1) Recant your treasonous support for Russia Leave
or
2) Be sent to The Tower
Reason #3345 for a People’s Vote.
Please just call it a second referendum. I'm not opposed to one, and in the last couple of weeks I've come to think we are probably going to have to have one, but calling it that just looks so childish, as though the first one was not a people's vote.
But it’s not a second vote. It’s a vote on the deal - and a chance for the People to tell the incompetent and/or Russian-funded Brexitarchy to go do one.
If its a vote on the deal then the two options should be accept the deal or reject it - in which case it is WTO. If there is a Remain option then it is a second vote.
A reject shouldn’t (necessarily) lead to WTO. We ought to keep open the option for EEA or Remain.
We already voted on whether to Remain or not. If you want that vote then it is a second referendum under the EU's 'keep asking until they give the right answer' programme. It will be a second referendum and will be portrayed as such with the associated message of 'you voted the wrong way last time, try again'.
The vote would be to accept or reject the deal. However a vote to reject would not necessarily imply a vote for WTO.
If you genuinely want an EEA, how are you going to get there, Richard?
You need:
- May to fall and be replaced by an EEAer or; - The Commons to reject the deal and force May into an EEA deal, or; - A vote on the deal which rejects the government’s proposal and leads, probably with May’s ousting, to a pivot toward EEA.
Your hostility to a public vote is blocking one of the possible routes to an EEA solution.
As I said earlier I genuinely don't think we can get there. I don't think there is now enough time for it. Certainly a public vote will not do it. Why should an option that has not been seriously considered for 18 months suddenly be proposed as one of the alternatives in a referendum?
May falling and being replaced by an EEA'er might move things forward but I still think time is too short. The Commons cannot force May into any specific position they can only accept or reject whatever deal she negotiates.
My hostility is not to a public vote. It is to a vote that revisits the question we have already been asked.
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
It would have ended up with us crashing out. That wouldn't have been a better job.
The poll shows the public is shifting towards wanting to stay in the EU’s single market. Currently 38% would prefer to stay in the single market even if it means allowing free movement of Labour, while 34% would prefer to end free movement of labour even if it means we leave the single market.
Meaningless given most Leave voters who actually won the vote on that close a margin would clearly put ending free movement first.
Also from that poll 'the public remain unmoved on whether or not to have a new referendum. Asked if there should be another in-out referendum on the final deal, 38% said there should be, while 48% said there should not be.'
1) Recant your treasonous support for Russia Leave
or
2) Be sent to The Tower
Reason #3345 for a People’s Vote.
Please just call it a second referendum. I'm not opposed to one, and in the last couple of weeks I've come to think we are probably going to have to have one, but calling it that just looks so childish, as though the first one was not a people's vote.
But it’s not a second vote. It’s a vote on the deal - and a chance for the People to tell the incompetent and/or Russian-funded Brexitarchy to go do one.
If its a vote on the deal then the two options should be accept the deal or reject it - in which case it is WTO. If there is a Remain option then it is a second vote.
A reject shouldn’t (necessarily) lead to WTO. We ought to keep open the option for EEA or Remain.
We already voted on whether to Remain or not. If you want that vote then it is a second referendum under the EU's 'keep asking until they give the right answer' programme. It will be a second referendum and will be portrayed as such with the associated message of 'you voted the wrong way last time, try again'.
The vote would be to accept or reject the deal. However a vote to reject would not necessarily imply a vote for WTO.
If you genuinely want an EEA, how are you going to get there, Richard?
You need:
- May to fall and be replaced by an EEAer or; - The Commons to reject the deal and force May into an EEA deal, or; - A vote on the deal which rejects the government’s proposal and leads, probably with May’s ousting, to a pivot toward EEA.
Your hostility to a public vote is blocking one of the possible routes to an EEA solution.
An EEA-type agreement is guaranteed to be one of the options? What if it is just deal or no deal?
I think we need to test the assumption that “no deal” means WTO. I don’t know why it would. I know May would like it to, to scare us into supporting her. And the timetable makes everything almost impossible.
But fuck it, why should it? I see no need to let the country march off a cliff because “reasons”.
That is a valid argument. We should explore alternative Brexit destinations. But as I said we should have been exploring them 18 months ago.
1) Recant your treasonous support for Russia Leave
or
2) Be sent to The Tower
Reason #3345 for a People’s Vote.
Please just call it a second referendum. I'm not opposed to one, and in the last couple of weeks I've come to think we are probably going to have to have one, but calling it that just looks so childish, as though the first one was not a people's vote.
But it’s not a second vote. It’s a vote on the deal - and a chance for the People to tell the incompetent and/or Russian-funded Brexitarchy to go do one.
We already voted on whether to Remain or not. If you want that vote then it is a second referendum under the EU's 'keep asking until they give the right answer' programme. It will be a second referendum and will be portrayed as such with the associated message of 'you voted the wrong way last time, try again'.
The vote would be to accept or reject the deal. However a vote to reject would not necessarily imply a vote for WTO.
If you genuinely want an EEA, how are you going to get there, Richard?
You need:
- May to fall and be replaced by an EEAer or; - The Commons to reject the deal and force May into an EEA deal, or; - A vote on the deal which rejects the government’s proposal and leads, probably with May’s ousting, to a pivot toward EEA.
Your hostility to a public vote is blocking one of the possible routes to an EEA solution.
As I said earlier I genuinely don't think we can get there. I don't think there is now enough time for it. Certainly a public vote will not do it. Why should an option that has not been seriously considered for 18 months suddenly be proposed as one of the alternatives in a referendum?
May falling and being replaced by an EEA'er might move things forward but I still think time is too short. The Commons cannot force May into any specific position they can only accept or reject whatever deal she negotiates.
My hostility is not to a public vote. It is to a vote that revisits the question we have already been asked.
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
The poll shows the public is shifting towards wanting to stay in the EU’s single market. Currently 38% would prefer to stay in the single market even if it means allowing free movement of Labour, while 34% would prefer to end free movement of labour even if it means we leave the single market.
Interesting and tends to confirm the impression that the 7-point lead was an outlier. But I think TSE is right that having really low expectations may be TM's friend- in the end, any old deal may seem the best that could be managed, and public hostility to the compromises needed seems to be softening.
A caveat: Opinium is a bit of a mess at the moment - I'm on their panel, and half the emails they send don't have clickable links in my browser. They've resorted to saying "if that doesn't work try this link", which is OK but a bit desperate. They changed their payment system recently with hiccups on the way, though it seems to be working now.
I have just neen looking at polls from previous Parliaments , and surprised that in March /April 1976 Labour enjoyed leads as high as 6% & 7% over the Tories - ie 18 months into the October 1974 Parliament. It didn't mean lot,however, re-predicting the 1979 election outcome.
That was pre Winter of Discontent and by May 1976 the Tories led most polls anyway, indeed a November 1976 Gallup poll had Thatcher's Tories leading Callaghan's Labour by a huge 55% to 30% margin and NOP had the Tories ahead 55% to 31% that same month.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.
I have just neen looking at polls from previous Parliaments , and surprised that in March /April 1976 Labour enjoyed leads as high as 6% & 7% over the Tories - ie 18 months into the October 1974 Parliament. It didn't mean lot,however, re-predicting the 1979 election outcome.
That was pre Winter of Discontent and by May 1976 the Tories led most polls anyway, indeed a November 1976 Gallup poll had Thatcher's Tories leading Callaghan's Labour by a huge 55% to 30% margin and NOP had the Tories ahead 55% to 31% that same month.
Though of course polls in the first half of a Parliament are not always accurate otherwise we would have had PM Foot and PM Ed Miliband.
I have never argued that polling data early in a Parliament is likely to be a good indicator of what might happen 3 or 4 years later at an election. A big lead for the Opposition party in years 1 & 2 still gives the incumbent plenty of time to recover as exemplified by the Parliaments of 1955 and 1979. It is when a Government hits choppy waters from year 3 onwards - as happened in the Parliaments of 1959 and October 1974 - that its recovery prospects tend to become much more difficult.
How long before the 25th amendment to the US constitution gets invoked? Trump is more and more obviously a loon!
On his impending meeting with Kim Jong-un:
"I think within the first minute, I'll know".
"How?" a reporter asked.
"I just, my touch, my feel, that's what, that's what I do. How long will it take to figure out whether or not they're serious? I said, maybe in the first minute. You know the way they say that, you know if you're going to like somebody in the first five seconds? You ever hear that one? Well I think that very quickly I'll know whether or not something good is going to happen. I also think I'll know whether or not it will happen fast."
This is the man whose negotiating style Boris Johnson thinks Britgov should adopt in the Brexit negotiations?
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
That was the point I made earlier. It is what it is and for all her faults May has I think tried her best for the past year at least to make the deal as palatable as possible. There will be a deal and it won't be brilliant but the idea that a ton of folk on here or other politicos could have done much better is pretty absurd.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.
Would your analogy be affected if you had entered into a binding contract to to sell the old house with a completion date of 29th March 2019 and there was no reason to suppose that the purchasers would contemplate any renegotiation of that contract?
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
That was the point I made earlier. It is what it is and for all her faults May has I think tried her best for the past year at least to make the deal as palatable as possible. There will be a deal and it won't be brilliant but the idea that a ton of folk on here or other politicos could have done much better is pretty absurd.
She made a substantial unforced contribution to the weakness of the hand by giving Article 50 notice.
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.
It would be. But we are not going gently gently Jonny. So let’s get a vote to reject the current shambles so we can reset.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.
Would your analogy be affected if you had entered into a binding contract to to sell the old house with a completion date of 29th March 2019 and there was no reason to suppose that the purchasers would contemplate any renegotiation of that contract?
Of course. For example, I’d be asking whether the person who was telling me there was no reason to suppose that the purchasers would contemplate any renegotiation of the contract was giving me disinterested advice. I’d also wonder who would enter into that contract without having spotted that the question that they were asking didn’t really give sufficient information to decide whether entering into a potentially irrevocable contract was a smart idea.
@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B Obama
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.
Not controlling immigration post Brexit would destroy the Tory party. Still being under the EU legal thumb would too. And of course EEA doesn't solve the Northern Ireland border issue so it would be EEA + CU so no benefit at all.
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
No one has lost any arguments. The same reasons for leaving the EU still apply and are still valid. Of course Remoaners like you will try and claim it is all doomed but in the end there is no appetite amongst the politicians for reversing the decision as they know it would end their careers and quite possibly their parties. So either they see Brexit through with whatever deal they feel is survivable or we have a WTO Brexit. Either way we will be leaving.
I disagree.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.
I take the reverse view, we should respect the fact that Leave won both as a desire for greater control of immigration and more sovereignty.
After 10 years or so of no free movement and tighter immigration controls then maybe we can rejoin the EEA and single market or EFTA (while still technically being outside the EU).
However to respect the Leave vote properly we have to end freedom of movement and reduce immigration, especially unskilled immigration, first.
How long before the 25th amendment to the US constitution gets invoked? Trump is more and more obviously a loon!
On his impending meeting with Kim Jong-un:
"I think within the first minute, I'll know".
"How?" a reporter asked.
"I just, my touch, my feel, that's what, that's what I do. How long will it take to figure out whether or not they're serious? I said, maybe in the first minute. You know the way they say that, you know if you're going to like somebody in the first five seconds? You ever hear that one? Well I think that very quickly I'll know whether or not something good is going to happen. I also think I'll know whether or not it will happen fast."
This is the man whose negotiating style Boris Johnson thinks Britgov should adopt in the Brexit negotiations?
Trump is right in this there are whole books written on psychological negotiating. One of the main points is why is it that two people can meet for the first time and instantly dislike each other or vice a versa. Then there is understanding body language et al. I always look at shoes as an indicator, a person who wears Clarkes Attackers is a different person to one that has a pair of Chruch's Oxfords on. The real skilful negotiator recognises all this and changes their behaviour, language, explanation style and body language to make the other side like them to get the deal they want.
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
.
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.
Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
I have just neen looking at polls from previous Parliaments , and surprised that in March /April 1976 Labour enjoyed leads as high as 6% & 7% over the Tories - ie 18 months into the October 1974 Parliament. It didn't mean lot,however, re-predicting the 1979 election outcome.
Tsk, you're grasping at straws.
Those leads were down to Labour dominating the airwaves due to the leadership contest that saw Jim Callaghan become PM.
You do know new PMs get a polling boost?
I well understand that but Labour had a clear lead prior to Callaghan taking over on April 5th. As far back as November 1975 Gallup had Labour 5.5% ahead.
The Conservatives were well ahead in the May 1976 local elections:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
.
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.
Leaving CAP and CFP (do I get a bonus point for naming two?)
@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B Obama
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-
Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It's not though.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
No one has lost any arguments. The same reasons for leaving the EU still apply and are still valid. Of course Remoaners like you will try and claim it is all doomed but in the end there is no appetite amongst the politicians for reversing the decision as they know it would end their careers and quite possibly their parties. So either they see Brexit through with whatever deal they feel is survivable or we have a WTO Brexit. Either way we will be leaving.
I disagree.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
.
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.
Leaving CAP and CFP (do I get a bonus point for naming two?)
Important for farmers and fishermen for sure, but it's hardly a powerful message of freedom to the rest of us, is it?
Arron Banks, the millionaire businessman who bankrolled Nigel Farage’s campaign to quit the EU, had multiple meetings with Russian embassy officials in the run-up to the Brexit referendum, documents seen by the Observer suggest.
Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.
The communications suggest:
Multiple, undisclosed meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Banks and Wigmore – who was also present at many of the meetings – were due to appear before the select committee for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on Tuesday to answer questions about Leave.EU’s role in the European referendum.
Hours after the Observer contacted them for comment on Friday, they published a letter stating they would not attend the hearing, and accused the committee of colluding with a pro-Remain campaign group.
But on Saturday Banks suggested that he would attend after all, and accused the Tory chairman, Damian Collins, of colluding with journalists.
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
we will be leaving.
I disagree.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.
Migration large enough it shows up in any actual data? Otherwise it's just the same cherry picking and confirmation bias you show in Brexit related news. Meanwhile, in the real world, the UK has record high employment and the next Eurozone crisis is already starting.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
.
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.
Leaving CAP and CFP (do I get a bonus point for naming two?)
Important for farmers and fishermen for sure, but it's hardly a powerful message of freedom to the rest of us, is it?
If you eat food, both are likely to have some impact. Actually I thought the perceived inefficiency of CAP and the imagined sovereignty issues of CFP were seen as a big deal by many leavers, so both should count as wins.
' Britain may be in the grip of a cold snap but consumers can get a taste of the first UK strawberries of 2018, which went on sale on Thursday.
A Welsh fruit grower has broken the record for picking the earliest ever British strawberries – grown in glasshouses – and getting them on to supermarket shelves.
The berries, grown by Springfield Nursery near Cowbridge in south Wales, went on on sale in Tesco’s Bridgend Extra store. The discount supermarket Aldi was also selling strawberries at its store in Bridgend. '
Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It's not though.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
That means it is. They can't get it picked because it's work of such low value it's not worth them paying a decent wage to do it. The UK had a productivity problem. Why maintain low productivity work when people have better paid jobs elsewhere?
I doubt EEA membership would ever flown as a referendum option. The Leave Ultras would have declared it a smoke-and-mirrors betrayal as immigration is untouched; Remainers would say it was a poor-man's EU membership. We'd also have a bit of 'vassal state' thrown in from all sides. It's really just the minority Brexit preferred by the metropolitan dinner-party set.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.
Except the analogy doesn't hold. What has actually happened is that there are lots of other houses available but one person has decided that only a house in need of a lot of renovation will do. And actually even though there are other houses you would rather move to, even the house in need of renovation is still better than the rat infested hole you were living in before.
Edit: Oh and the person who decided you must move to the house in need of renovation didn't actually want to move in the first place and still doesn't get why you couldn't learn to put up with the rats and rising damp in the old place.
@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B Obama
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
we will be leaving.
I disagree.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.
Migration large enough it shows up in any actual data? Otherwise it's just the same cherry picking and confirmation bias you show in Brexit related news. Meanwhile, in the real world, the UK has record high employment and the next Eurozone crisis is already starting.
The drop in FDI is massive. That’s a real world stat. The question is, as you say, why it is not showing up in aggregate unemployment figures.
I assume it manifests at present as lost growth, and lost total employment rather than unemployment. The tragedy is that’s difficult to quantify.
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
I am in Britain, you twit.
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.
Except the analogy doesn't hold. What has actually happened is that there are lots of other houses available but one person has decided that only a house in need of a lot of renovation will do. And actually even though there are other houses you would rather move to, even the house in need of renovation is still better than the rat infested hole you were living in before.
Edit: Oh and the person who decided you must move to the house in need of renovation didn't actually want to move in the first place and still doesn't get why you couldn't learn to put up with the rats and rising damp in the old place.
That’s entirely fair, but to continue with the analogy, any meaningful question in real-life would include comparing the other houses you would rather move to (and can afford, and which are for sale) with the house in need of renovation and the house you currently live in - rats, damp and all. After all, if it’s that bad, why would you be worried about asking people to compare it with all the other available options?
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.
Not controlling immigration post Brexit would destroy the Tory party. Still being under the EU legal thumb would too. And of course EEA doesn't solve the Northern Ireland border issue so it would be EEA + CU so no benefit at all.
I am not interested in whether any final deal destroys the Tory party or any other party. No party has an innate right to exist and we certainly shouldn't be deciding our future based on whether or not one political party or another will be damaged or destroyed by it.
@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B Obama
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-
@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B Obama
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-
Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It's not though.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
Yet it is being picked because its in the supermarket.
I'll believe that reality rather then unquestioned anecdotes in the Guardian.
Especially as it involves farmers - a group notorious for proclaiming the current year to be the 'worst ever' and who always want the government to provide a cheaper workforce or another subsidy.
Well there's the CAP and CFP and various other things we would leave, which may seem trivial, and maybe they are, but at least they would be a start.
The point is more the principle. We are a free nation again. Ireland was tied to the UK for decades after Ireland gained independence, but slowly they have moved towards a better place (though now they seem happy to throw it all away, in return for being governed, albeit prosperously, by Berlin - but that is their sovereign choice)
We need to dramatically move the ratchet the other way from "ever closer union". Brexit does that. It sets a new trajectory. The least damaging Brexit is EEA, and from there we can inch slowly and gently ever further away, while quietly keeping the best bits (if possible).
Ultimately I would (with great trepidation and bewailing and rending of garments) accept WTO No Deal Brexit if it has to be that way, but it is utterly ridiculous and stupid if that happens, and would be a grave political failure: as I am pretty sure the nation could wearily unite around EEA status - polls show it.
Mad Remainers and hardcore Leavers would go ape. Fuck them.
It wouldn't just be the hardcore Leavers. It would be the vast bulk, who want laws and control of who comes here to be decided by us. How could we be said to be a free nation again when we have to abide by a foreign parliament and a foreign court? Your argument about the principle would be laughed out of court. Remainers want to have a Brexit which comes with all the disadvantages and none of the advantages so that they can discredit it. Your slow pivoting away would actually be used as a springboard to go back in as "we've shown there are no advantages possible anyway".
The right course is what May's muddling through is slowly coming to. Exit the Single Market but have some sort of mutual recognition of regulations by 2020. Announce new Brexit immigration controls just before the next election. Exit the Customs Union around 2023 and then announce new trade deals just before the following one. There is your pivot.
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
.
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.
EEA + CU is a non starter. Neither EU or EFTA rules allow it.
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.
I would have preferred a cleaner break than the EEA to be honest but I could live with it as an intermediate step. The negotiations have demonstrated many of the worst aspects of the EU. I find it remarkable that so few remainers are minded to call them out for their disgraceful behaviour. @Alastair_Meeks in fairness does but many seem to glory in every petty insult inflicted on their own country. It’s like some sort of Stockholm effect.
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
I am in Britain, you twit.
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
Yes, and those others include Russia and her apologists in the West.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.
Telegraph reporting that Amber Rudd and IDS have joined forces and told the press that every conservative MP must vote for what T May wants in the votes next week. Interesting.
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia. (Snip)
I did try to say something positive about the EU on a couple of occasions. True, it was a small area, and one that could be argued to be inconsequential, but an area where the EU has been a positive. All I got in response were (to use your wording) 'deluded' leavers telling me that I was lying, that I was wrong, etc, etc. Despite my giving lots of links and supporting information.
They did not argue the information, and they did not argue the consequences of that information. They could not countenance that there might even be a small area where the EU has been a positive. One poster who had been arguing with me eventually admitted he'd not even looked at the supporting information.
Now, IMO the correct response would have been something like: "Okay, I'll give you that. The EU isn't totally bad. But if you weigh it up against all the negatives, it's still bad."
But not one of the 'deluded' leavers on here could do that. If you didn't hear anything positive about the EU, might it be because you are incapable of hearing anything positive about it?
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed. A picture is worth a 1000 words.
Really?
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.
.
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.
EEA + CU is a non starter. Neither EU or EFTA rules allow it.
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
I am in Britain, you twit.
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
Yes, and those others include Russia and her apologists in the West.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.
A foreign power is a foreign power, irrespective of how they behave.
No one has lost any arguments. The same reasons for leaving the EU still apply and are still valid. Of course Remoaners like you will try and claim it is all doomed but in the end there is no appetite amongst the politicians for reversing the decision as they know it would end their careers and quite possibly their parties. So either they see Brexit through with whatever deal they feel is survivable or we have a WTO Brexit. Either way we will be leaving.
I disagree.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.
That might be and clearly some parts of the economy are struggling (high street retail most obviously) but other parts of the economy are doing better.
We have a dynamic economy in a globalised world and change is inevitable.
Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It's not though.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
Yet it is being picked because its in the supermarket.
I'll believe that reality rather then unquestioned anecdotes in the Guardian.
Especially as it involves farmers - a group notorious for proclaiming the current year to be the 'worst ever' and who always want the government to provide a cheaper workforce or another subsidy.
Nor am I seeing any great change in the cost of Strawberries compared to last year. £2 for 400g in Sainsburys or Tesco is the same price it has been for a good few years.
Telegraph reporting that Amber Rudd and IDS have joined forces and told the press that every conservative MP must vote for what T May wants in the votes next week. Interesting.
IDS doesn’t want a customs union. Rudd wants to keep May in knowing that she’s the best bet toward remaining...in a customs union.
Both would be better realising that it’s time to throw the dice. Gove (or rather Javid), and a vote on the deal, is all you need.
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia. (Snip)
I did try to say something positive about the EU on a couple of occasions. True, it was a small area, and one that could be argued to be inconsequential, but an area where the EU has been a positive. All I got in response were (to use your wording) 'deluded' leavers telling me that I was lying, that I was wrong, etc, etc. Despite my giving lots of links and supporting information.
They did not argue the information, and they did not argue the consequences of that information. They could not countenance that there might even be a small area where the EU has been a positive. One poster who had been arguing with me eventually admitted he'd not even looked at the supporting information.
Now, IMO the correct response would have been something like: "Okay, I'll give you that. The EU isn't totally bad. But if you weigh it up against all the negatives, it's still bad."
But not one of the 'deluded' leavers on here could do that. If you didn't hear anything positive about the EU, might it be because you are incapable of hearing anything positive about it?
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of positives. I think cooperation on science and such like (in the manner of an intergovernmental organisation) is a good thing. We cooperate on railway safety and things like that. All good.
The problem is that none that is good enough for a political campaign that needed to overcome the costs, and Osborne et al knew it.
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
I am in Britain, you twit.
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
Yes, and those others include Russia and her apologists in the West.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.
A foreign power is a foreign power, irrespective of how they behave.
Tautology doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about why you’re happy to shrug off Russian interference.
Comments
May falling and being replaced by an EEA'er might move things forward but I still think time is too short. The Commons cannot force May into any specific position they can only accept or reject whatever deal she negotiates.
My hostility is not to a public vote. It is to a vote that revisits the question we have already been asked.
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
Also from that poll 'the public remain unmoved on whether or not to have a new referendum. Asked if there should be another in-out referendum on the final deal, 38% said there should be, while 48% said there should not be.'
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
A caveat: Opinium is a bit of a mess at the moment - I'm on their panel, and half the emails they send don't have clickable links in my browser. They've resorted to saying "if that doesn't work try this link", which is OK but a bit desperate. They changed their payment system recently with hiccups on the way, though it seems to be working now.
Charles, you just totally jumped the shark.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1974-1979
Though of course polls in the first half of a Parliament are not always accurate otherwise we would have had PM Foot and PM Ed Miliband.
If you really think Tudor France played an active role in the referendum then up your meds.
On his impending meeting with Kim Jong-un:
"I think within the first minute, I'll know".
"How?" a reporter asked.
"I just, my touch, my feel, that's what, that's what I do. How long will it take to figure out whether or not they're serious? I said, maybe in the first minute. You know the way they say that, you know if you're going to like somebody in the first five seconds? You ever hear that one? Well I think that very quickly I'll know whether or not something good is going to happen. I also think I'll know whether or not it will happen fast."
This is the man whose negotiating style Boris Johnson thinks Britgov should adopt in the Brexit negotiations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyz-vlvB0rA
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
Did this include Spain and France? Yes to Spain (Gib) I assume so with France
Do France and Spain have a history of positioning people on the streets of England? Yes
You didn’t include any qualifications in your assertion
https://twitter.com/wastedwoodlouse/status/1005417459778809857?s=21
Like an Anglican banking scion version of HAL from 2001.
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
After 10 years or so of no free movement and tighter immigration controls then maybe we can rejoin the EEA and single market or EFTA (while still technically being outside the EU).
However to respect the Leave vote properly we have to end freedom of movement and reduce immigration, especially unskilled immigration, first.
And this was the official Remain leader, not some secondary rabble on the Leave side.
I always look at shoes as an indicator, a person who wears Clarkes Attackers is a different person to one that has a pair of Chruch's Oxfords on.
The real skilful negotiator recognises all this and changes their behaviour, language, explanation style and body language to make the other side like them to get the deal they want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_1976
Though perhaps by not as much as in 1975 and 1977.
Then you are at best a useful idiot.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.
The communications suggest:
Multiple, undisclosed meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Banks and Wigmore – who was also present at many of the meetings – were due to appear before the select committee for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on Tuesday to answer questions about Leave.EU’s role in the European referendum.
Hours after the Observer contacted them for comment on Friday, they published a letter stating they would not attend the hearing, and accused the committee of colluding with a pro-Remain campaign group.
But on Saturday Banks suggested that he would attend after all, and accused the Tory chairman, Damian Collins, of colluding with journalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting
' Britain may be in the grip of a cold snap but consumers can get a taste of the first UK strawberries of 2018, which went on sale on Thursday.
A Welsh fruit grower has broken the record for picking the earliest ever British strawberries – grown in glasshouses – and getting them on to supermarket shelves.
The berries, grown by Springfield Nursery near Cowbridge in south Wales, went on on sale in Tesco’s Bridgend Extra store. The discount supermarket Aldi was also selling strawberries at its store in Bridgend. '
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/22/earliest-ever-british-strawberries-arrive-supermarket-shelves-wales
Now go down to your local supermarket and see all the produce displaying the Union Jack.
Edit: Oh and the person who decided you must move to the house in need of renovation didn't actually want to move in the first place and still doesn't get why you couldn't learn to put up with the rats and rising damp in the old place.
I assume it manifests at present as lost growth, and lost total employment rather than unemployment. The tragedy is that’s difficult to quantify.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
I'll believe that reality rather then unquestioned anecdotes in the Guardian.
Especially as it involves farmers - a group notorious for proclaiming the current year to be the 'worst ever' and who always want the government to provide a cheaper workforce or another subsidy.
The right course is what May's muddling through is slowly coming to. Exit the Single Market but have some sort of mutual recognition of regulations by 2020. Announce new Brexit immigration controls just before the next election. Exit the Customs Union around 2023 and then announce new trade deals just before the following one. There is your pivot.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.
I was being a pedant, not making a serious point
Interesting.
Kippers/Leavers surprisingly willing tools of the Kremlin.
I'm never using that in future thread headers. Honest.
They did not argue the information, and they did not argue the consequences of that information. They could not countenance that there might even be a small area where the EU has been a positive. One poster who had been arguing with me eventually admitted he'd not even looked at the supporting information.
Now, IMO the correct response would have been something like: "Okay, I'll give you that. The EU isn't totally bad. But if you weigh it up against all the negatives, it's still bad."
But not one of the 'deluded' leavers on here could do that. If you didn't hear anything positive about the EU, might it be because you are incapable of hearing anything positive about it?
We have a dynamic economy in a globalised world and change is inevitable.
What those changes will amount to I don't know.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2018-04-26/Hostile envrionment-01.png
Rudd wants to keep May in knowing that she’s the best bet toward remaining...in a customs union.
Both would be better realising that it’s time to throw the dice. Gove (or rather Javid), and a vote on the deal, is all you need.
The problem is that none that is good enough for a political campaign that needed to overcome the costs, and Osborne et al knew it.
Funny, that.
Say no more.
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1005554739503878145