News0 min ago
For The Anti Democracy Brigade.....
137 Answers
https:/
Even if agent COB gets into no 10, Brexit goes ahead.
Even if agent COB gets into no 10, Brexit goes ahead.
Answers
“Jeremy Corbyn has defiantly restated Labour’s policy of leading Britain out of the European Union…” Where’s the headline then? Mr Corbyn’s Party supported the granting of a referendum, most of his MP’s voted to trigger A50 and his party secured their seats at the last General Election on a manifesto that committed the Party to take the UK...
14:53 Sat 22nd Dec 2018
not at all, disagree and debate by all means, I'm talking about the ever increasing bunch that join my threads to moan about terminology. The seem to get some inexplicable thrill out of derailing the subject by pretending they don't understand and whining like a broken record. Nowt to do with agreeing or not.
-- answer removed --
"However, I don’t agree with your argument that unless someone agrees with YOUR stance on Brexit then they should’ve voted remain."
It's not my stance, sp, it's just simple interpretation of words. You cannot leave an institution but remain bound by its rules and be forced to continue to pay subscriptions. If you do then you have not properly left. The idea of a "soft/medium/hard" Brexit has been born only since the referendum result. Before then it was made quite clear (by both sides) that a vote to leave would mean leaving the customs union, leaving the single market, the end to free movement and the end to the ECJ's influence over UK affairs. There was never any argument over any of that.
The "deal" agreed by the EU (but, fortunately, not the UK Parliament) is nothing to do with a trade deal. It is simply a Treaty governing what will happen after 29th March so that trade and commerce can continue sensibly. The terms of a trade agreement (if any) with the EU are to be "negotiated" afterwards. But the terms of the withdrawal Treaty make it quite clear that the EU will be in a position to grind the UK mercilessly in those negotiations because some of the main provisions of the Treaty (which effectively bind the UK to the EU) can only end if and when the EU agrees that they can.
People supporting Mrs May's deal are supporting a continued membership of the EU in all but name and one which the UK cannot end without the consent of the EU. It is a betrayal, not only of the referendum result but of the entire country because no nation should acquiesce to a Treaty from which it cannot withdraw unilaterally with the appropriate notice. Since the EU says that the said deal is the only version on offer the only alternative for the UK therefore is to leave without one.
It's not my stance, sp, it's just simple interpretation of words. You cannot leave an institution but remain bound by its rules and be forced to continue to pay subscriptions. If you do then you have not properly left. The idea of a "soft/medium/hard" Brexit has been born only since the referendum result. Before then it was made quite clear (by both sides) that a vote to leave would mean leaving the customs union, leaving the single market, the end to free movement and the end to the ECJ's influence over UK affairs. There was never any argument over any of that.
The "deal" agreed by the EU (but, fortunately, not the UK Parliament) is nothing to do with a trade deal. It is simply a Treaty governing what will happen after 29th March so that trade and commerce can continue sensibly. The terms of a trade agreement (if any) with the EU are to be "negotiated" afterwards. But the terms of the withdrawal Treaty make it quite clear that the EU will be in a position to grind the UK mercilessly in those negotiations because some of the main provisions of the Treaty (which effectively bind the UK to the EU) can only end if and when the EU agrees that they can.
People supporting Mrs May's deal are supporting a continued membership of the EU in all but name and one which the UK cannot end without the consent of the EU. It is a betrayal, not only of the referendum result but of the entire country because no nation should acquiesce to a Treaty from which it cannot withdraw unilaterally with the appropriate notice. Since the EU says that the said deal is the only version on offer the only alternative for the UK therefore is to leave without one.
"The Irish border is a non-issue as I have argued countless times on here. "
Yes, and it's been pointed out why you are wrong countless times as well, but that doesn't stop you going on about it. I suspect that you, like most passionate Brexit observers, are enjoying the benefit of being disconnected from actually having to back up your objectives in practice. It is easy to pretend that something is a non-issue when you never have to test that claim. When it *has* been tested, and despite the DUPs and Moggo's protests to the contrary, it's been pretty clear that the Irish border *will* be an issue as long as the following are true:
1) The UK insists on having control over its own regulations, and
2) The UK uses that control to diverge from EU customs regulations.
Yes, and it's been pointed out why you are wrong countless times as well, but that doesn't stop you going on about it. I suspect that you, like most passionate Brexit observers, are enjoying the benefit of being disconnected from actually having to back up your objectives in practice. It is easy to pretend that something is a non-issue when you never have to test that claim. When it *has* been tested, and despite the DUPs and Moggo's protests to the contrary, it's been pretty clear that the Irish border *will* be an issue as long as the following are true:
1) The UK insists on having control over its own regulations, and
2) The UK uses that control to diverge from EU customs regulations.
"...but that doesn't stop you going on about it."
I don't keep going on about it, Jim. I don't keep on raising it as a potential problem. It is interesting that in the past few days, when a "No Deal" exit has been discussed more sensibly rather than dismissed as out of hand, the Irish "problem" has not been raised as far as I have noticed. Perhaps it's because, as I "keep on going on about it", nobody has suggested how a hard border will be imposed or who will do it (since everybody who matters says that they won't under any circumstances). If you insist on people backing up their assertions perhaps somebody would care to answer those two questions. It is common knowledge that both the UK and Ireland have said they will not impose a border. I know you suggest that because they've said so, it ain't necessarily so. But I don't hear from anybody who says that they will.
I don't keep going on about it, Jim. I don't keep on raising it as a potential problem. It is interesting that in the past few days, when a "No Deal" exit has been discussed more sensibly rather than dismissed as out of hand, the Irish "problem" has not been raised as far as I have noticed. Perhaps it's because, as I "keep on going on about it", nobody has suggested how a hard border will be imposed or who will do it (since everybody who matters says that they won't under any circumstances). If you insist on people backing up their assertions perhaps somebody would care to answer those two questions. It is common knowledge that both the UK and Ireland have said they will not impose a border. I know you suggest that because they've said so, it ain't necessarily so. But I don't hear from anybody who says that they will.
TTT
You wrote:
I'm talking about the ever increasing bunch that join my threads to moan about terminology.
Seriously thought - I think the problem is, on the News site you have a whole load of grown ups who want to discuss current affairs in an adult manner, and it could be argued that sometimes you introduce nicknames only for people to grant you attention, rather than the subject at hand.
And with Brexit, you can easily write Anna Soubry, rather than Spanner Booby.
When you write the latter, people will tend to think you're a teenager.
You wrote:
I'm talking about the ever increasing bunch that join my threads to moan about terminology.
Seriously thought - I think the problem is, on the News site you have a whole load of grown ups who want to discuss current affairs in an adult manner, and it could be argued that sometimes you introduce nicknames only for people to grant you attention, rather than the subject at hand.
And with Brexit, you can easily write Anna Soubry, rather than Spanner Booby.
When you write the latter, people will tend to think you're a teenager.
Returning, anyway, to the main topic -- rather than repeating previous debates that will just go round in circles -- the fact is that most Remain supporters in Labour are well aware that Corbyn is not very pro-Brexit, but are probably hopeful that he will pivot at the last minute once all other options are exhausted.
At the moment, this doesn't look very likely, and that is frankly a travesty. Remain supporters are numerous, and far from "anti-democratic", but they have not really got a realistic party to turn to to represent them. Why vote for the Tories, the very party from whom this mess originated? Why vote for Lib Dem? Unless people switch there in droves, and probably not even then, this would simply leave the Tories with an even greater grip on power by splitting the Remain/non-Tory vote?
And why vote for Labour, whose leader is clearly out of touch with his party at precisely the moment when he should be at his strongest?
It's a mess, and, frankly, Remain supporters are far more aware of it than you are. And yet the irony is that you'd probably have found Brexit delivered far more effectively if Corbyn were in charge to start with. At least he believes in it, unlike Theresa May -- even if he has not the guts to say so, or the sense to abandon this position or step aside in favour of one who will.
At the moment, this doesn't look very likely, and that is frankly a travesty. Remain supporters are numerous, and far from "anti-democratic", but they have not really got a realistic party to turn to to represent them. Why vote for the Tories, the very party from whom this mess originated? Why vote for Lib Dem? Unless people switch there in droves, and probably not even then, this would simply leave the Tories with an even greater grip on power by splitting the Remain/non-Tory vote?
And why vote for Labour, whose leader is clearly out of touch with his party at precisely the moment when he should be at his strongest?
It's a mess, and, frankly, Remain supporters are far more aware of it than you are. And yet the irony is that you'd probably have found Brexit delivered far more effectively if Corbyn were in charge to start with. At least he believes in it, unlike Theresa May -- even if he has not the guts to say so, or the sense to abandon this position or step aside in favour of one who will.
TOGO @ 14:38
And fisheries is why Macron has said he will block any trade deal because they will lose fishing rights.
If only everyone could see that withthe right frame of mind and a proper exit we would be better off because firsheries is but one area we could romp home.
Being in the EU or even ‘just’ being tied to the single market and customs union stops out ability to what we want on our terms.
Where it is true that no change is without risk they can be mitigated somewhat but proper planning. And no that doesn’t mean stay tied to it for longer and longer.
And fisheries is why Macron has said he will block any trade deal because they will lose fishing rights.
If only everyone could see that withthe right frame of mind and a proper exit we would be better off because firsheries is but one area we could romp home.
Being in the EU or even ‘just’ being tied to the single market and customs union stops out ability to what we want on our terms.
Where it is true that no change is without risk they can be mitigated somewhat but proper planning. And no that doesn’t mean stay tied to it for longer and longer.
jim360
At last someone not talking in Express headlines!
I think most Remainers now just want everything over with. The idea of a second referendum makes no sense (you can't have a 'best of three'.
Ideally, leavers would get their act together and sort this mess out.
I don't see that happening any time soon, because despite what NJ has said, there are those who voted to leave who have a completely different idea of what leave means...how it should be achieved.
The fact is (as I've said before), if every single Remainer was struck dumb, just the Europhile/Euroskeptic ranks of the Tory party would make leaving a pure Carry On film.
This is what we have.
Nothing to do with remain - the is a mess that leave has given us.
At last someone not talking in Express headlines!
I think most Remainers now just want everything over with. The idea of a second referendum makes no sense (you can't have a 'best of three'.
Ideally, leavers would get their act together and sort this mess out.
I don't see that happening any time soon, because despite what NJ has said, there are those who voted to leave who have a completely different idea of what leave means...how it should be achieved.
The fact is (as I've said before), if every single Remainer was struck dumb, just the Europhile/Euroskeptic ranks of the Tory party would make leaving a pure Carry On film.
This is what we have.
Nothing to do with remain - the is a mess that leave has given us.
The current most accurate position is that everyone has said that they don't want to make the Irish border a "hard border". This is natural, because it's incumbent upon all parties to ensure this, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. In addition, Varadkar recently stated that, so far, the Irish government has so far made no plans to impose a Hard Border.
The point, though, is that he want on to say that this is in essence because he wants a hard border to be at most a reaction to circumstances, rather than because he will not under *any* circumstances create one. From the instant that Customs Rules start to diverge, a Hard border becomes necessary (unless technology that is currently non-existent is developed to avoid this). This is absolutely and fundamentally true. Everyone will be trapped by this unless they find a way around it either by technology or by accepting that the UK will after all have to remain part of the Customs Union.
The point, though, is that he want on to say that this is in essence because he wants a hard border to be at most a reaction to circumstances, rather than because he will not under *any* circumstances create one. From the instant that Customs Rules start to diverge, a Hard border becomes necessary (unless technology that is currently non-existent is developed to avoid this). This is absolutely and fundamentally true. Everyone will be trapped by this unless they find a way around it either by technology or by accepting that the UK will after all have to remain part of the Customs Union.
NJ
Your analogy doesn't really make sense.
Britain leaving with no agreement is a bit like going to dinner with a group of friends, waiting until the dessert was being served, grabbing a couple of spoonfuls, and then standing up to announce that you're going without paying the bill.
If we left the EU, it would hit out international credit rating ("the UK cannot honour its obligations").
Our relationship with the EU is so fundamentally complex to make a simple severing of ties impossible.
What too many Brexiteers are advocating is a no blame divorce.
However, in reality one half of the marriage wants to sell the house, split proceeds and argue over custody of the dog.
I hear what you say with regards to the four tenets of leave - but that is not what has happened. Just because you disagree with other leavers over the terms of our leaving the EU doesn't mean that their views can be dismissed.
Leave won and we have a mess.
That is the truth of the matter.
We...are...in...a...mess.
Your analogy doesn't really make sense.
Britain leaving with no agreement is a bit like going to dinner with a group of friends, waiting until the dessert was being served, grabbing a couple of spoonfuls, and then standing up to announce that you're going without paying the bill.
If we left the EU, it would hit out international credit rating ("the UK cannot honour its obligations").
Our relationship with the EU is so fundamentally complex to make a simple severing of ties impossible.
What too many Brexiteers are advocating is a no blame divorce.
However, in reality one half of the marriage wants to sell the house, split proceeds and argue over custody of the dog.
I hear what you say with regards to the four tenets of leave - but that is not what has happened. Just because you disagree with other leavers over the terms of our leaving the EU doesn't mean that their views can be dismissed.
Leave won and we have a mess.
That is the truth of the matter.
We...are...in...a...mess.
I don't understand why you believe that Remainers should have a "party to represent them", Jim.
The decision to leave has been taken firstly by the electorate and then by Parliament. Both the parties likely to be able to form a government stood at the last election - only eighteen months ago - on a manifesto of securing that departure. So why should "remain" be a consideration for either of them? Unless of course you believe that those decisions should be reversed. Who would the Leavers have to turn to had the vote been to Remain? How much consideration would they have been afforded when the government of the day signs the country up to more EU influence?
"I hope he's right, because right now, it [the Irish border]appears to be the very definition of 'an issue'.
Perhaps you could tell me then, sp, what will happen if the UK leaves without a deal and the issue isn't solved. I promise I won't ask again.
The decision to leave has been taken firstly by the electorate and then by Parliament. Both the parties likely to be able to form a government stood at the last election - only eighteen months ago - on a manifesto of securing that departure. So why should "remain" be a consideration for either of them? Unless of course you believe that those decisions should be reversed. Who would the Leavers have to turn to had the vote been to Remain? How much consideration would they have been afforded when the government of the day signs the country up to more EU influence?
"I hope he's right, because right now, it [the Irish border]appears to be the very definition of 'an issue'.
Perhaps you could tell me then, sp, what will happen if the UK leaves without a deal and the issue isn't solved. I promise I won't ask again.
NJ
You wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me then, sp, what will happen if the UK leaves without a deal and the issue isn't solved.
I’m not blessed with the power of foresight, so I can’t say for sure - it just doesn’t seem sensible to go for the option which leaves the most uncertainties.
What worries me is that seems to be a contingent of people who seem to be 100% sure if exactly what WILL happen. They may be right, but I don’t trust them.
Anyway - it’s 5pm and it’s Saturday, so please...enjoy the rest of this thread. I have to a present alcohol-fuelled gift swapping event to attend!
You wrote:
Perhaps you could tell me then, sp, what will happen if the UK leaves without a deal and the issue isn't solved.
I’m not blessed with the power of foresight, so I can’t say for sure - it just doesn’t seem sensible to go for the option which leaves the most uncertainties.
What worries me is that seems to be a contingent of people who seem to be 100% sure if exactly what WILL happen. They may be right, but I don’t trust them.
Anyway - it’s 5pm and it’s Saturday, so please...enjoy the rest of this thread. I have to a present alcohol-fuelled gift swapping event to attend!
And to follow up, it is not true to suggest that no satisfactory solutions exist to address the Irish border issue. They may not be in place but they do exist. Some 98% of goods arriving into the UK (and hence into the EU) from the rest of the world are checked "smartly". There are very few "men with clipboards". Nor need there be at the Irish border. Nobody is suggesting that measures must be in place on March 30th and in any case the UK and Ireland already have different tax and excise regimes which are managed perfectly well.
But this is all by the way. These are all problems to be addressed when we have left. It's not a good argument to say that we should not leave because it's too tricky.
But this is all by the way. These are all problems to be addressed when we have left. It's not a good argument to say that we should not leave because it's too tricky.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Remembering Sqad On His Birthday
ChatterBank13 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
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.