media commentators have been doing for the last two and a bit years.
|
What others have said. Carry on if you feel the urge.
And as you already know, people can make their own minds up whether they agree with you or not.
|
I think it's a great service. But it's wasted on the twenty of us who are reading it, you need a wider audience. If not Mumsnet, then where? Fantasywargamer? The comments on the Daily Mail?
#NoFM2Rreading588pagessoidon'thaveto
I don't currently see the point in reading the whole thing. I will read it if it goes through Parliament and the EU, until then it is just yet more conjecture.
Great bit of editorial in the Times today, I thought.
tinyurl.com/ybo2zx4w
|
>> Great bit of editorial in the Times today, I thought.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/ybo2zx4w
>>
>>
Pay wall.
|
|
Register and you get in free.
|
Ref: Mapmaker
>> If not Mumsnet, then where?
I signed up for Mumsnet a long time ago. Perhaps 2 or 3 years, maybe longer. Used it for about 2 days and then never went back.
However, you mentioned it this morning and out of the blue I suddenly get an EMail from Mumsnet "This is us checking in with you because to be honest we miss you"
Either a stunning coincidence or they are getting sneakier all the time.
|
I read most things on here. Your posts are usually amongst the more intelligent and interesting.
The moderation of your anger over the last week or two has been impressive but I must admit that a bit of me is rather missing your personal attacks and rants. :-)
|
Thanks.
>>I must admit that a bit of me is rather missing your personal attacks and rants. :-)
I think you may be a lone voice!
|
>>
>> I think you may be a lone voice!
>>
No, as a fake psychiatrist who doesn't even know what the word means I'm interested in observing examples of multiple personality and soap-opera syndrome by proxy.
|
|
Is this one of your tiresome, snide, little digs at me? Because if not I don't understand what you are trying to say?
|
>> Is this one of your tiresome, snide, little digs at me? Because if not I
>> don't understand what you are trying to say?
I suspect it was more of a comment on the forum in general.....
|
>>I suspect it was more of a comment on the forum in general.....
Indeed, perhaps that was it.
|
>> Is this one of your tiresome, snide, little digs at me? Because if not I
>> don't understand what you are trying to say?
I was a general joke linking the quack psychiatrist and this thread together, but he is clearly more qualified than we think because he quickly brought your Paranoid Personality Disorder out.
|
|
I've read every word on all the threads too, and appreciate both the content and the time it's taken to do it.
|
"Does anybody care or read the endless posts I place here or am I just wasting my time and boring / annoying everybody else?"
No, no, yes, yes, yes.
|
|
What a strange person you are.
|
We both originate from Gods Country, that may be why!
Pat
|
>>We both originate from Gods Country, that may be why!|
You're Welsh??
|
"What a strange person you are."
Me? OK, but at least I can claim that my referendum decision was independent and wasn't influenced by any foreign power. I recall that you took counsel from some Chilean diplomat?
|
>>I recall that you took counsel from some Chilean diplomat?
I don't think so, not that I can recall.
I certainly talk to European and North American politicians and diplomats when they are in Chile or I am in Europe or North America, but the Chilean guys have little practical understanding of this particular matter.
Though I have to be honest, I'll listen to opinions from anyone, one never knows what one will learn from whom.
When you say "independent" do you mean you listened to nobody about anything?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 18:16
|
"I don't think so, not that I can recall."
I distinctly remember that you mentioned talking with a Chilean diplomat, but I don't recall anything about all your other foreign influences. I wouldn't say that I listened to 'nobody about anything'; it's just that I found none of the Bremainials sufficiently convincing ..... not even Bob Geldof.
Some four weeks after the referendum, I was speaking with an Italian businessman. He was sad that Britain was leaving - because it left Italy and others more exposed to German power. He added, though, that if he had been British, he would have voted to leave.
|
>> "I don't think so, not that I can recall."
>>
>> I distinctly remember that you mentioned talking with a Chilean diplomat, but I don't recall
>> anything about all your other foreign influences.
I don't understand your point, or why you are so insistent. I can think of no Chilean diplomat I have discussed this with though no doubt it has come up in conversation from time to time. Perhaps you are confused with a diplomat in Chile or perhaps I have somehow forgotten.
Do you have a point though? So you think somehow I was brainwashed or dictated to by the "Chilean Diplomat"?
You so often come across as a bitter, resentful and small man. Perhaps you might want to wonder why that is.
It is a pity that, like so many of your type, you are still stuck in the world of worrying about who voted which in the referendum rather than dealing with the more complex challenge of where we go from here. I guess it's just simpler for you.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 20:26
|
"I don't understand your point, or why you are so insistent."
Do calm down, dear, and do try to stop insulting people, it's a sign of your own smallness.
|
Oh darling, how terribly modern of you to call me "dear", you're such a sweetie.
However, back to the thing which seems to be troubling you so much, are you able to explain your concern with whether or not I spoke to a Chilean diplomat?
I would like so much to be able to calm the feelings of distress for you.
|
As a break from analysis, does anybody here, however you originally voted, think that a second referendum would be a good idea?
I do not.
Philosophically it's picking and choosing the democratic results you choose to accept.
Pragmatically it would solve nothing, whatever the result.
We are at point A.
We need to first define Point B. [extensive agreement with the EU, not part of the EU, would be my choice]
We need to draw a line from A to B and follow it.
|
>> As a break from analysis, does anybody here, however you originally voted, think that a
>> second referendum would be a good idea?
I entirely get all your reasons as to why it could be a bad idea. In normal politics choosing which democratic results you accept is a no no. Part of the anti-EU mythology is that it forces 'neverendums' where a plebiscite produces results it doesn't like. In reality these were (eg Irish referendum on Treaty of Nice) re-run after significant changes to what was on offer.
Pragmatism says start from where we are and plot shortest course to where we want to be. As you say what's on the table appears to fulfill that need.
BUT.....
If Parliament rejects that deal another referendum might be a convenient escape hatch. EDIT: See CGN's post below.
There's also a case that says it seems increasingly probable that large amounts of possibly dodgy money were poured into the Leave campaign. Some from buccaneering businessmen who want a low cost low regulation economy. More from Russia for whom driving a wedge in EU is cold war by new means. Nobody suggests they influenced all or most out voters. Their efforts might though have bought the 700k or so votes that dragged result over the line.
There was provision in referendum act for result to be challenged within (IIRC) 28 days of result. If the extent of illegality now suspected has been known then might there have been a successful challenge?
The false promises of false prophets are now exposed; the true difficulty of and problems in leaving have been laid bare. If Brexit was a financial product the regulator would be all over it as mis-sold.
Another limb to the Russia/Putin angle is rise of Trump and all he stands for. It's at least arguable that need for a strong and united Europe is much more evident now than it was in 2016.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 20 Nov 18 at 18:03
|
Ref: Bromp, dodgy money, Russians and lies.
Let us accept it was mis-sold, let us accept that people lied and money was misspent. Hardly our biggest problem today.
Realistically, did they make a difference? 2%? 5%? if it had been 51/48 the other way, would that mean we would have a happy country now?
Of course not. A substantial amount of voters in this country do not wish to be part of the EU. And that is going to be in the 45%/55% range.
If we want to have a more, rather than less, united country, then we need to find something that suits more than half the voters, especially when the feelings are so high.
In and as we are is unacceptable to +/- half the country. Completely out is unacceptable to +/- half the country.
Perhaps there is something which improves on that. But nobody is going to be triumphant with at least 45% of the country up in arms.
Look at people like Haywane, he cannot leave the referendum bitterness alone. He is not able to see beyond that vote and leaving the EU. And for sure he's not the only one like that. There's tons and they are not going away. Nor should they have to.
I do not see what anybody expects to achieve with a second referendum other than introducing a precedent for the third.
|
Gove close to resigning apparently - smokie