***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 71 *****
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 Fri 7 Dec 18 at 02:44
|
Anybody else listening to the BBC's Mark Mardell's podcasts under this title?
The first series looked at our relationship with EC/EU etc from before De Gaulle's veto up to the referendum.
Second series are described as 'a post mortem while patient is still in surgery'.
Latest episode, number 15, looks at role of May's (then) Chief's of Staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill and her speech to 2016 Conservative Conference.
Conclusion seems to be that because it was a party political event the speech was written to appeal to the faithful and without benefit of advice on full consequences of what she offered. In particular that red line about jurisdiction of ECJ effectively closed door on remaining in the free market and customs union.
|
|
Red lines are not a good idea, especially when stated publicly. Never say never unless you can change your mind.
|
>>Anybody else listening to the BBC's Mark Mardell's podcasts under this title?
No, I shall dig it out. Will it make me angry?
>>Conclusion seems to be that because it was a party political event the speech was written to appeal to the faithful and without benefit of advice on full consequences of what she offered. In particular that red line about jurisdiction of ECJ effectively closed door on remaining in the free market and customs union.
That stupid comment about the ECJ red line is, of course, totally impossible and has screwed so much up it's untrue.
|
|
It won't make you angry (really) it has been an excellent documentary on the whole sorry story. I reckon it may become the definitive oral history. Bit like World at War without the ricochets
|
>> Official explanation
>>
>> brexitdealexplained.campaign.gov.uk/
The link works without all the gobbledygook after gov.uk which is there to let Google identify the link you clicked to find that page.
It's interesting that the URL includes the word campaign. This looks very much like the current government's attempt to 'get their case in first' before the starting gun on a second referendum. Exactly like Cameron's team did in early 2016.
Note also the use of Mrs May's catchphrase end free movement once and for all.
It's pretty political for anything on .gov. I suspect that's why that word campaign is there
|
I'm not sure which of the two links contains more crap, or which tries to mislead more.
The first follows proudly in the campaign approach tradition started by Cameron and the second is just self-contradicting rubbish.
I wouldn't waste time clicking on either, particularly if one was seeking enlightenment. Simply not worth time.
Again; We need a transition period. All the rubbish being spoken by everybody at the moment is not really relevant beyond that. Everything will need to be sorted out in that transition period, including any NI borders.
Why do we need a transition period? Because we do not have time to fix the things that need fixing otherwise. We could be a lot further forward than we are, but the political leadership, the media and the electorate have focussed on mindless bickering instead.
We still remain in the place where those who want leave either want Freedom of Movement to be stopped totally and kept forever, and those who want remain seem to have no idea why they want it except that they do. How can we agree anything with that level of chaos and uncertainty?
The easy example; Without a deal airplanes cannot continue their service. The only answer to that is to have an interim transition deal to give them time to put a set of permanent solutions in place. And in the case of airlines, I expect that they will manage it, but not in 3 months, they'll need most of the two years.
The absolute minimum deal I can conceive of that would work is "we agree nothing except a transition period". That would remain unacceptable to our politicians on all sides.
So seemingly our politicians will only be happy with a crash out, though that will cause difficulty, hardship and considerable expense. But not for the politicians..
Isn't it truly depressing how the entire of Westminster is unconcerned about anything other than their own media time and career.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:44
|
>> No, I shall dig it out. Will it make me angry?
No reason why it should excepting the interjections from some participants in debate.
Link is here:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062h50y
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Dec 18 at 09:36
|
“ The easy example; Without a deal airplanes cannot continue their service. The only answer to that is to have an interim transition deal to give them time to put a set of permanent solutions in place. And in the case of airlines, I expect that they will manage it, but not in 3 months, they'll need most of the two years. “
Not so it seems:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46380463
A deal with the US and others is already done.
Apparently the airlines deals are not "trade" deals and so are currently in progress.
|
From your link...
"Theresa May's Brexit agreement with Brussels says that the UK and EU have agreed to negotiate a "comprehensive air transport agreement" for UK-EU flights during the planned transition period but it would not apply if the UK left the EU without a deal."
However, you are correct in that these are largely trade deals which is why any insistence on red lines with ECJ jurisdiction are meaningless.
As with so much, it is not that it can't be done, it is that it can't be done in the time.
Also, that deal with the US is a bit of a distress deal. Not as good as ut was.
|
>> Not so it seems:
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46380463
>>
>> A deal with the US and others is already done.
You dont need to fly over Europe to get to the US.
|
Actually we have the right to fly over Europe no matter what. Freedoms 1 & 2 are ours independent of the EU.
It is landing in, flying around in, and flying from one to the other that are the problems. Also, the potential invalidity of our airworthiness and maintenance certifications.
I suspect that airline ownership is likely to be a bigger issue for UK/US than they would have you believe. It says a waiver is needed, well I bet that comes with a price.
|
I read that ECJ said UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally and remain in EU.
So when it helps EU, UK can act unilaterally. When it hurts EU (e.g. backstop) then UK needs EU's permission.
So, in EU law, head = EU wins, tail = UK loses.
This is exactly why UK needs to get out of ECJ.
ECJ = Evil Cartel of inJustice
|
The UK needs to "get out of the ECJ"??
Truly, why don't you listen? You don't have to agree but you so obviously don't understand what is going on that you should take the time to learn. At least then you'd know whether or not what you think is reasonable and would have some way of judging what you read.
On this subject do you understand that the Government fought against this decision?
|
>> I read that ECJ said UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally and remain in EU.
I suspect what you read was probably in the Mail or some other pro-Brexit organ.
At present it seems vanishingly unlikely that UK will decide to abandon Brexit. Nonetheless various individuals, MPs MSPs and MEPs sought some clarity about how, in process terms, such an abandonment might be effected.
In order to obtain that clarity an application was made to the Scottish Courts.
The case turns on meaning of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon - a piece of EU Law. The Court of Session, Inner House, First Division asked the ECJ, as the competent body on EU Law, to decide the case.
What's wrong with that?
The Advocate General has made an interim finding that if UK wishes to revoke its notice under Article 50 it can do so unilaterally without requiring consent of the other nations. The court usually (but not invariably) follows the Advocate General's lead. Decision is here:
curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180187en.pdf
As the Advocate makes clear Unilateral revocation would also be a manifestation of the
sovereignty of the departing Member State, which chooses to reverse its initial decision
How can you disagree with that?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 4 Dec 18 at 14:01
|
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>>
Nothing, as far as the UK goes.
But it's a bit surprising that they bring this rule to the attention of Italy, Greece, Poland etc who might be thinking of playing the Article 50 card some time?
If you can fire off an Article 50 and get the EU jumping, then revoke it with no penalties, it might give some people ideas? :)
|
Essentially that was one of the arguments against this decision.
At the end of this farce I would expect that the whole leave regulatory structure will be addressed by the EU to sort out various issues.
|
>> Nothing, as far as the UK goes.
>> But it's a bit surprising that they bring this rule to the attention of Italy,
>> Greece, Poland etc who might be thinking of playing the Article 50 card some time?
>> If you can fire off an Article 50 and get the EU jumping, then revoke
>> it with no penalties, it might give some people ideas? :)
>>
I think the Eu attitude will be "Ok Bye", and then 23 months later say "Oh are you still here, sit down and shut up"
Unless its france or Germany doing the leaving that is.
|
>>If you can fire off an Article 50 and get the EU jumping, then revoke it with no penalties
You'd also have to say that what we're going through hardly falls under the heading of "no penalties".
|
>>
>> You'd also have to say that what we're going through hardly falls under the heading
>> of "no penalties".
>>
True, but we are supposedly trying to leave. If you were merely using it as a protest tactic but had no intention of actually letting it run to the point of exit, you wouldn't have wasted time and money pretending to negotiate.
And had a tough and competent leader of course.
|
>> Anybody else listening to the BBC's Mark Mardell's podcasts under this title?
Surely I can't be the only person to notice that Bromp has left off the question mark at the end of:-
Brexit: A Love Story?
Irony, anyone?
|
I'd ignore the dramatic headline about price increases, but I would read carefully the bit about port readiness.
www.bbc.com/news/business-46439969
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nBt8Ahb48w
I think it's a safe bet she would have voted for Brexit and have got us a sensible deal to leave by now.
Proof maybe, that my views can't be complete rubbish!
Pat
|
>> I think it's a safe bet she would have voted for Brexit and have got
>> us a sensible deal to leave by now.
>>
Pat I don't think for 1 second she would have been stupid enough to have a referendum in the first place
|
Yes, I agree with that commerdriver!
She would never have let us become so much ruled by EU in the first place.
Pat
|
>>She would never have let us become so much ruled by EU in the first place.
Specifically in which way?
|
Best add this to the list of great politicians who are gone but far from forgotten:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWnpbEMMsNw
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46446694
Legal advice to be published on Wednesday.
|
What is the exact meaning of contempt of parliament thing in news today?
Can someone please explain in plain English?
|
>>Can someone please explain in plain English?
Put effort into explaining something to someone who cannot or will not understand? I don't think so.
Try reading.
|
Contempt of parliament as I understand is ignoring the will of members of parliament who are voted in by the people.This is the way I try to follow it.
Whatever happens we will leave the E.U that was the vote after the referendum.
Unless there is another referendum and the vote changes or a election and another party will try to negotiate a different deal.
No deal with the E.U is scary but there you are,interesting times.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46450227
This man disagrees with you. He's trying to frighten people. I prefer to see it as realpolitik..Brexit is going down the pan.
|
What is realpolitik anyway?
If you think about it any deal is damage control.In France President Macron is backing down due to the problems on the street.That is realpolitic.
|
Northern Ireland is the sticking point.
Go for the Norway Deal or leave and takes what comes our way.
|
Common people have no longer have any say on Brexit. Parliment is Remain supporter in ratio of 75:25 (based on stats published before referendum).
So options we have now:
1. No deal [Leave] = unlikely to be approved by MPs
2. TM's deal [Remain effectively]
3. Remain [via 2nd referendum or similar]
As JRM et al could not challenge TM, no deal scenario is weak at the moment. Since 2 out of 3 possible scenarios are actually remain that's probably likely to happen.
Unless there is an election again and a new Brexit party is formed.
2nd referendum doesn't guranteed remain though. Leave can again win (and then it will be guaranteed no deal Brexit).
In a way #2 option is middle ground where both Leavers and Remainers can claim victory. While #2 is remain in reality it still keeps the Brexit hope (albeit dim) alive.
|
|
Listening to the news this lunchtime, there will be no Brexit. It ain't going to happen. Brexiteers can boo hoo as much as they want.
|
And frankly the behaviour of the 'Brexiteers' it pretty much serves them right.
That said, despite the seeming impossibility of such a thing, my opinion of TM lowers.
Light reading for you all;
tinyurl.com/ya3j6h7t [because this site cannot cope with long URLS, but it is te following URL...
assets . publishing . service . gov . uk /government /uploads /system /uploads /attachment_data /file /761852 /05 _December- _EU_Exit _Attorney_General_s_legal_advice_to_Cabinet _on _the _Withdrawal _Agreement _and _the _Protocol _on _Ireland-Northern _Ireland.pdf]
If she had just offered to release it there would have been no crisis, no precedent, and little argument.
Whichever way Brexit goes, let's hope she disappears from our sight along with the other clowns.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Dec 18 at 13:31
|
>>Brexiteers can boo hoo as much as they want.<<
Childish point scoring......another root of the problem of these negotiations displayed by remainers.
Pat
|
It is an opinion FM2R.
There is a presumption that if there was a hard border again between NI and Ireland there would be a return to violence.
The E.U negotiations knew that N.I. would be the problem.That is why the backstop came in and Theresa May agreed to that.
This legal advice to the backstop is baffling because it might never be used.
What I can't understand is why not stay in the customs union? Are so many Brexiteers against that?
There will be more control over Immigration what the people wanted.
|
>>Are so many Brexiteers against that?
Fundamentally the Referendum asked only about leaving our membership. Therefore everybody who wanted that united and voted for Leave. But there is no commonality, coordination, definition or mutual understanding about what they actually wanted from leaving.
So there is no common opinion or set of requirements from "Brexiteers".
e.g. This pretty much illustrates and sums up the issue;
Pat, a supporter of leave, wants Freedom of Movement to continue.
Movilogo, a supporter of leave, wants freedom of Movement to stop.
Just how the hell do you compromise that?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Dec 18 at 13:34
|
>> Pat, a supporter of leave, wants Freedom of Movement to continue.
>> Movilogo, a supporter of leave, wants freedom of Movement to stop.
We both want to be out of ECJ.
We both want to be able to make independent trade deals.
We both support FOM for tourism.
Your eyes only see what you want to see.
Your argument pattern is simple - if somewhat doesn't agree with you views you term it as "non-sense".
Disagreement doesn't mean dispute.
|
You're such a fool;
"Pat, a supporter of leave, wants Freedom of Movement to continue.
Movilogo, a supporter of leave, wants freedom of Movement to stop."
What is the compromise on the quoted point?
Go on, actually answer a question for once.
Pat seems to have good reasons for it to continue, and you as an immigrant just seem to want to make it more difficult for others to immigrate here. It's called "yanking up the drawbridge" and makes you seem very bitter and small.
|
p.s. what does the following actually mean?
"We both want to be out of ECJ."
You know the ECJ is not something we are actually "in", right?
And you know that future state, trade and business deals will all include the jurisdiction ECJ, right?
|
>> 1.We both want to be out of ECJ.
>> 2.We both want to be able to make independent trade deals.
>> 3.We both support FOM for tourism.
1. ECJ will continue to be the arbiter of many contract disputes.
2. Obviously a nation of 60m will have more clout than a bloc of 400m
3. Eh? That exists whether we're in or out of the EU
Weak sauce.
|
Would that be red or brown sauce?
Pat
|
Give it up as a bad job Movi, you're absolutely spot on with this.
>>our eyes only see what you want to see.
Your argument pattern is simple - if somewhat doesn't agree with you views you term it as "non-sense"<<
We've now got Vince Cable telling us if we have another vote and vote to leave it will absolutely happen with no question.
David Cameron told us that, Theresa May told us that, all of it was lies.
Seeing how the majority voters have been treated on here since the referendum, being told they don't know what their voting for and being talked down to at every opportunity just proves the Remainders think if they say things often enough they are true. What a fools world they live in.
We now have a debate to look forward to (probably if they can both manage to agree on whether to miss X Factor or Strictly) between 2 Remainers to see who wins.....how democratic is that?
Will anyone bother to vote in another referendum? Why bother, it will be ignored until the *right* result is returned and proving to the 52% that their vote last time counted for nothing is the only way they can do it.
What a complete and utter shambles TM has created despite her promises.
Let's hope Nigs has resigned from UKIP for a reason because there is surely a need for a middle of the road party who is able to make decisions, follow their manifesto and talk openly without considering the effect it will have on their own career, their own future and their own incomes first.
Pat
|
Oh Pat, you really have returned to your emotional and meaningless diatribe. What happened to this "political debate" that you felt deprived of? I answered all your questions, all your queries, and despite you saying that you were going to come back with your thoughts you never did.
You've just returned to this sole old, tired approach. Nobody listens, we're all treated badly, they think they're right yawn yawn.
I don't think I could do a better job of representing your views and thoughts than you do.
"Pat, a supporter of leave, wants Freedom of Movement to continue.
Movilogo, a supporter of leave, wants freedom of Movement to stop."
I suspect you're now regretting saying that you wanted Freedom of Movement to continue. I think you kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one.
>>Let's hope Nigs has resigned from UKIP for a reason
Dear God, do you *still* think that man has any credibility? And "Nigs"???? WTF is that? Some kind of term of endearment?
|
....and straight away you prove exactly what I said about your reaction:)
Pat
|
Can't answer, huh.
How very limiting for you. Do you find it embarrassing or are you used to it?
|
I much preferred it when the pair of you kissed and made up.
I knew it wouldn't last very long though.
|
Hey, I did everything I said I would. It was your mate that dropped back into her whinging ways. I really thought she was going to try to talk about the issues.
THough you raise a valid point, neither she nor Movilogo ever say anything worth a damn or that I haven't already explained a million times, so perhaps I'll go back to restricting my interaction again. Certainly the place is more pleasant that way.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 5 Dec 18 at 14:40
|
VX, I made a real effort in the last Brexit Volume and posted a very measured post. Bromp asked that the thread was split there so we could all have a discussion on the points raised. As you all know my days always end on the PC around 6 pm ish and start again around 01.30
When I got up yesterday morning there were 5 posts I would have loved to replied to but they had been left on the locked thread and a new one started.
Now, I don't have the time some have on here and I do still work so combine that work with day to day housework and providing meals at odd times, there is a limit to how much effort I'm prepared to put in, and that reached my limit.
The post and the replies could have been posted in the new thread as you often do but it wasn't.
You allow posters to post personal remarks about others, so don't whine when *others* do it too.
I still have very close contact with at least 6 Ex posters on this forum who left because of the attitude they faced on the Brexit thread. They do still read it and can't believe nothing has changed but will never return while it stays like this.
Your loss, not theirs.
Pat
|
>> When I got up yesterday morning there were 5 posts I would have loved to replied to but they had been left on the locked thread and a new one started.
****Bangs head for the umpteenth time!!!!****
How MANY more times do I have to MENTION that if a thread is closed, simply copy part of the post you want to reply to from the closed thread and paste it into the current thread. (surely you know how to do that?) if not, then highlight the txt using your mouse cursor, then ctrl+c to copy, and then ctrl+p to paste. Or use the drop down selection in the edit menu of your web browser if you want to do it the long winded way.
I can see why so many arguments start now, and you are in among them. You either don't listen, or choose not to listen. It then agitates people who have tried having a discussion with you, but end up going round in circles.
>> The post and the replies could have been posted in the new thread as you often do but it wasn't.
Er, I didn't start this this latest thread. But carry on and blame me if you like. It seems to be a continuing trend in this forum that I get the blame for everything.
>> I still have very close contact with at least 6 Ex posters on this forum
Why do you continually have to boast and name drop? This is another thing that gets people's backs up. Who cares if you're in close contact with x, y, or z. Or even Lord Lucan and Shergar come to that? No one particularly cares. It just seems you're just trying to point score.
And as for personal remarks. Please practice what you preach.
To my mind, you're just as bad and to blame as other people are.
Now for the final time will you ALL stop with the petty arguments and discuss things in a civilised manner.
|
>> How MANY more times do I have to MENTION that if a thread is closed,
>> simply copy part of the post you want to reply to from the closed thread
>> and paste it into the current thread. (surely you know how to do that?) if
>> not,<<
Yep, but I can't be bothered to do it 5 times, Why would I?
>> I can see why so many arguments start now, and you are in among them.
>> You either don't listen, or choose not to listen. It then agitates people who have
>> tried having a discussion with you, but end up going round in circles.<<
They need to learn some patience then like I have to do with Duncan.
>> that I get the blame for everything.<<
No, that's my job.
>> >> I still have very close contact with at least 6 Ex posters on this
>> forum
>>
>> Why do you continually have to boast and name drop?<<
Where did I mention any names and why is that boasting?....now you have lost the plot.
>>This is another thing that gets people's backs up.<<
Tough, if that's all it takes then they need to look at anger management.
>> And as for personal remarks. Please practice what you preach.<<
Pot & Kettle? I would say 100% of your post was personal remarks to me!
>> To my mind, you're just as bad and to blame as other people are.<<
And I absolutely agree with that. The difference is they are allowed to get away with it continually, but I get publicly castigated at every opportunity.
That is clear for everyone to see, but one wonders if you may find it easier to tell a girl off than be confrontational with a male:)
Pat
|
Yawn.
Like a broken record, eh?
|
>> Yep, but I can't be bothered to do it 5 times, Why would I?
Therefore why should we bother because only one forum member is too lazy? No one else seems to have a problem with doing it.
>> Where did I mention any names?
You are continually bringing No FM2R's name into your posts. The other day you did the same with Zero's name. To my mind just to stir things up again.
>> Tough, if that's all it takes then they need to look at anger management.
No, you need to learn not to rub people up the wrong way with your abrupt attitude.
>> I would say 100% of your post was personal remarks to me!
And EXACTLY where did I make any personal remarks about you?....now you have lost the plot.
>> And I absolutely agree with that. The difference is they are allowed to get away with it continually, but I get publicly castigated at every opportunity.
Oh do get over yourself. Is it because you're female, that I am supposed to treat you any differently? I thought you wanted equality?
I tell others off where necessary, as well you know, because on occasion you wade in and try and come to their defence, and not let them speak for themselves.
I for one am starting to get peed off with your disruptive and confrontational attitude that you have all the time.
Whenever an argument breaks out in this forum, most of the time you are in the mix of it. To me, that suggests you are one of the instigators for the argument starting in the first place.
|
As Lygonos has said
Yawn.
Same old thing!
Pat
.
|
>> Same old thing!
Well if you didn't keep rubbing people up the wrong way, it wouldn't be the same old thing, and everyone would get along just fine and dandy.
|
Well, CG likes it on his own admission otherwise he gets bored and as for the rest of them....snowflakes, if they are that easily rubbed up the wrong way.
But I don't believe they are.....if you didn't wade in with both feet at every opportunity to find fault with what I've said or whose name I mentioned it might just sort itself out.
......but you enjoy it, don't you:)
Pat
|
|
Pat, just put a sock in it for everyone's sake.
|
Once again, you ask me to do something you are unable to do yourself, yet blame me for it!
It's a bloke thing I think:)
Pat
|
Pat, let me put it into simple terms that you'll understand.
Account disabled. Bye.
I have just about had enough of your backchat to last a lifetime.
|
>>Now for the final time will you ALL stop with the petty arguments and discuss things in a civilised manner.
Good luck with that, VX.
|
I'm used to dealing with people like you Mark, I've met plenty in my career.
Unlike the others who have been beaten by your attitude and left this forum, I'm still here and it really bugs you that you can't get me to go the same way:)
I learned a long while ago that my opinion is not worthless, that I have a backbone and whenever anyone tries to undermine me, that I am every bit as good as they are.
Thank some very bigotted lorry drivers that I met 35 years ago for giving me the tenacity something the swear filter won't allow me to say and do as I pleased.
Nothings changed, other than I thought we'd moved on from those times, obviously not in your world!
Pat
|
You are very strange. Your reactions are peculiar and your attitude is most unusual.
Limited, I guess.
Still, you carry on. As I have said before, I could not possibly represent your views and your ability to argue issues with quite the clarity that you manage.
|
>> We both want to be out of ECJ.
What benefit do you think is to be gained by Mrs May's red line at ECJ jurisdiction. It's a court to resolve disputes over interpretation of EU treaties. It's comprised of judges from the constituent countries. Yesterday its advocate gave an interpretation of Article 50 - a piece of EU legislation.
What's wrong with that? (see my post yesterday www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=26531&m=581274&v=e )
>> We both want to be able to make independent trade deals.
If you have independent trade deals there will have to be provision for adjudication of disputes on meaning of deal's terms. How will that be better than the ECJ? If you look at proposed but the now defunct EU/US trade deal (TTIP) adjudicators were from big business.
>> We both support FOM for tourism.
Pat seemed to go well beyond tourism and endorse current right to come here and take/seek work. Tourism is a different thing.
>> Your argument pattern is simple - if somewhat doesn't agree with you views you term
>> it as "non-sense".
If you could explain why you think as you do I'm sure you'd get a more positive response.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Dec 18 at 16:32
|
>>Pat seemed to go well beyond tourism and endorse current right to come here and take/seek work.<<
I certainly do
And I support Scottish independence too
Pat
|
>> What I can't understand is why not stay in the customs union? Are so many Brexiteers against that?
That's what I don't understand either.
4 freedoms applies to SM only.
CU != SM
So, staying in CU can't be that bad.
Of course, we need to know what exactly is meant by staying in CU.
|
I agree regarding clowns FRM.
The problem is many people think the same and won't vote because they don't know who for.
We could do with a different system more based on regional politics.
Westminster controls the money and we are in this spiral of North and South feeling divided.
|
Those on the Leave side will perhaps recall that when TM's 'deal' was first revealed I said that if they had any sense they would support it.
Seems they still haven't quite worked it out.
|
They won't want to work it out.
It is politics and this government is not very popular at this moment of time.
This Brexit saga is all consuming and in the meantime, many peoples lives are not inproving.
Corbyn tody repeats the same mantra in the house of commons.And every time the Tories laugh at him.
He reminds me a bit of Michael Foot very genuine fellow but no clout.
|
Corbyn seems to me to be concerned more with party than with country. I prefer him to say Boris, who appears to put his own ambitions before both, but he's still not much use as a leader.
Footy I liked, if he'd had any idea how to use the media he could have been effective. A man who was in politics for the right reasons. Like the brilliant Benn, he came across just a bit too swivel-eyed.
I would have loved to have heard either of Foot, or Benn, in their pomp, dissecting yesterday's events.
|
I can't say I like Corbyn or agree with his political views, but he does seem to have a more 'honourable' motivation that the likes of that worm Johnson.
How does one encourage the intelligent and well intentioned politicians to come to the fore, when all we ever see in the newspapers are lowlifes like Farage, Johnson and Rees-Mogg?
Really, it would be good to see the right people, of any political orientation, stepping forward. But in a world where lying, two-faced rates like Farage and his ilk continue to gain media space and people's affectations, then what hope is there for the 'real' guys who just want to talk about the issues.
In the EU, out of the EU, BEANO or [insert_favourite_country] Plus would all be much more manageable if we had intelligent people motivated by the future of our country rather than their own glory..
|
Remember that FFS Johnson took quite a while at the start of the referendum whether he was for leaving or not...a typical weather vane politician. He wagered that there was more of a future for him politically to fall in with the leavers.
I asked a question on this very forum in 2016. "what about the UK's hard border?" when one contributer here didn't know we even had one. NI is and was the only flaw in leaving the EU - having a hard border there would never, ever work (that was tried that between 1922 and the current Good Friday accord) it leaks like a leaky thing (quite rightly for two neighbours on good terms). A "Norway Solution would never work either - that has been customized to suit to particular neighbours.
Leaving the EU will never work
|
>>Leaving the EU will never work<<
That is the root of this problem.
We give up too easily, we waive the white flag and surrender.
If we all gave up in life that easily we wouldn't be here now.
Whatever happened to 'we will find a way to make it work'?
Or is that too hard/against your wishes/won't benefit you personally?
Pat
|
|
Ok, so how are we going to make the Irish question work. I certainly have no idea I'm the first to admit.
|
>>Or is that too hard/against your wishes/won't benefit you personally?
Why add that bit addressed to R.P.?
How has he warranted your bitterness other than by preferring Remain?
|
>> I can't say I like Corbyn or agree with his political views, but he does seem to have a more 'honourable' motivation that the likes of that worm Johnson.
Well that's not too difficult.
However, Corbyn is doing exactly what feels he needs to try to become the next PM.
His primary objective is to be calling the shots.
The ultimate Brexit outcome is waaaaay down his list compared to being in a position to create a socialist agenda for the UK.
>>Really, it would be good to see the right people, of any political orientation, stepping forward
I only know a couple of MPs on anything other than a fleeting level - who do you think would be up to the job?
|
>>I only know a couple of MPs on anything other than a fleeting level - who do you think would be up to the job?
I increasingly think I am not the person to ask. My opinions seem to differ dramatically from everybody else's. And I don't mean by political orientation, but rather by the opinion of a person.
Take David Mundell. I was at lunch with him, about 2 months ago I think it was. I found him to be intelligent, eloquent, I really was impressed with his views, both democratic and political.
I thought he took an honourable and open approach and a very pragmatic view. FWIW, his view was that he supported remain, thought the referendum should be respected, and thought that we should now leave both because that was, he felt, the correct thing to do, and also that remaining under the current circumstance would not in any case work.
I thoroughly enjoyed talking with him and felt, and feel, that he is an excellent politician, decent gentleman and should be up there running things.
Yet take a look at one example of the hammering he takes; And I don't mean because they disagree with his views, and he maintains it was a typo which I actually suspect is true, but look at the way the deal with him.
www.thenational.scot/news/17278032.david-mundell-doesnt-believe-staying-in-the-uk-is-an-option/
Still, Scotland is lucky to have him, if they would but recognise it.
|
>> Still, Scotland is lucky to have him, if they would but recognise it.
His constituency seem to agree with you.
The 'National' is as fervent about Scottish independence as the 'Mail' is about Brexit, so I wouldn't use it as a barometer of anything.
Their approach will be to kick lumps out of anything/anyone anti-Indy.
Which includes all Tories.
|
Why are so many Scots keen on independence from England.
Do they feel they have a raw deal or is it just we hate the Limey's and want to get writ.
Or are the English really bothered to let the Jocks go.One Island and so many different interpretations.
|
|
Oddly, supporters of Brexit seem to be (in general) against Scottish independence. Seems that a a state seeking its own sovereignty and right to self determination doesn't extend beyond Hadrian's Wall.
|
|
I'm not sure that's so, there's more support in England for Scottish ind than in Scotland itself. I'd say that's reflective across politics, in general population terms anyway.
|
"Why are so many Scots keen on independence from England."
It's because they can't play football, and they hate us for being slightly better.
|
I listened to The Prime Minister on the Today program this morning. Predictably she did not wish to discuss the alternatives to her deal should it be voted down next week but she did make a tentative move in bringing some of her errant backbencher back on board. She seemed to ne offering parliament a role in the implementation of the hated backstop.
Not sure how that will go down with the EU.
Brexit: Theresa May 'looking at MPs' role on backstop' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46463326
|
>> Not sure how that will go down with the EU.
The backstop is, in simple terms, an insurance policy. Cannot see EU allowing its use to be subject to a simple vote in the current Commons. Ironically, it may have a better chance of passing after an election with a different set of MPs but that's a gamble.
If however the vote were bundled up in some wider piece of 'constructive ambiguity' perhaps it could at least get some Tories on board.
Can't see DUP agreeing though. Although they're a Loyalist party Ulster Loyalism has long been conditional on loyal Ulstermen getting their way.
Mrs M did seem remarkably chipper though. She must have some plan B up her sleeve.
|
Why hard border will bring problem in Ireland? The trouble inicident happened many years back. Is there any proof that situation still remains the same?
Countries in EU fought wars with each other many years ago but now they are living together. Why Ireland will be an exception?
|
|
May help if you read the history of the Island of Ireland. You can't have a hard border between two nations within the UK. Not ever.
|
But Ireland is not in UK. what is the problem with hard border between UK (which includes NI) and Ireland?
Does Good Friday Agreement specifically say that there would not be any border in future?
|
You need to do some reading. I don't think history of Ireland and the UK can be condesed into a few sentences.
Just take it as read that the return of a hard border would be a highly contentious issue and would be seen as a betrayal by many.
|
>> Why hard border will bring problem in Ireland? The trouble inicident happened many years back.
>> Is there any proof that situation still remains the same?
>>
>> Countries in EU fought wars with each other many years ago but now they are
>> living together. Why Ireland will be an exception?
Jeez. I'm sure I've explained this to you before.
There's a history here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland
Start with the Normans. Focus more on the roles of Cromwell and William of Orange and the subsequent history of landlordism etc. The Troubles were not 'an incident happened many years ago' (sic). I'm 59 later this month and in their most recent iteration they lasted practically half of my life. The underlying split between Irish and British (the Catholic/Protestant thing is just a flag) is still there. They live mostly in seperate communities and send their children to segregated schools.
It's much better than it was but still a tinderbox.
The border required people who regarded them selves as Irish to cross a frontier they didn't recognise. It was, or at least was perceived to be policed on behalf of the Northern Irish British in a way which discriminated against the minority community.
Compromise over the border and the current set up where it's there but only in name is FUNDAMENTAL TO THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT. You cannot muck about with it without the serious risk of re-igniting the Troubles.
While the details are different there are some analogies with India and Pakistan.
|
|
You beat me to it Bromp. Especially the India/Pakistan thing.
|
Agree with virtually all of that, Bromp, except
" the Catholic/Protestant thing is just a flag"
It's still a very strong thing in "working class" Glasgow and , I believe, Liverpool as well. (and probably other places I do't know about) with a state between parts of the two communities which varies from distrust through animosity to downright hatred. Northern Ireland is just the deepest example of it.
|
Indian sub-continent analogy doesn't work here.
There is very strict hard border between India and Pakistan. If anyone tries to cross he will be shot first and asked question later.
Only similarity is Hindu vs Muslim instead of Protestant vs Catholic. I can understand in a developing/under developed country people fighting over religions but how come in a developed country like UK people still fight on religion? Is protestant vs catholic fight as bad as Shia vs Sunni?
NI and Ireland have different currencies, different tax system, different rules and they are all happy with that and but only a border will cause trouble?
If local people want to cross border without checking there could be automatic passport scans like RFID/other technology etc. Ireland/EU and UK likely to have very similar goods/hygiene standard - so that should not be a problem transfering goods across border.
My point is that Ireland border issue is being used as an excuse to prevent Brexit from happening rather than trying to find a solution for it.
|
>> Indian sub-continent analogy doesn't work here.
>>
>> There is very strict hard border between India and Pakistan. If anyone tries to cross
>> he will be shot first and asked question later.
Movi,
Thanks for posting that. I dont agree with it but at least you're setting out your thinking rather than just posting slogans.
Going off for lunch with my son shortly so will be off line.
Will explain this afternoon why I thin you're still off beam.
|
>> Going off for lunch with my son shortly so will be off line.
Anywhere nice?
Wetherspoons?
|
>> Indian sub-continent analogy doesn't work here.
>>
>> There is very strict hard border between India and Pakistan. If anyone tries to cross
>> he will be shot first and asked question later.
The analogy is that both borders were drawn on independence to deal with needs/aspirations of people of different cultures. Shoot to kill first and ask questions later was, historically, an event alleged to occur on the Eire/NI border on a regular basis. That's exactly why no return to a hard border is a red line. A border that the Irish side of the conflict regard as illegitimate will inevitably be a source of conflict even if policed by RFID etc.
The troubles were NOT simply about Catholic v Protestant, though as Commerdriver observes they spill over into sectarianism in other parts of UK - mostly those where there has been Irish immigration.
There's an explanation here :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
You really need to understand this stuff before making judgements about the UK.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 6 Dec 18 at 16:52
|
>> My point is that Ireland border issue is being used as an excuse to prevent
>> Brexit from happening rather than trying to find a solution for it.
I assume you were not in the UK at the height of the troubles? The good Friday agreement stopped the terrorism, and the murders and the bombings, both pn the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Yes the good Friday agreement explicitly prevents a hard border. Its is not being used as an excuse to stop Brexit, its there to keep peace.
The analogy to Pakistan and India is very real, and people were shot at the border. SAS troops used to hide out to shoot IRA members, IRA gangs used to fire rockets into northern Ireland police points.
It wa sin many ways like the Gaza Strip border.
Now stop saying the Irish border is not an issue and is fake, its not, you are being offensive because you were not here and you are not prepared to read up on the history.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 6 Dec 18 at 17:28
|
>>The underlying split between Irish and British (the Catholic/Protestant
>> thing is just a flag) is still there. They live mostly in seperate communities and
>> send their children to segregated schools.
>>
A detail perhaps, and I am happy to be corrected, if wrong.
I understand that Catholics send their children to Catholic schools.
Protestants send their children to state schools - which as there are only Protestants there, are then, in effect, Protestant schools.
Several years ago, on a walking holiday in Ireland (Kerry Way) when checking into a B & B, one of our party was told off by the landlady because he lived in Cromwell Avenue/Close, whatever. He pointed out that it was just the name of the road, but she wasn't happy!
Long and selective memories, the Irish.
|
I think the offer was directed at those conservative MPs who feel acutely uncomfortable at the prospect of voting against the Government. Some sort of involvement in the backstop would give them a way back
The PM did indeed sound in good form. Whatever your views on Brexit you do have to admire her persistence and focus.
|
Brexit: A Love Story - Bromptonaut
