Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
New Eu Referendum Would Break Faith With Britons, May To Warn Mps
I first thought that Mrs May was living in Cloud Cuckooo Land but now I genuinely believe she takes the electorate for complete fools. By betraying the result of the referendum in attempting to cling to the EU by the skin of her teeth if necessary, regardless of the cost to the country, she's already broken faith with Britons. Who would trust her? Lies, lies, and more lies.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That's lovely and all, OG, but three is a further problem: no matter how much you insist on ignoring the evidence, the truth is that a No Deal exit would be extremely damaging to the UK. There have by now been more than enough studies, reports, investigations, reviews and papers published to show that this will be so. How can any MP reasonably be expected to endorse blindly pushing the UK, and perhaps by extension the EU with it, into a damaging and totally unnecessary economic downturn or worse? Chasing the abstract notion of sovereignty isn't justification enough to go down that route.
It is the responsibility and duty of our representative to act in the best interests of the country, not to blindly follow orders. The reason we send MPs to Parliament is to act on our behalf, and exercise their judgement accordingly. Parliament's best judgement is, and always has been, that being part of the EU, or EC as it used to be, was in the best interests of the UK. It is a shame that they never bothered to explain why, but they could and should have.
It is the responsibility and duty of our representative to act in the best interests of the country, not to blindly follow orders. The reason we send MPs to Parliament is to act on our behalf, and exercise their judgement accordingly. Parliament's best judgement is, and always has been, that being part of the EU, or EC as it used to be, was in the best interests of the UK. It is a shame that they never bothered to explain why, but they could and should have.
NJ: "Both have stated categorically that they will not implement a hard border in Ireland whatever the terms are under which the UK leaves the EU."
I don't think this is correct. All parties have stated that they want to *avoid* a hard border, but if the rules changes such that it becomes necessary -- which is what leaving the Customs Union entails -- then what choice will they have?
It should go without saying that keeping the border as it is now, while simultaneously wanting to keep control of our borders, is such a glaring and obvious contradiction that it doesn't matter what we may or may not have said.
I don't think this is correct. All parties have stated that they want to *avoid* a hard border, but if the rules changes such that it becomes necessary -- which is what leaving the Customs Union entails -- then what choice will they have?
It should go without saying that keeping the border as it is now, while simultaneously wanting to keep control of our borders, is such a glaring and obvious contradiction that it doesn't matter what we may or may not have said.
In which case, then, the flaw in your logic is that you've got the stated position wrong, and anyway stated positions in newspapers do not carry legal force -- as I'm sure you are aware.
Therefore, as I repeat: you're simply wrong. Nobody wants a hard border. Everybody concerned -- in particular, the Irish government -- has accepted that one must arise without some creative, and as-yet non-existent, solution if the UK is to leave the Customs Union (and regain control of its borders, which I had thought was the key point of Brexit anyway).
Therefore, yes, the backstop *is* necessary; and it's also necessary that we can't leave it unilaterally, because otherwise it would not actually be a backstop.
Therefore, as I repeat: you're simply wrong. Nobody wants a hard border. Everybody concerned -- in particular, the Irish government -- has accepted that one must arise without some creative, and as-yet non-existent, solution if the UK is to leave the Customs Union (and regain control of its borders, which I had thought was the key point of Brexit anyway).
Therefore, yes, the backstop *is* necessary; and it's also necessary that we can't leave it unilaterally, because otherwise it would not actually be a backstop.
With two years to prepare damage should be limited. And reports of doom and gloom tend to come from those with an interest not to leave and who's opinions have proved wrong so far.
Sovereignty is hardly abstract, either you let someone else control you or you don't. It is the priority, well above any claimed advantage to being in the EU. We had plenty of lies about the EEC being just a trade agreement, and therefore of value, when in reality it was a loss of sovereignty to an unelected power group intent on ruling a federal Europe.
The first duty of our representatives is to represent, not decide their opinion is superior to the rest of the country and impose their will. They can exercise their judgement on the less controversial day to day stuff, not by defying the people they are meant to represent.
Sovereignty is hardly abstract, either you let someone else control you or you don't. It is the priority, well above any claimed advantage to being in the EU. We had plenty of lies about the EEC being just a trade agreement, and therefore of value, when in reality it was a loss of sovereignty to an unelected power group intent on ruling a federal Europe.
The first duty of our representatives is to represent, not decide their opinion is superior to the rest of the country and impose their will. They can exercise their judgement on the less controversial day to day stuff, not by defying the people they are meant to represent.
The only thing that sovereignty really means in the modern world is having the freedom to decide whose rules you subject yourself to. In that sense, yes, it is rather more of an abstract concept that you are giving it credit for.
In the meantime, complain all you like, OG, but MPs are going to reject this deal -- which you want -- and then accept the evidence that No Deal is damaging or disastrous, and consequently avoid it. I dearly hope that we never have to test the truth of that assessment.
In the meantime, complain all you like, OG, but MPs are going to reject this deal -- which you want -- and then accept the evidence that No Deal is damaging or disastrous, and consequently avoid it. I dearly hope that we never have to test the truth of that assessment.
I know it's long, but Robert Peston of ITV just posted this update which I think is worth reading:
https:/
https:/
Notice especially that:
- Treasury has allocated £1.5bn for 'no deal' preparations this year and £2bn for next year. £500 million of that has been spent.
- Cabinet are tomorrow discussing the need for a public information plan to warn us about the economic shock of no-deal Brexit (incl disruption to medicine supplies and imported foods).
- There is no certainty that our other ports will be able to handle the diverted traffic from Dover. Dover port itself will need to be expanded beyond recognition (including paving over much of Kent).
We are not ready for 'no deal'. And it's pretty difficult to imagine how we possibly could be.
- Treasury has allocated £1.5bn for 'no deal' preparations this year and £2bn for next year. £500 million of that has been spent.
- Cabinet are tomorrow discussing the need for a public information plan to warn us about the economic shock of no-deal Brexit (incl disruption to medicine supplies and imported foods).
- There is no certainty that our other ports will be able to handle the diverted traffic from Dover. Dover port itself will need to be expanded beyond recognition (including paving over much of Kent).
We are not ready for 'no deal'. And it's pretty difficult to imagine how we possibly could be.
And as mentioned in response, over half of those who voted in a high turnout vote, voted to leave. You tell me how you see the next election going if the Govt P off over half their voters.
Since trade benefits all parties concerned it's not going to be a case of deciding whose rules one obeys, it's coming to a mutual agreement on trade not being forced into a federal block. Not all trade blocks demand control.
I can believe they'll reject the deal as few have spoken in support of it. And then realise there is no other option but no-deal, as exiting was voted for. Any other route bring imposed returns us to the point in the thread title, that parliament has proved themselves unfit and the public will lose most remaining faith with the system. That is a far worse scenario than an economic blip.
Since trade benefits all parties concerned it's not going to be a case of deciding whose rules one obeys, it's coming to a mutual agreement on trade not being forced into a federal block. Not all trade blocks demand control.
I can believe they'll reject the deal as few have spoken in support of it. And then realise there is no other option but no-deal, as exiting was voted for. Any other route bring imposed returns us to the point in the thread title, that parliament has proved themselves unfit and the public will lose most remaining faith with the system. That is a far worse scenario than an economic blip.
//Since trade benefits all parties concerned it's not going to be a case of deciding whose rules one obeys//
I think that's quite a naive view of how trade works. Both the USA and CPTPP - probably our best options when it comes to trade, and the ones that our government is most seriously considering - have been very clear that they expect us to change our domestic regulations in exchange for a trade deal. Non-tariff barriers are a much bigger deal than tariffs when it comes to trade in the modern world, and that inescapably involves rule-taking in some form or another (as indeed does WTO membership - which has on several occasions forced even the USA to change its laws).
I think that's quite a naive view of how trade works. Both the USA and CPTPP - probably our best options when it comes to trade, and the ones that our government is most seriously considering - have been very clear that they expect us to change our domestic regulations in exchange for a trade deal. Non-tariff barriers are a much bigger deal than tariffs when it comes to trade in the modern world, and that inescapably involves rule-taking in some form or another (as indeed does WTO membership - which has on several occasions forced even the USA to change its laws).
Rather a reckless gamble if you turn out to be wrong.
Speaking of, there is probably nothing I'd rather happen more than to be shown up as an arrogant fool, who was so blinded by being in the EU that I couldn't see the benefits of the future that awaits us on leaving it, and that all of my fears were unfounded, or stupid, or naive, or whatever else you'd care to describe them. I would love to be proven wrong about this. Really, I would.
But "we'll see" is a remarkable attitude. What would you say after it turns out that "Project Fear" was right, or that the freedom to choose new trade deals merely allows new countries to impose harsh conditions that we don't like? "Ah, well, never mind."?
There comes a point when you have to take the evidence of what damage leaving the EU without a deal could bring seriously, rather than trying to just wish it away.
Speaking of, there is probably nothing I'd rather happen more than to be shown up as an arrogant fool, who was so blinded by being in the EU that I couldn't see the benefits of the future that awaits us on leaving it, and that all of my fears were unfounded, or stupid, or naive, or whatever else you'd care to describe them. I would love to be proven wrong about this. Really, I would.
But "we'll see" is a remarkable attitude. What would you say after it turns out that "Project Fear" was right, or that the freedom to choose new trade deals merely allows new countries to impose harsh conditions that we don't like? "Ah, well, never mind."?
There comes a point when you have to take the evidence of what damage leaving the EU without a deal could bring seriously, rather than trying to just wish it away.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.