Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Do You Disagree With William Hague's Eight Reasons Why We Should Support
42 Answers
Theresa May's Brexit Agreement?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. 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.
he makes some good points
1. agree entirely, we must ,leave at all costs
2. agree we should control our borders but I don;t agree that we ever will with this deal certainly not by 2020.
3/4. He makes a good point about the proportion of our manufactiring these days but I do think he relies on hope that the EU release their grip rather than us prying ourselves away.
5. Bang on, the Limp dums should drop the word democrat fro their name. The SNP care noting for the EU, they only care about different dependence. Labour are simply mischief making at the expense of the UK.
6. agree
7. I'm not bothered who the PM is as long as we leave.
8. I suspect the rest of the world is sick and tired of the whole affair!
1. agree entirely, we must ,leave at all costs
2. agree we should control our borders but I don;t agree that we ever will with this deal certainly not by 2020.
3/4. He makes a good point about the proportion of our manufactiring these days but I do think he relies on hope that the EU release their grip rather than us prying ourselves away.
5. Bang on, the Limp dums should drop the word democrat fro their name. The SNP care noting for the EU, they only care about different dependence. Labour are simply mischief making at the expense of the UK.
6. agree
7. I'm not bothered who the PM is as long as we leave.
8. I suspect the rest of the world is sick and tired of the whole affair!
He makes some very dodgy points, although I'm not sure all of them are dodgy:
1. Fair enough, although it may perhaps be an irony of the UK's leaving that the rest of the EU will become "ever closer" rather faster than it might otherwise have. How ironic if we found ourselves with a "United States of Europe" on our doorstep precisely because we were no longer there to prevent or delay that! This isn't necessarily a refutation of Hague's point, but I do think it's worth noting that Brexiteers have perhaps underestimated the importance of the UK in terms of keeping EU expansionism somewhat in check.
2. I think the entire "control of our borders" argument was bogus, but I can't be bothered to labour this point.
3. 15% of our GDP is still a lot, so it's a bit much to write it off as not worth fussing about.
4. Here he's probably right -- no matter how true it may be that the deal on the table theoretically locks us into the EU indefinitely, I think both sides will look to resolve the situation before then.
5. The final line is utter tripe: MPs should vote on the merits of the deal, or otherwise, and not be trapped into voting "against the other lot". I agree that Corbyn's position (if not Labour's as a whole) is very dishonest, but so what?
6. I'm not sure I exactly agree with this: the government certainly has a duty to *try* to implement Brexit, but there may come a point where doing so is out of sheer bloody-mindedness. The primary duty of Parliament is to act in the best interests of the country, not just follow a course come what may, if doing so is damaging.
Now, having said that, I think it's fair to say that rejecting this deal shouldn't *instantly* lead to a rejection of Brexit. It may be that, after all, there is a fourth way, and that the EU27 blink at the last moment in a way that allows a slightly more reasonable deal to be reached just in time. But the essential truth of democracy is that no decision can ever be held irreversible, and there may come a point where after all the only sensible option in the interests of the country is to revisit the decision of 2016.
7. Also tripe. Brexit is bigger than who sits in Downing Street.
8. If we did change our minds, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would take that in their stride too, so... I'm not sure what point he's making here, frankly.
1. Fair enough, although it may perhaps be an irony of the UK's leaving that the rest of the EU will become "ever closer" rather faster than it might otherwise have. How ironic if we found ourselves with a "United States of Europe" on our doorstep precisely because we were no longer there to prevent or delay that! This isn't necessarily a refutation of Hague's point, but I do think it's worth noting that Brexiteers have perhaps underestimated the importance of the UK in terms of keeping EU expansionism somewhat in check.
2. I think the entire "control of our borders" argument was bogus, but I can't be bothered to labour this point.
3. 15% of our GDP is still a lot, so it's a bit much to write it off as not worth fussing about.
4. Here he's probably right -- no matter how true it may be that the deal on the table theoretically locks us into the EU indefinitely, I think both sides will look to resolve the situation before then.
5. The final line is utter tripe: MPs should vote on the merits of the deal, or otherwise, and not be trapped into voting "against the other lot". I agree that Corbyn's position (if not Labour's as a whole) is very dishonest, but so what?
6. I'm not sure I exactly agree with this: the government certainly has a duty to *try* to implement Brexit, but there may come a point where doing so is out of sheer bloody-mindedness. The primary duty of Parliament is to act in the best interests of the country, not just follow a course come what may, if doing so is damaging.
Now, having said that, I think it's fair to say that rejecting this deal shouldn't *instantly* lead to a rejection of Brexit. It may be that, after all, there is a fourth way, and that the EU27 blink at the last moment in a way that allows a slightly more reasonable deal to be reached just in time. But the essential truth of democracy is that no decision can ever be held irreversible, and there may come a point where after all the only sensible option in the interests of the country is to revisit the decision of 2016.
7. Also tripe. Brexit is bigger than who sits in Downing Street.
8. If we did change our minds, I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would take that in their stride too, so... I'm not sure what point he's making here, frankly.
Thank you everyone for your replies. I am a wee bit surprised that so many of you can't agree with at least one of his points. Particular thanks to Tora and Jim for taking the trouble to answer each point; interesting read from both of you.
[email protected], I get absolutely what he means by that. If I found myself walking into the lobby with Diane Abbott I would know one of us was in the wrong place.
[email protected], I get absolutely what he means by that. If I found myself walking into the lobby with Diane Abbott I would know one of us was in the wrong place.
I think any basic benefits, that were the least we could expect since they come with 'no deal' anyway, even if we really have agreed them, are not worth being in thrall to the EU. 8 insufficient reasons are still insufficient. Meanwhile the large 'deal' document isn't what should have been prioritised. It's the presently vague future trade/relationship document that needs firming up, and they're running out of time to put it together before we go.
Boris has recently tweeted:
‘Once the EU realises that they have overplayed their hand & Parliament won’t wear this shameful surrender, they will be faced with a choice: do a proper & equitable deal or split without a deal - a prospect that they don’t relish, not least as they lose all leverage over us’
‘Once the EU realises that they have overplayed their hand & Parliament won’t wear this shameful surrender, they will be faced with a choice: do a proper & equitable deal or split without a deal - a prospect that they don’t relish, not least as they lose all leverage over us’
It'd be nice, but I can't see them collapsing at the last moment. They'll carry on betting on the faint hearted citizens and MPs opting to avoid 'no deal'.
MPs have to avoid messing about, reject the deal, refuse any GE, refuse 2nd attempt to vote on deal when they've already decided, refuse 2nd attempt to hold another referendum when we've already decided, and get on with just getting out; and prove the consequences are nowhere near as severe as some remainers like to claim.
MPs have to avoid messing about, reject the deal, refuse any GE, refuse 2nd attempt to vote on deal when they've already decided, refuse 2nd attempt to hold another referendum when we've already decided, and get on with just getting out; and prove the consequences are nowhere near as severe as some remainers like to claim.
OG, a trade agreement with the EU cannot be negotiated until the U.K. has left the EU. There is talk of the “Norway style” EFTA membership scenario or a version of it being suggested now, which would put some flesh on the vague bones as it’s following an existing model, but it seems unlikely that that would have a lot of support either
“…but I do think it's worth noting that Brexiteers have perhaps underestimated the importance of the UK in terms of keeping EU expansionism somewhat in check.”
Ha ha haaaa! Excuse me whilst I sew up my split sides. The UK has less than no influence in restraining the Euromaniacs in their federalist aims. It is constantly and comprehensively outvoted in almost every division. In fact, no individual nation has an effective veto over these aims. To help understand this, just take a glance at some of the musings of Mr Juncker:
On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty:
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
On French referendum over EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
On the introduction of the euro:
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
" no matter how true it may be that the deal on the table theoretically locks us into the EU indefinitely, I think both sides will look to resolve the situation before then."
There is nothing “theoretical” about it whatsoever. Mrs May’s deal locks the UK into the EU’s single market and customs union regulations in perpetuity. The UK cannot withdraw unless and until the EU agrees to new arrangements. They have no need to do that because the arrangements provided by the deal suit them perfectly – they have the UK effectively as a member nation with the added advantage that the Treaty – unlike any other known in recent diplomatic negotiations – cannot be ended unilaterally.
The deal does nothing to meet the aim of the UK leaving the EU. For Mr Gove to say "it is not perfect" is an understatement of epic proportions. The deal needs to be rejected by MPs and the only effective way to extract the UK from this mess (caused by Ministers, and in particular Mrs May, not those who voted to leave) is to leave without a deal.
Ha ha haaaa! Excuse me whilst I sew up my split sides. The UK has less than no influence in restraining the Euromaniacs in their federalist aims. It is constantly and comprehensively outvoted in almost every division. In fact, no individual nation has an effective veto over these aims. To help understand this, just take a glance at some of the musings of Mr Juncker:
On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty:
“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
On French referendum over EU constitution
“If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
On the introduction of the euro:
"We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back."
" no matter how true it may be that the deal on the table theoretically locks us into the EU indefinitely, I think both sides will look to resolve the situation before then."
There is nothing “theoretical” about it whatsoever. Mrs May’s deal locks the UK into the EU’s single market and customs union regulations in perpetuity. The UK cannot withdraw unless and until the EU agrees to new arrangements. They have no need to do that because the arrangements provided by the deal suit them perfectly – they have the UK effectively as a member nation with the added advantage that the Treaty – unlike any other known in recent diplomatic negotiations – cannot be ended unilaterally.
The deal does nothing to meet the aim of the UK leaving the EU. For Mr Gove to say "it is not perfect" is an understatement of epic proportions. The deal needs to be rejected by MPs and the only effective way to extract the UK from this mess (caused by Ministers, and in particular Mrs May, not those who voted to leave) is to leave without a deal.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Technology6 mins ago
Body & Soul14 mins ago
News15 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.