|
|
Topic Originator: Jbob
Date: Wed 19 Sep 16:46
What a mess.
Permission to panic.
Bobs of the world unite
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Thu 20 Sep 13:38
don't worry, its not going to happen......May will be resigning soon enough.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Sun 23 Sep 09:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 23 Sep 12:07
I dont think there will be another vote on whether the UK leaves or remains.
Possibly one on whether to remain in the Single Market but even that looks very doubtful.
Looks like , as we knew along, it will be a no deal exit.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 23 Sep 20:48
My money is on another General Election, Labour getting in, another Brexit vote with remain as the answer and everybody then agreeing that a No Deal Brexit would have been way better than Corbyn.
Just when I think we can't do more self-harm we find a way....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 23 Sep 21:48
No point having another election. It'll just produce another hung parliament. We're heading for a no deal brexit. That said i wouldn't bet against a last minute EU compromise.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Mon 24 Sep 02:00
I still don't get this EU hatred for the leaving deal.
May & Co think they have a good plan. Tusk and the rest of EU say it won't work. Why do Britain think as theirs is the only plan on the table acceptable?
If Britain came to me with a plan which I thought was unworkable I would just say no thanks. Exactly what the EU are doing but the UK thinks this is arrogance.
To me, Britain decided to leave, as with the same as marriage you get shafted and can't really complain too much as it was your choice.
Too simple?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Mon 24 Sep 08:19
Would having a second referendum on Brexit be a "betrayal " of the British people, anymore than another Indy referendum in Scotland.
The fact is, quite a lot of information and misinformation has emerged since and some people may well wish to reconsider how they voted. We have General Elections every 4 or 5 years when voters do precisely that.
Above all, perhaps a significant number of the 26% who didn't think it would matter whether they used their vote or not, might be motivated enough to get off their erchies and vote.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 24 Sep 15:58
So many of the issues that are problematical now weren't even mentioned during the referendum campaign - not Britain's Finest Hour!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 24 Sep 21:56
I cannot see how a ‘No Deal’ brexit could be allowed to happen. It would be an admission of failure from the present government which was charged with arranging the UKs exit from the EU: stomping out in the huff with no deal is not what it was elected to do, and there would have to be a General Election in the wake of that.
In the event of a crash-out there would likely be severe constraints on our borrowing money from international markets, since the UK plc would be viewed as an untrustworthy trading partner. Why would anyone want us in their trading bloc since we flounced out of the last one we were in? There would of course be a long queue of spivs and loan sharks, wallowing in our discomfort, willing to bail us out on conditions much less favourable than we have now.
We are in quite a mess, with the political process having been paralysed for almost two years. The 52-48 vote was hardly clear-cut and might well be overturned if re-run tomorrow, but that would not take us any further forward really since the country would remain divided. I think we have to respect that 52% of UK public who voted to leave Europe, but respect also the 48% who wanted to remain, so it should never have been a ‘winner takes all’ scenario. There are rabid right wingers like Rees-Mogg who believe this is a great opportunity to turn the UK into some kind of free-booting Singapore, whilst their counterparts on the left imagine a crash-out will allow us to become the Finland of western Europe. These are pipe dreams and not what the UK public voted for in any case.
The government has had two years to try and find a compromise, based on the electoral fact that the UK people voted for looser ties with Europe but did not vote to completely cut these ties. Its early arrogance in negotiations –‘they need us more than we need them’- has now degenerated into sulky petulance and time is running out. We can survive inside Europe for sure; we can probably, in the longer run, survive outside the EU. But I am not convinced the UK can survive a crash-out.
sammer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Tue 25 Sep 05:58
The early arrogance was down to a few stupid calculations.
The Brexiteers boasted that we had the 5th largest economy in the world. Well the economy of the rest of the EU is at least 5 times bigger than us, so us leaving isn't going to be a huge issue for them.
Take a leg away from a six-legged stool and see what happens.
Turn a six-legged stool into a one-legged stool and good luck with the balancing act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 25 Sep 07:24
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 25 Sep 08:04
Quote:
WORST, Tue 25 Sep 07:24
Shadow brexit minister was on radio 2 this morning saying there's a "good possibility" of a second vote.
Saying that labour will reject a no deal which would apparently force a general election, thus leading to a 2nd vote?
A snap general election needs 3/4 vote under the current rules. I can't see enough Tories that would go along with that.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Tue 25 Sep 08:13
Quote:
aaaaaaaaaargh, Tue 25 Sep 05:58
The early arrogance was down to a few stupid calculations.
The Brexiteers boasted that we had the 5th largest economy in the world. Well the economy of the rest of the EU is at least 5 times bigger than us, so us leaving isn't going to be a huge issue for them.
Take a leg away from a six-legged stool and see what happens.
Turn a six-legged stool into a one-legged stool and good luck with the balancing act.
Excellent analogy, aaaaaaaaaargh. 😃
Sammer, while I agree with much of your post further up, I should like to point out that only 37.5% of those entitled to vote, voted for Brexit. Now obviously this suits my argument, but I think the Brexit referendum was botched from the very beginning, because if you're voting for change you really need a significant majority to vote for it, so the bar should never have been set at 50% +1, imo.
All the 2016 referendum demonstrated was that approximately half of those who voted wanted out and the other half wanted to stay in the EU, which is what I predicted would happen when it was first announced. The decision should have been taken by those elected to run our country, rather than an ill informed and misinformed electorate. An electorate from which many people who have lived, worked and paid taxes in this country for many years, were excluded because they don't have British citizenship.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Tue 25 Sep 14:04
No deal still leads to a border in Ireland so is unacceptable. Would never get through parliament, the no deal notices etc getting put out are an attempt to convince the EU that we are serious.
May is backed into a corner, she has tried to negotiate a new treaty with the EU circumventing the fact she has to leave first, when she finally accepts chequers is doomed and as such there will be no withdrawal agreement she will resign or if that doesn't happen she'll be sacked by the tory's who surprisingly enough will then look to abandon brexit.
Peoples vote wont happen as can't decide on the questions.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 25 Sep 17:43
Quote:
Berkey, Tue 25 Sep 14:04
No deal still leads to a border in Ireland so is unacceptable. Would never get through parliament, the no deal notices etc getting put out are an attempt to convince the EU that we are serious.
May is backed into a corner, she has tried to negotiate a new treaty with the EU circumventing the fact she has to leave first, when she finally accepts chequers is doomed and as such there will be no withdrawal agreement she will resign or if that doesn't happen she'll be sacked by the tory's who surprisingly enough will then look to abandon brexit.
Peoples vote wont happen as can't decide on the questions.
I agree but one thing is cast ironed guaranteed IMO.
There won't be a GE or leadership change until the UK is out of Europe.
The Tories will happily let Labour win then to live with the consquenses of Brexit.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 25 Sep 17:44
This will be Corbyn's downfall for not opposing Brexit full on.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 25 Sep 22:28
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Mon 24 Sep 02:00
May & Co think they have a good plan. Tusk and the rest of EU say it won't work. Why do Britain think as theirs is the only plan on the table acceptable?
Because it IS the only plan on the table - the EU have consistently made no effort to make a plan, and have simply poo-poo'ed every plan that Britain come up with.
Ultimate brinkmanship - the EU are convinced that if they rubbish every plan put forward, then the UK gov't will bottle it rather than go 'no deal'...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 26 Sep 06:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 26 Sep 09:30
Why do the EU have to make a plan, they're not leaving? The EU have from the start stated their red lines and England have had over 2 years to find an agreement with the EU.
Just remember the belligerent Pm at the Mansion House, that's still to be paid for.
No deal is better than a bad deal....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Wed 26 Sep 10:38
It isn't particularly complicated.
At the moment there are two options on the table. The UK offer or no deal.
No deal is bad for the EU and really, really bad for the UK.
The UK deal is probably slightly worse for the EU and quite good for the UK.
The EU have nothing to lose with their current position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 26 Sep 13:00
I really don't think leaving with no deal will be that bad in the end.
We constantly see nations/countries exposed to massive challenges and yet in time they always find a way back. Look at Japan and that tsunami. Do we remember the sights and the cost it was going to take to put it all back to normal.
The Japanese are not in the EU, they don't have their laws dictated to them and yet they have an EPA with the EU.
Presumably both sides will thrive on that, why can't the UK make a similar deal?
Look at the effect the Bank Crisis had on so many countries including Ireland, Iceland and the UK.
Has it brought the people to their knees? No it hasn't. Their politicians and the People found a way round it in order to recover. It took time, too long in the opinion of many due to the Tory policies but it happened.
What I am saying is there are all manner of ways to frighten a population and we are getting these scares on a daily basis but at the end of the day of course things may be difficult to begin with but there is always the chance, in time, to make things better than ever.
Germany and many parts of Europe were devastated by the war but that gave them the ability to rebuild and make things better.
I think the people who are really afraid are those who make easy money by pushing paper around.
This could be the best thing to happen to the UK if the right decisions are made and we turn from the quick easy money society back to people who make things and once again can see their worth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: allparone
Date: Wed 26 Sep 14:18
Brilliant. Brexit will be like a banking crisis, a Tsunami and World War Two but don't worry, we'll pull through. They should've stuck that on the side of a bus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Wed 26 Sep 16:46
Adam it will be before March, we won’t leave the EU.
If Tory’s let it happen and end the GFA etc they will not see power for a long time.
Bertie, the government has now confirmed flights will be grounded. Brexists one positive economist Mumford says manufacturing will be decimated and that includes automotive and the hundreds of thousands of jobs lined to that. Financial services jobs already moving. Just wait until November if deal not agreed, the noise from businesses will be deafening.
If you believe no deal is an option your crazy, why do you think May gave that bonkers tantrum speech last week for a deal, call it a last throw of the dice.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Thu 27 Sep 00:25
<Bertie, the government has now confirmed flights will be grounded.>
What? Really?
All I see is
Flights COULD be grounded
Visas MAY be required
The sky MIGHT fall in
Yadda yadda yadda
Scare story upon scare story - YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE
(oh, except the remainers who will cling to ANY chance of subverting Brexit)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Thu 27 Sep 16:45
I mean, I wouldn't trust this or a Labour government to run an orgy in a brothel let alone the finances and general running of the country in the case of a no deal. Anarchy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Tue 2 Oct 22:04
"Flights COULD be grounded"
And they might, unless there is a plan for UK airlines to access EU Insurance policies and vice versa. The airlines themselves have said they want to avoid that but even they admit it's not cut and dried.
"Visas MAY be required"
You probably will need a visa to enter, gicen that "Take back control of our borders" was a highlight of their campaign and the Brexiteers have already stated that they can't or won't accept freedom of movement.
"The sky MIGHT fall in"
Nobody has said that. Although if we do crash out on WTO terms run things like food and medicine should be inspected when arriving into the UK - which will cause delays. Items steady arriving into the EU have these inspections unless there is another binding agreement. Since we would have no agreements with any other country, or the EU, this is highly likely to happen. Also, if you own a house abroad and we leave the EU with no deal, a UK citizen would only be allowed to enter the Schengen area for 3 months at a time for a total of 6 months total in a 12 month period. Not ideal if you have a home in Provence or Spain. And that's before the issue of the Irish border. It wouldn't surprise me to see a unification referendum in the next decade, and it wouldn't shock me if the vote was to have a United Ireland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 2 Oct 23:26
All of these sacrifices to let people have their 'little Britain'
Pride will be their downfall.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Thu 4 Oct 10:28
Lux have you seen the no deal notices? Each one assumes a deal of some sort with other countries to avoid the issue!
Car industry starting to ramp up the noise now.......RBS admitting they are reducing available credit to businesses which might be exposed in the event of no deal.
its getting interesting, half expecting leadership challenge early next week. Boris calling for article 50 extension too, he wont get it so whoever leads the tories by then with have to withdraw and that means starting the 2 year process again.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Thu 4 Oct 12:52
"All of these sacrifices to let people have their 'little Britain'
Pride will be their downfall."
Well I'm not interested in "little Britain" but I voted leave.
If anything I have had my concerns about staying part of the EU as it is presently set up, confirmed by the attitudes and condescending words coming from Brussels.
By that I am not saying they should allow us to walk all over them but it is obvious they are not willing to contemplate any kind of compromise even when they know that these compromises will enable their own industries etc to continue to profit from the UK.
However what this has also shown me is just how devoid of ANY KIND of strong leadership there exists now in this country.
It also proves to me just how idiotic this country has been to give up so many key industries and utilities in favour of an all eggs in one basket reliance on services especially finance while many of our competitors kept a far broader approach going.
The toxic make up of those who run this country have always favoured the cheap solution and the quick buck for least effort at the expense of R&D and what used to be our core strengths, quality manufacturing and value for money.
So yes I would walk away now and look on it as a chance to broaden our approach to bringing back manufacturing and increasing R&D, ramping up our infrastructure, our green energy and in short take on the Germans, French and Italians at their own game.
Let us start making our own solar panels, making our own electric cars, our own ss goods, increasing emphasis on design and engineering, textiles etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 4 Oct 20:35
I dont get this.
Here is an analogy.
You leave your wife because you dont like her anymore.
Her family shut you out as a result of loyalty to the wife.
Brexit is no different.
Why should the rest of the EU give a good deal to the UK?
It is arrogance that we have all known for decades now coming home to bite them in the @rse and they know it but "British pride" eh? .......
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Fri 5 Oct 11:03
AAPS, do you really think that is a comparable analogy?
There are interdependencies all over the Brexit situation and there are even some in a personal split up. You don't have to dislike your wife to leave her, you only need to like the alternative more.
Do you really think the EU don't need a "good deal" too? Look again at the EU economic situation and tell me they don't need a good deal with their closest largest trading partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 5 Oct 13:22
I'm sure there could be compromises on certain trade deals but fact is the red lines from the outset were that no custom union and no single market membership means tariffs must be imposed.
The EU owe the UK nothing in reality and why on earth would they give a good deal that puts the entire European union at risk?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Sat 6 Oct 19:01
Not the best analogy Adam as the husband and wife are equal partners in the marriage.
I think where Bertie is going wrong is that he believes Britain is equal to the rest of the EU put together and are negotiating as equals. There are not and not should they be.
The EU will not compromise the 4 pillars of the EU for 1 country and certainly not to dig the tories of their current hole, no matter how much the tories insult them about it.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 6 Oct 23:04
Quote:
Berkey, Sat 6 Oct 19:01
Not the best analogy Adam as the husband and wife are equal partners in the marriage.
I think where Bertie is going wrong is that he believes Britain is equal to the rest of the EU put together and are negotiating as equals. There are not and not should they be.
The EU will not compromise the 4 pillars of the EU for 1 country and certainly not to dig the tories of their current hole, no matter how much the tories insult them about it.
Not really if one partner still loves the other but the other wants an affair with America instead.
Analogy is correct in this case.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Tue 9 Oct 21:00
Did I say it was wrong? I just think there are much better ones out there where it’s not a straight 1-1 relationship.
Getting to crunch time, may had pretty much a week before it hits the fan.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 12 Oct 22:49
Apparently Raab said they would get a good deal for all the English regions including Scotland.Never knew we were an English region till now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 12 Oct 23:14
I'm going to say that he didn't say that.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 13 Oct 10:14
I figured as much Ipswich. It just doesn't sound like something a high level politican would say never mind actually type out. Yet pro independence fanatics go on in about the BBC being biased while their own side pump out blatantly fake news.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 13 Oct 10:30
What a surprise - something on social media is 'fake news'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Sun 14 Oct 16:21
Looking forward to tomorrow, hearing the deal is pretty much done keeping uk indefinately in a CU and NI in CU and SM with backstop. DUP will pull the confidence and supply deal based on this.
Will be playing resignation bingo in the next day or 2. Including Mundel and Ruth tank commander.
May will do well to see the week out.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 14 Oct 17:28
Interesting few days ahead if the rumours are true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Sun 14 Oct 17:37
So if May goes, it's a General Election?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 14 Oct 18:07
Quote:
ipswichpar, Sun 14 Oct 17:37
So if May goes, it's a General Election?
Not really, it just means a change of leadership and we all know who wants that job.
This has very important consequences for Scotland this decision especially if voted down in the commons.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 14 Oct 18:10
I think if she resigns then the Tories just pick a new leader but if she loses a confidence vote then I think it's another GE but I could be wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 14 Oct 18:16
Thing is we now have a fixed term parliament so a snap election can only be put forward by the PM and even then requires 2/3 majority in the Commons to trigger it.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 14 Oct 18:24
Yeah I wasn't too sure how that fitted in. I read an article a while back that said it would be one of the two but I wasn't sure if what I read was correct because I thought the fixed term parliament had stopped that too. I'll need to have a proper read.
Post Edited (Sun 14 Oct 18:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sun 14 Oct 19:11
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sun 14 Oct 18:24
Yeah I wasn't too sure how that fitted in. I read an article a while back that said it would be one of the two but I wasn't sure if what I read was correct because I thought the fixed term parliament had stopped that too. I'll need to have a proper read.
Didn't stop the last election
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sun 14 Oct 20:06
Quote:
Tenruh, Sun 14 Oct 19:11
Quote:
londonparsfan, Sun 14 Oct 18:24
Yeah I wasn't too sure how that fitted in. I read an article a while back that said it would be one of the two but I wasn't sure if what I read was correct because I thought the fixed term parliament had stopped that too. I'll need to have a proper read.
Didn't stop the last election
That's because the PM called it no other reason.
A vote of no confidence does no longer mean another election before the term is over.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Mon 15 Oct 13:42
if she resigns then the once the new tory leader comes in they will need to have a general election to get a mandate for their policies, this is when they will abandon brexit or maybe offer up a people vote.
If there is a leadership contest she will win and then the brexiteers will have to wait a year to do anything.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Mon 15 Oct 16:11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Mon 15 Oct 18:46
At this point there’s not a single option that gets through parliament regardless of who is leading the tories.
Can see past a people’s vote or May calls another election and campaigns on the promise of offering another vote. That would hopefully end corbyn as labour supporters would temporarily abandon them.
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 15 Oct 19:00
Quote:
Berkey, Mon 15 Oct 13:42
if she resigns then the once the new tory leader comes in they will need to have a general election to get a mandate for their policies, this is when they will abandon brexit or maybe offer up a people vote.
If there is a leadership contest she will win and then the brexiteers will have to wait a year to do anything.
If there's a change of leadership you can be guaranteed there wont be an election until after Brexit is settled. Then the Tories won't really care either way.
Job done.
Let Labour run ruined Britain and on we go .....
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 10 Nov 09:10
I didn't think it could get any more shambolic - it has. No way Theresa May can survive, but nobody wants the poisoned chalice....
Arlene Foster for PM anyone?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Sat 10 Nov 10:57
Anyone else now don't like what they see with those running the EU?
I voted to leave but in truth would not have been bothered no matter how the ref had turned out. My main reason was firstly lack of sovereignty (similar to my reasoning on Scottish independence) and secondly I don't see how you can have the same immigration rules for all countries when the conditions ie benefits/ health care etc are different.
Anyway my first glimpse of the arrogance of those running the EU was flagged by the condescending and dismissive way they treated Cameron (as people will know I'm no unionist but he was the UK Prime Minister and he was treated like an errant schoolboy)
Since then we have seen the same treatment, threats, and condescension time and again.
Well as far as I'm concerned I am now entrenched in leave and if it has to be without a deal well it seems the EU are happy to force that on us so f---k them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 12 Nov 21:32
You can hardly blame the EU for a situation they did not engineer, nor for failing to square the circle of Brexit that has fallen to Theresa May.
The Brexiteers initially claimed that we could have the benefits of EU trade without actually having to follow their rules. This was indeed errant schoolboy drivel and Cameron deserves every bit of opprobrium directed his way for preparing the ground for such political illiteracy, espoused by the likes of Farage and Johnson who have recently gone rather quiet. Now that the message has sunk in, that in reality that we actually need Europe more than Europe needs us -at least in so far as trade goes- we are being offered pie in the sky about global opportunities with the USA and our former Commonwealth. Given our desperate situation in the event of a hard Brexit, every jackal in every trading country in the world will be queuing up to sign deals with a wilting UK, of that at least we can be confident. In their own interests of course, not ours.
So I would not be so quick to shrug a shoulder at the prospect of a Hard Brexit, a situation which could lead to blocked ports and perhaps restrictions imposed on ATM machines, all in the name of sovereignty of course. That is before we consider the political problems of the 48% who voted to stay in the EU and might have accepted reluctantly a Norway type retreat from the greater Europe project, but will certainly not succumb to a destitute politics incapable of securing a reasonable compromise. The national questions of Scotland and Ireland will become more acute as well.
Three of the surviving four remaining former Prime Ministers have nailed their colours to the mast and warned of the disaster that a Hard Brexit would bring. The only one yet to declare is Cameron, the very PM who brought us to this present impasse and is responsible for paralysing UK politics for the last two years. He ran away the minute he realised he had given the matches to those errant schoolboys, Johnson and Farage, who burned down the school pavilion, for fear he was still around when the blaze engulfed the whole school. Cameron deserves every piece of condescension and contempt he has earned.
I never voted either way on Brexit, being disgusted at how the EU rich man’s club treated Greece. A country that fought against Nazism was being slapped into serfdom by mainly German banks; when I visited Athens last year the hatred of the EU was palpable. So I would not find it easy to vote in favour of the EU. But I could certainly vote no to the nonsense of a Hard Brexit, in the event of that question being presented to the UK electorate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berkey
Date: Tue 13 Nov 15:38
bertie
If I openly told everyone (including the pro and chairman) how I was going to go down to my local golf course and negotiate an amazing deal to use the course and the clubhouse but with none of the obligations such as paying greenfee's etc, how would you expect the chairman or pro would treat me?
Its not up the EU to make the unicorn real.
I think they have been very restrained in the negotiations, they have rarely called out how the deal half the country was sold was pure fantasy and haven't even mentioned the fact vote leave broke the law and the referendum should be invalidated. Nevermind the regular interjections of our politicans saying they are like the USSR and they are a rotten corpse etc.
Can you imagine if this was a Scottish independence ref and the rhetoric from down south about English jingoism and nationalism was the same?
Back to being drenched in my own negativity….
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 13 Nov 22:05
Get the popcorn ready it is all going to kick off now that May has finally buckled and agreed to a deal which basically breaks all the promises she has made since she became PM.
Think she will regret paying the bung to the DUP , but she had no choice did she, because she should never have called that GE anyway.
What a shambles this whole Brexit thing is.
All orchestrated by a Tory government who were trying to subdue the rise of UKIP, and have now plunged the whole country into chaos.
“Taking back control”.....what a ridiculous statement that was and even more ridiculous was the fact that over 17million people actually believed it.
The only people who were ever in with a shout of taking back control were the wealthy, the tax dodgers ,many MPs, the Aaron Banks and Nigel Farages of this world many of whom have already started taking measures to feather their own nests by moving their business interests into Ireland and overseas.
The average man in the street was never going to benefit from this, that is why it was madness to vote for it.
Hell mend them.
Having said all that anything that can help bring about independence for Scotland is all good in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 14 Nov 07:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 14 Nov 07:55
Quote:
WORST, Wed 14 Nov 07:40
IMO, there’s going to be some back peddling on this.
Is it true that the House of Lords can reverse the whole brexit thing, and keep the country in the E.U.?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they could, and did.
I don't know who can do what, Stevie, but I do know one thing. If the UK is going to end up being worse off outside of the EU for many years to come, it is incumbent on our leaders to postpone or even cancel Brexit. They have a duty to act in the best interests of UK citizens, irrespective of how 72% of those eligible to vote actually a voted. Not only that, it's now been shown that voters were palpably misled by a few politicians who had their own personal agenda.
I share Sammer's contempt for Cameron. He should never have promised a Referendum in return for votes, but having done so, the bar should have been set significantly higher than 50% + 1. Wasn't the Indy Referendum set at 60% ?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 14 Nov 08:02
All referendums in the UK are first passed the post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 14 Nov 09:09
Didn't the first referendum on Scottish devolution have a minimum of 55% set as the majority figure and the vote was over 50% but less than 55% so it was lost? It was the idea of George Cunningham who was a Scottish MP for an English constituency I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 14 Nov 10:21
Regarding immigration it was not the top reason given by people who voted for Brexit.
The %age of immigrants that the UK has taken at the behest of the EU is a tiny fraction of the amount of illegal immigration that we have from outside the EU.
Who is responsible for that? The UK.....Not the Eu.
Heard Boris blathering on about becoming a “Vassal satiate for the first time in 1000 years”.
He is obvioulsy talking about England. After all he made the comment in the English parliament.
And therein lies the problem for me this is an English Brexit, alaways has been , the rest of us are an after thought and our opinions don’t really matter, we will do what our masters think is right for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Wed 14 Nov 14:54
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 14 Nov 09:09
Didn't the first referendum on Scottish devolution have a minimum of 55% set as the majority figure and the vote was over 50% but less than 55% so it was lost? It was the idea of George Cunningham who was a Scottish MP for an English constituency I think.
The rule for the 1979 devolution referendum was 40 % of the electorate had to vote in favour for it to be passed.
If memory serves me right 52% of votes cast were in favour but as a total of the registered electorate it was only 38 % .
Dead people and those who had left the country close to the vote and had not had their names removed from the register counted as NO votes.
I don’t think that there has been a more undemocratic referendum in modern history as that one.
It was another example of Scotland getting shafted.
George Cunningham was born in Dunfermline.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 14 Nov 15:09
Didn't the first referendum on Scottish devolution have a minimum of 55% set as the majority figure and the vote was over 50% but less than 55% so it was lost? It was the idea of George Cunningham who was a Scottish MP for an English constituency I think.
As desperado just said - Dunfermline High School educated George Cunningham, who was Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury (which is now Emily Thornberry’s constituency) proposed an amendment which required at least 40% of the electorate to vote in favour – so abstentions (accidental or deliberate) counted as “No” votes- as well as there being an absolute majority. There was no such proviso at the 97 referendum.
I agree with the idea that for major constitutional changes the bar should be higher (it is typically 2/3rs in political parties’ constitutions) – otherwise there is a risk that a passing fad, or even things like bad weather or illness could condemn you to suffering a “bad” decision for a generation or more.
The problem is that there wasn’t a 2/3 majority required in the first place (in fact, there was no referendum, we were just taken in to the EEC and a subsequent referendum validated the earlier decision). It is amusing to remember who campaigned against.
We have a constitutional crisis. The people have spoken, and directed the government to do things that they don’t believe to be in the national interests. If they ignore the people, they are failing as democrats. If they ignore the national interests, they are failing as a government.
One obvious (although difficult) solution is to persuade the people they were wrong. You could have another referendum. And another, and another, until they get the decision “right”. I don’t believe this is the way to do things.
I have always thought that the “Blank cheque” form of referendum is bizarre. You wouldn’t agree to change your job, or buy a house or car without knowing the terms of the deal. Yet here we are supposed to agree in principle to changing job or buying a new house, before being told what the salary or price is. I think it is a subtly different proposition to have a referendum on the terms of the deal. (Again the difficulty is that there are multiple strands of opinion, all along the spectrum from stay, via Canada plus, plus, and possibly plus, to no deal hard Brexit).
Of course, if enough of the 1 million or so Scots who voted Leave had voted the other way, we wouldn’t have this problem. (We would probably have a different constitutional crisis). This logic applies to any group of 634,751 voters, although these are less easy to identify.
I wonder what would have happened if the government had said from the off – right, you voted to leave, but not by much, so leave we will – but we’ll take a Norway style EFTA arrangement. I guess no-one would be happy, although it may be the best solution that satisfies the “no longer in the EU” constraint. It may yet happen.
Post Edited (Wed 14 Nov 15:11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 14 Nov 18:55
''Didn't the first referendum on Scottish devolution have a minimum of 55% set as the majority figure and the vote was over 50% but less than 55% so it was lost? It was the idea of George Cunningham who was a Scottish MP for an English constituency I think.
The rule for the 1979 devolution referendum was 40 % of the electorate had to vote in favour for it to be passed.
If memory serves me right 52% of votes cast were in favour but as a total of the registered electorate it was only 38 % .
Dead people and those who had left the country close to the vote and had not had their names removed from the register counted as NO votes.
I don’t think that there has been a more undemocratic referendum in modern history as that one.
It was another example of Scotland getting shafted.
George Cunningham was born in Dunfermline.......''
Thanks for that, Desperado. I wondered why I had it in my mind that it wasn't always a simple majority or first past the post, as Tenruh stated after my previous post.
It's interesting that had the same rules applied to the Brexit referendum, we wouldn't be having this crisis, because precisely 37.5% of those entitled to vote, voted LEAVE.
Now of course we don't know how those who didn't vote would have voted had they been obliged to use their vote (as I believe they have to in Australia) but it's probably safe to assume that almost everyone who wanted to leave the EU used their vote.
People who want to see change, are far more motivated to act than those who don't.........
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 15 Nov 07:42
Well, well, well. Theresa May is now saying " This deal, no deal or no Brexit."
That's significantly different from her previous stance. Is she trying to scare the hard line Brexiteers in her party who may be tempted to vote against her deal?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 15 Nov 08:05
Quote:
GG Riva, Thu 15 Nov 07:42
Well, well, well. Theresa May is now saying " This deal, no deal or no Brexit."
That's significantly different from her previous stance. Is she trying to scare the hard line Brexiteers in her party who may be tempted to vote against her deal?
Sorry to young to remember the 1979 referendum.
Regarding the present May comment, No deal, bad deal, or remain, well that's a vote splitter, looks like she's playing the long game.
Said before it won't happen, but at what cost, financially and otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wetherby
Date: Thu 15 Nov 10:01
Beginning to crumble, going to be an interesting day, week!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 15 Nov 10:04
If your own Brexit secretary resigns, it's surely only a matter of time before you have to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 15 Nov 10:05
Now McVey has gone. Good. Poisonous piece of ****.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Thu 15 Nov 12:22
Rees-Mogg has reportedly handed in a letter to the chairman of the 1922 Committee triggering a no confidence vote in the PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 15 Nov 15:05
Quote:
OzPar, Thu 15 Nov 12:22
Rees-Mogg has reportedly handed in a letter to the chairman of the 1922 Committee triggering a no confidence vote in the PM.
The Tories are in a different class when it comes to stabbing their own in the back.....
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 15 Nov 15:48
If May goes it will probably be Boris as PM.
That will put a few points on the independence side and should take us over the 50% comfortably.
Pass the popcorn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Thu 15 Nov 16:02
Pm statement at 5pm. Can only be for 1 thing. Cheery bye.
Why else make a statement on a day she was so adamant yo see UK leave the EU on her brexit terms with no cabinet backing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Thu 15 Nov 16:05
Now Michael Gove new brexit secretary what's going on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 15 Nov 16:07
Rubber face Gove! Ha.
He wants to renegotiate the deal !!!
Ealing comedy.
Time to leave Scotland....the lunatics are indeed taking over the asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 15 Nov 16:14
JRM has just said that there are streams of talent in the Tory party to take over from TM..
I must have missed that as they have been conspicuous by their absence the last few years.
Two and half years since the Referendum and look where we are !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Thaipar
Date: Thu 15 Nov 16:28
I must be missing the main thing about brexit on the news.
As far as I can remember it was done to keep Conservative MPs happy not the general public.
Is the right?
Post Edited (Thu 15 Nov 16:28)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 15 Nov 16:40
Yes. The whole thing was concocted to apease UKIP and strengthen the Tory vote. Cameron never believed leave would win.
This whole mess is due to the Tories a party Scotland has never voted for since 1955 , yet we have to sit like scolded children waiting for these clowns to decide what is good for us.
Time to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Thu 15 Nov 18:32
What a f---g stitch up!
It is not what people voted for and in fact it is a worse situation than it was before.
This is "big business" running the country AGAINST democracy and we have a shower of pussies in government giving in to it.
We had the same thing in the Scottish referendum.
Imo we do now need a second referendum because nowhere on the original one was this even hinted at.
I don't believe in PERMANENT DISASTER, I believe in making things right. People are laid off every day and no bas--d gives a sh-t. Look at Michelin. Look at the people in Aberdeen AFTER they voted NO or the hundreds paid off by Standard Life and many more.
Why are we allowing ourselves to be run by fear?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 15 Nov 20:53
Quote:
Bertiesback, Thu 15 Nov 18:32
What a f---g stitch up!
It is not what people voted for and in fact it is a worse situation than it was before.
This is "big business" running the country AGAINST democracy and we have a shower of pussies in government giving in to it.
We had the same thing in the Scottish referendum.
Imo we do now need a second referendum because nowhere on the original one was this even hinted at.
I don't believe in PERMANENT DISASTER, I believe in making things right. People are laid off every day and no bas--d gives a sh-t. Look at Michelin. Look at the people in Aberdeen AFTER they voted NO or the hundreds paid off by Standard Life and many more.
Why are we allowing ourselves to be run by fear?
Och Bertie, at least you're getting what you voted for so no point grumbling. How do you think us stay in voter's are feeling at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 15 Nov 22:34
Gove turned the job down apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 15 Nov 22:56
And is rumoured to be resigning. Another main player of the leave campaign.
Can’t be many left. Fox ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 16 Nov 01:53
Potentially in a joint resignation with Leadsom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 16 Nov 06:52
Is Teresa May going to hang in there until she's the only one left in the cabinet? Who needs enemies when you've got friends like the Tories, eh?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Fri 16 Nov 07:19
Cannot see it being anything but a NO deal, what then will happen with the Irish border issues. Would there have to be barriers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Fri 16 Nov 07:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Fri 16 Nov 09:36
The whole thing has been a con by the remainers lead by May.
She has gone in there and sold us out on behalf of big business in the full knowledge that they could scare the populace with what they say is the only alternative. "no deal"
The reason it is the only alternative is because we have had the wrong person/people facing the Europeans in the first place.
The truth is we have picked an inadequate to fight our corner and she has been more inadequate because she never believed in LEAVE in the first place, she was a REMAINER - how f----g stupid is that.
Would you pick a nazi sympathiser to negotiate a peace with Hitler?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Fri 16 Nov 11:44
Problem is none of the Brexiteers really wanted the job - they are much happier sniping from the sidelines than actually being responsible for doing stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Fri 16 Nov 12:57
"The whole thing has been a con by the remainers lead by May."
Think you'll find the whole thing was a con by the Brexiteers. No plan for actually leaving the EU, mixed messages on whether we could and should stay in the common market or could or should join the EEFA, no clue about how to answer the Irish border question, prominent members of Vote Leave taking their money out of the UK and moving it (you've guessed it) the EU, resigning from their jobs with no hint of accepting responsibility for their actions... And that's without the illegal funds, the £350 million a week lie and the racism from some Brexiteers. I know you're not pro-EU by any stretch but surely even the most reasonably fair observer can see that leaving, with this current deal or a no-deal scenario would be utterly catastrophic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 16 Nov 13:47
I was going to answer Bertie's nonsensical post further up, but Kelty has done so far better than I would have.
If you're looking for a scapegoat in all of this, you need look no further than Theresa May' s predecessor. David Cameron asked the British electorate to vote on a matter most of them know next to hee haw about. MPs are supposed to act in the best interests of their UK citizens and while they might not know everything about the pros and cons of staying in or leaving the EU, they should certainly be far more clued up than Joe Public.
So Cameron promised a Referendum to appease the euro sceptics, both in his own party and the public, knowing that would halt the haemorrhage of voters defecting from the Tories to UKIP. Not only that, he set the bar at a ludicrously low level, so that we ended up with a result which told us that the electorate basically didn't have a clue - just over half voted leave, just under voted remain and a significant number didn't even think it was important enough to get of their erchies and vote.
Cameron then acted like a silly boy who threw a stone at a greenhouse - he ran away when he heard the tinkling glass. Theresa May was then stupid enough to volunteer to pick up the pieces. Boris, who thinks he's smarter than May or Cameron kept well out of it. It'll be interesting to see what he does if May chucks it or is forced out in the coming days.
Eta. I see that those Tory weasels, Michael Gove and Liam Fox have pledged their support for the PM. Not daft are they? Why would anybody want her job right now?
Not your average Sunday League player.
Post Edited (Fri 16 Nov 15:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 16 Nov 14:19
We should remember that the original Brexit referendum was only advisory, not mandatory. Given how close the vote was, then it should never have been seen as carte blanche for a winner-takes-all scenario. In this respect a Hard Brexit is not what was voted for. Neither, had the vote tilted the other way, would it have been a vindication for the Blairite line of everything is fine with the EU, let’s carry on as usual. Herein lies the danger of a second referendum on the deal.
Over two years ago our parliament was charged with respecting the vote and arranging looser ties with the EU. This it has clearly failed to do. I suspect, like some others here, that Theresa May’s mandate from the party of capital and business was to scupper Brexit. To do this she has had to defy the extreme wing of this party, comprised largely of monolingual aristocrats, which believes the EU inhibits our ability to strike trade deals with our former colonies and dominions. It may be that there are better trade deals out there, but whether African nations are lining up on their shores to sell us bananas or Australian farmers ready to herd sheep aboard boats bound for Blighty must be highly unlikely, in the short term at least. UK business seeks stability and on balance prefers the security of trading and arranging deals within the large EU enterprise zone. These days our major trading commodity seems to be money: London is a major financial centre, partly because of a combination of long-standing links established in our imperial past and our present position as a large country within the EU. From the perspective of UK financiers it would make no sense to weaken that position.
So, May has served their interests by playing the long game and reducing the final decision to a bad deal (almost all the parties are against her Chequers deal) or Hard Brexit (which the majority of MPs could surely never allow in the national interest.) That leaves the status quo- staying in the EU- but with the proviso of renegotiating parts of our relationships in the years ahead, by which time public interest in whether we are in our out of Europe will have largely dissipated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Fri 16 Nov 14:55
"advisory, not mandatory"?
Well I never...and neither did anyone else I know. Never mentioned in any debates I saw, or speeches, newspapers, political broadcasts, leaflets, posters, ads etc.
Though I am willing to stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Fri 16 Nov 15:11
Quote:
Mario, Fri 16 Nov 14:55
"advisory, not mandatory"?
Well I never...and neither did anyone else I know. Never mentioned in any debates I saw, or speeches, newspapers, political broadcasts, leaflets, posters, ads etc.
Though I am willing to stand corrected.
Sammer is correct, I believe, Mario. Google it for yourself. Most MPs have treated it as such, since it's highly disrespectful to the electorate to subsequently ignore the result, but it was reported at the time that around 550 MPs were in favour of remaining within the EU. Given how "economical" they so often are with the truth, there's no way of knowing how accurate this number is.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Fri 16 Nov 17:02
I'm not really big into politics but Cameron has a lot to answer for. I shudder to think how many hundred million this whole sorry tale has cost the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 16 Nov 19:48
Quote:
JTH123, Fri 16 Nov 17:02
I'm not really big into politics but Cameron has a lot to answer for. I shudder to think how many hundred million this whole sorry tale has cost the country.
40 billion so far....and still counting according to Mark Carney. What happened to austerity?
Where did they find that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Fri 16 Nov 19:48
Brexit will be abandoned. No need for another vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Fri 16 Nov 19:55
"
"advisory, not mandatory"?
Well I never...and neither did anyone else I know. Never mentioned in any debates I saw, or speeches, newspapers, political broadcasts, leaflets, posters, ads etc.
Though I am willing to stand corrected.
"
Aren't you involved in politics in some way? I am not affiliated to any party and have no real interest in politics other than as a news fiend and someone who keeps a keen interest in current affairs but even I remember that it was an advisory referendum. They really should have had a caveat like they did in the 1970s referendum on Scottish independence. A null vote should really have counted as a vote for the status quo. Clearly if someone didn't vote they were happy enough with what we had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JTH123
Date: Fri 16 Nov 20:20
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 16 Nov 19:48
Quote:
JTH123, Fri 16 Nov 17:02
I'm not really big into politics but Cameron has a lot to answer for. I shudder to think how many hundred million this whole sorry tale has cost the country.
40 billion so far....and still counting according to Mark Carney. What happened to austerity?
Where did they find that?
I bet Cameron isn't even the slightest bit embarrassed about the carnage he's caused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Fri 16 Nov 22:47
"I was going to answer Bertie's nonsensical post further up, but Kelty has done so far better than I would have."
The only thing nonsensical is that p-sh you just spouted.
Firstly there was a strong feeling in the UK that Europe was going to end up running everything. That is a fact. Even their performance admittedly against a weak negotiator like May only reinforced that.
Cameron didn't make the majority the people did and they likely would vote for the same thing again.
The reason Cameron called it was as much to do with the way he was treated when he tried to negotiate a resolution to the county's reservations and he was humiliated.
There was nothing wrong in the result the only problem was there was no one able to negotiate and call the bluff of the EU.
Cameron didn't cover himself in glory, few did. However I love the way you (a remainer I presume) try to ignore the result.
So instead of kicking off with an insult maybe you can try to debate the point, or is that too hard for you?
As for Kelty, there was little fact or merit on either side but that as you should know is par for the course in most elections/referendums.
The main point was the way Cameron was treated by Brussels whether you agree or not, just reinforced and flagged up how ANY country would be treated if they wanted to pull against the idea of a European Republic and their insistence on eroding the sovereignty of the member states.
This was not missed and imo was the main driver along with immigration for the leave voters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 16 Nov 22:50
The referendum may have been technically only advisory but everyone expected the result to be honoured. I didn't want us to leave the EU but the result must be honoured.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 16 Nov 23:08
The best way to honour the result, which was a 52-48 majority, would have been to negotiate for some Norway type solution to our relations with the EU. Anything more (Brexit) or less (status quo) is not honouring the result of the referendum.
May's Chequers compromise is clearly inadequate as well, so the country is well and truly paralysed. Referendums are a sign that the political class has run out of ideas and should really be a sign to dissolve parliament. No party in recent memory has ever gone to the hustings on the manifesto of leaving the EU, uet incredibly that is the very matter which has consumed our politics for the last two years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 16 Nov 23:20
When I said /no party' I was referring to major parties represented in the House of Commons.
It is true that UKIP had a policy of leaving the EU and so far as I am aware, despite the high profile given to its spokesperson Nigel Farage, this party has won precisely zero seats in parliament since its inception.
The Communist Party, the Temperance Party (who defeated Winston Churchill in Dundee) and Sinn Fein over the years have all outscored UKIP in terms of parliamentary representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 16 Nov 23:52
Your last sentence Sammer sums up why we got brexit. I have no truck with ukippers but the fact they had next to zero represtation in parliament despite a not insignificant share of the vote is why when the moment of decision came huge swathes of the electorate decided to bale on the thier political masters. Then again the referendum lanced the far right boil. Italy, Germany and Hungary bow have parliaments that are infested by far right zealots.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 17 Nov 05:59
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Fri 16 Nov 22:47
"I was going to answer Bertie's nonsensical post further up, but Kelty has done so far better than I would have."
The only thing nonsensical is that p-sh you just spouted.
Firstly there was a strong feeling in the UK that Europe was going to end up running everything. That is a fact. Even their performance admittedly against a weak negotiator like May only reinforced that.
Cameron didn't make the majority the people did and they likely would vote for the same thing again.
The reason Cameron called it was as much to do with the way he was treated when he tried to negotiate a resolution to the county's reservations and he was humiliated.
There was nothing wrong in the result the only problem was there was no one able to negotiate and call the bluff of the EU.
Cameron didn't cover himself in glory, few did. However I love the way you (a remainer I presume) try to ignore the result.
So instead of kicking off with an insult maybe you can try to debate the point, or is that too hard for you?
As for Kelty, there was little fact or merit on either side but that as you should know is par for the course in most elections/referendums.
The main point was the way Cameron was treated by Brussels whether you agree or not, just reinforced and flagged up how ANY country would be treated if they wanted to pull against the idea of a European Republic and their insistence on eroding the sovereignty of the member states.
This was not missed and imo was the main driver along with immigration for the leave voters."
So me describing your post as nonsensical was insulting, but describing mine as ''spouting p-sh'' is OK, Bertie?
If you want to get involved in a debate, you should at least get your facts right. Perhaps you would care to point out exactly where in my previous post I was spouting?.......
The Tories promised a Referendum on Brexit long before David Cameron proposals were rejected in Brussels. Most political commentators were of the opinion that the Referendum was granted to appease the Brexiteers in the Tory party and to arrest the political march by UKIP, at the expense of the Tory vote. By promising a Brexit Referendum, Cameron was able to ensure his party triumphed in the 2015 General Election. So that's your assertion that Brussels provoked the Referendum kicked into touch......
Would I have preferred the UK to remain in the EU? Yes, unequivocally. Do I think the EU is some kind of Utopia? Absolutely not. Corruption is rife and bureaucracy is rampant, but no one ever made things better by running away. I think you're old enough to know that the original Common Market was set up not just to facilitate trade among its member states, but to ensure that European nations would never again go to war against each other, after the horrors of WW1 and WW2. At least in that, it's been successful and it's no mean achievement.
I haven't ignored the result at all, Bertie. I merely pointed out that the UK was split in two (roughly equal) parts. I also pointed out that only 37.5% of those entitled to vote, voted Leave. What kind of a mandate is that? As Kelty pointed out, a nil vote should count as a vote for the status quo - it's certainly not a vote for change by any stretch, is it? And another thing. You live in Scotland and are pro Independence, I believe? So how do you square that particular circle, in your own head, given that a significant majority of your fellow Scots voted to Remain? Aren't you leaving yourself open to the charge of being a ''Little Englander'', even though I don't believe you are?
It gives me no pleasure to point out that the country is in a complete mess as a result of the ill advised decision to give the British voters a say on Europe. Any such decision should have been taken by those who are paid and charged with serving the British people, by acting in their best interests - our elected MPs.
They clearly reneged on their responsibility................
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 17 Nov 06:15
Hell, I haven't finished with you yet, Bertie.
''Firstly there was a strong feeling in the UK that Europe was going to end up running everything. That is a fact. Even their performance admittedly against a weak negotiator like May only reinforced that.''
A feeling is not a fact. A fact is something tangible that can be demonstrated.
''Cameron didn't make the majority the people did and they likely would vote for the same thing again.''
You're in a tiny minority on that one. Several surveys which have been carried out suggest that a significant number of voters who voted Leave would now vote Remain, if the Referendum was rerun. Do you think that might have something to do with the lies they were fed by Boris, Farage and Co. in the run up? Take back control, £350m a week to the NHS, Turkey to join the EU, etc. etc. And another thing. There was no referendum before the UK joined the EU so why was one necessary to decide if we should leave it?
The EU is far from perfect, but the Brexiteers painted a very rosy picture of life without Europe and made out that leaving would be almost as easy as jumping on a bus. We're now finding out that it's far more complex than any of us could have imagined.
There might still be a light at the end of the tunnel, but sadly, you and I are unlikely to see it in our lifetime...........
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Sat 17 Nov 08:24
Hey GG I like you when you're angry....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 17 Nov 08:48
Quote:
PARrot, Fri 16 Nov 19:48
Brexit will be abandoned. No need for another vote.
This....i said we would never be allowed to leave the superstate....kudos to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sat 17 Nov 09:01
Quote:
Tenruh, Sat 17 Nov 08:24
Hey GG I like you when you're angry....
Not at all angry, mate. Just being assertive. 😉
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Sat 17 Nov 12:04
"The prime minister said he wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and then give people the "simple choice" between staying in under those new terms, or leaving the EU."
Do you see the words " wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and then give people"?
Do you understand the importance of "negotiate" and "then"?
If you do then you will see I was right. He called it AFTER he was rebuffed in his attempts to negotiate. If he had had success with these negotiations there is a strong likelihood that there would A - have been no desire for a referendum. B - There would have been a Remain victory.
There is no point in pointing to percentages. These are the same problems with every vote there has ever been in this country. If you don't vote then you have no gripe with the outcome.
Why would a nil vote count for the status quo? Many don't register and if that is a form of voting it makes a mockery of the process. How could any intelligent person think that was democratic or just
If you don't believe enough in the status quo why should your lack of a vote hold the same weight as someone who has cared enough to express an opinion. That is anti-democracy. The answer would have to be a system like Australia where all must vote, at least then they are making a valid choice.
I am totally consistent in my stance. I voted for independence for Scotland and I would expect a referendum on an independent Scotland joining the EU.
I voted leave because I think the sovereignty of the people is everything. I think a country like Scotland is quite able to think of and adopt the better policies that come out of the EU They already show traits in that direction with their opposition to many of the UK laws such as the bedroom tax etc (I equally don't think the UK/England is)
Yet again you presume to blame the voters for the inadequacy of the UK negotiators. You forget these are the same Tories who ignored the people and got us into this mess in the first place.
There was nothing wrong with the decision to leave only the leadership chosen to carry out the terms of leaving.
"European nations would never again go to war against each other, after the horrors of WW1 and WW2. At least in that, it's been successful and it's no mean achievement."
Total BS. Which of these Wars were started by GB? Are you saying we need to submit ourselves to the Germans and the French in order to remain at peace. What did the EU do about the Iraq wars? The country that started these wars has no need for conflict, they have it all now. Not that I blame them for seeing and taking an advantage.
I know one thing. Scotland has never started a war but they have had their population devastated by those started by others.
"Hell, I haven't finished with you yet, Bertie."
Please don't talk like that just because you have some blown up opinion of yourself. It cuts no ice with me.
The feeling was well justified and the reasons are a matter of record.
"One signal of potential direction of travel came last year when European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker asserted the EU needs its own army, a proposal welcomed by German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen, so Europe can “react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighbouring state”. While such a force is at best a longer-term aspiration, however, the European Defence Action Plan has a goal of reversing around a decade of defence spending cuts by EU states, totalling more than 10 per cent in real terms.."
"Federalisation of the European Union is the institutional process by which the European Union (EU) is transformed from a confederation (a union of sovereign states) towards a federation (a single federal state with a central government, consisting of a number of partially self-governing federated states). There is ongoing discussion about the extent to which the EU has already become a federation over the course of decades, and more importantly, to what degree it should continue to evolve into a federalist direction."
"You're in a tiny minority on that one. Several surveys which have been carried out suggest that a significant number of voters who voted Leave would now vote Remain, if the Referendum was rerun."
Yes maybe but that is down mostly to the almighty FU the negotiators have made of leaving it has nothing to do with the fundamental feeling of lost sovereignty being any less, in fact I think many people now see the EU in a new light as "punitive masters"
"The EU is far from perfect, but the Brexiteers painted a very rosy picture of life without Europe and made out that leaving would be almost as easy as jumping on a bus. We're now finding out that it's far more complex than any of us could have imagined."
That is not what I heard. I did not dismiss the difficulty as I don't dismiss the difficulty after Scottish independence. However as I said above all such events and difficulties are transient and should not blind us to what we want to create in the long run.
I believe that leaving the EU will be difficult but trade is like a drug and there is no way the EU would have cut off their nose.......
Mostly I find all this just symptomatic of why we must get out of the UK and make our own decisions. I still remember Sturgeon telling Cameron and Osborne there was another way, all these years ago and she was ignored and now we have the UN reprimanding the UK for it's punitive policies against the poor and the error of continuing to favour the well off.
Why do I have a feeling you voted Tory?
Post Edited (Sat 17 Nov 12:10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Sat 17 Nov 21:13
"As for Kelty, there was little fact or merit on either side but that as you should know is par for the course in most elections/referendums."
You were the one who called the shambles a con by the Remainers - there has been no action done by any Remainer since the result of the referendum that has been a con; the freedom of movement is a red line for the EU, the Irish border was always going to be a contentious issue given it would be a land border between the common market and the UK, and the UK should have to honour the budget contributions we have already agreed to as they are already accounted for in the EU budget. What was a con is that all three of these issues were known before the original referendum (and are still live topics now) but there was not one suggestion, NOT ONE, by anyone on the Vote Leave side on a possible way to get round them. Given they were the ones wanting to Leave, surely they should be responsible for sorting it out, no?
"The main point was the way Cameron was treated by Brussels whether you agree or not, just reinforced and flagged up how ANY country would be treated if they wanted to pull against the idea of a European Republic and their insistence on eroding the sovereignty of the member states."
Given that the renegotiation specifically said that the UK would be exempt from "ever closer Union", that's clearly nonsense. This of course was in addition to the four opt-outs the UK already has being not part of the Eurozone, not in the Schengen Area and having opt-outs in justice, defence and home affairs. The UK wanted to be able to deport EU nationals, going against the principle of freedom of movement but there was an agreement that benefits would be harder to get, and that non-EU spouses of EU nationals would no longer be automatically gicen the same rights. The UK still had sovereignty over pretty much everything of any importance, but instead we're going to be in a position were we are instead subservient to US laws and standards (which are much lower than EU standards) when we negotiate a new trade deal with them, or to EU regulations where we have no say in their making. If anything, we've been left with even less sovereignty than we had!
"This was not missed and imo was the main driver along with immigration for the leave voters."
Immigration and down-right racism you mean? EU nationals have already been told to "go home", and we had the bizarre statements before the referendum about there being too many Asians in certain areas. I know the half-way reasonable Leave voters don't want to hear it, but a large number of those who voted the same way were racists or were harking back to an age of the British Empire that hasn't been relevant for a century. Another driver of course was the laughable idea that we send money to the EU and get nothing in return, and that we could "instead, spend £350 million a week on the NHS". Remind me again how that's working out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 18 Nov 06:19
I do admire anyone who fights their corner and sticks up for what he/she believes in, so I'll give you that one, Bertie. Unfortunately, you go rapidly downhill after that.
I'll start at the end as this gave me a right good laugh:-
''Why do I have a feeling you voted Tory?''
In footballing language, your shot at goal went out for a shy. I'd rather cut my leg off, without anaesthetic, than vote for that bunch of duplicitous weasels.
Do you see the words " wanted to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU and then give people"?
Do you understand the importance of "negotiate" and "then"?
If you do then you will see I was right. He called it AFTER he was rebuffed in his attempts to negotiate. If he had had success with these negotiations there is a strong likelihood that there would A - have been no desire for a referendum. B - There would have been a Remain victory.''
The actual date Cameron called the Referendum is irrelevant, because he promised the electorate a Brexit Referendum before the 2015 GE. It was in the Tory manifesto and clearly offered to appease the Brexiteers in his own party and to arrest the drain of voters to UKIP. If you can't accept that you're in denial.
''If you don't vote then you have no gripe with the outcome.'' Agree 100%
''Why would a nil vote count for the status quo? Many don't register and if that is a form of voting it makes a mockery of the process. How could any intelligent person think that was democratic or just?''
Brexit was about changing the UK's future relationship with the EU. 62.5% of those eligible to vote, did not vote for change. It's logical to suggest they were not for change, otherwise they would have voted for it. In any other arena, a vote for change requires a significant majority to bring it about (normally around 2/3rds.) For a declared Remainer, Cameron made it far too easy for the UK to leave, in my humble one. (I can't help thinking he was hacked off by his Brussels failure and set the bar accordingly.) It would have been much fairer had Cameron made it 50% + 1 of those entitled to vote. That way those who did not exercise their right to vote (which is their right, I suppose, though I don't agree with it.) would have come into the equation as they did in the 1979 Scotland Referendum. Another thing I take issue with is that European nationals who have lived, worked and paid tax in the UK for years were excluded. Why was it OK for those same EU nationals to vote in the Scottish Independence referendum? Another fact which makes me believe that the Tories wanted to take the UK out of the EU all along.
Of course, leaving the EU may turn out to be the best thing the Tories have ever done for the UK, but I think we're all in for a long hard slog before we get to that happy place......... if we ever do. I'm not optimistic that you or I will see the benefits in our lifetime. Here's hoping.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 18 Nov 06:25
"This was not missed and imo was the main driver along with immigration for the leave voters."
Immigration and down-right racism you mean? EU nationals have already been told to "go home", and we had the bizarre statements before the referendum about there being too many Asians in certain areas. I know the half-way reasonable Leave voters don't want to hear it, but a large number of those who voted the same way were racists or were harking back to an age of the British Empire that hasn't been relevant for a century. Another driver of course was the laughable idea that we send money to the EU and get nothing in return, and that we could "instead, spend £350 million a week on the NHS". Remind me again how that's working out?''
Funny you should mention racism as a driver, Kelty.
I met for lunch with 8 retired colleagues the day after Brexit. Only one of our number had voted Leave. When challenged on it, he said that he was ''fed up with the number of Muslims living in this country.'' Eh?
I wonder which part of Europe they're all coming in from?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sun 18 Nov 11:56
From the Independent.
Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been slammed by arch-leave MP Nadine Dorries – because it means the UK will be left without any Members of the European Parliament.
The Tory backbencher, who campaigned tirelessly to get the country out of Europe, said Ms May's deal would leave the UK without any influence in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Sun 18 Nov 12:21
"You were the one who called the shambles a con by the Remainers"
I called how it was presented to us by May a con.
"
Given that the renegotiation specifically said that the UK would be exempt from "ever closer Union"
That reference was to political union, which imo would not mean they could not be drafted into a republic or put an end to a European army.
A great deal is being made of the political purpose of the Brexit vote but in truth the nation would have demanded a vote imo in either case. There was a huge section of Labour voters who were not going to be satisfied with Labour platitudes on the EU.
As for the Tories even if they had won another election there would still have been a cry from their ranks demanding a referendum.
"There has been a majority in the British public for leaving or for reducing the EU’s powers since 1996, according to the British Election Study (page 6), and immigration has been named as one of the three most important issues facing Britain since 2001, according to Ipsos MORI."
"Immigration and down-right racism you mean?"
No if I had meant that, I would have said that. As for the rest of the para - well maybe you should walk in some of their shoes before you get all self righteous.
Whether we appreciate/like it or not, some of these voters have felt they have had their "English way of life" changed for much worse in areas they live in, I am not going to condemn them when I don't know what that's like.
You are one of those people it seems that thinks indigenous people have no right to object to their whole way of life being altered to that of an immigrant society. I am not able to say how I'd feel but just because you don't want your way of life changed doesn't make you a racist imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Sun 18 Nov 12:52
The immigration argument is always an interesting one for the reasons mentioned above.
Personally I would say the fundamental barrier with immigration is religion. Many Muslims who come from the Middle East to Europe find that they have even more Freedom to practice Islam than they would in their own country. This is where you start to see problems arise. You could apply the same arguments to Christianity and Judaism, although these two have evolved considerably more than Islam.
I live not too far from Malmö in Southern Sweden and it is a prime example of how not to do immigration. Rise in rapes, shootings, homophobia and anti-semetism. The latter has actually resulted in the Malmö Synagogue being firebombed twice within the last 6 years or so - the place is kitted up like a bank if you go there. Swedes are mainly Atheist but refuse to tackle the issues that Islam is bringing because the Social Democrat party for years have demonised questioning immigration policy - this is why the Sweden Democrats are on the rise. There was actually a recent incident where a Muslim woman member within the Social Democrats was thrown out for wanting an open discussion on the treatment of women by Islam and was ejected from the party because there were feelings that this would result in "racist undertones". These are the same people who would likely argue that White Europeans are fundamentally racist but have never been to the Middle East and seen how the Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis and Kuwairis treat Indians and Filipinos that work there. Laughable!
At some point, the Europeans will have to make a choice between women's rights, LGBT rights and religious freedom and I will firmly be in the camp of the latter. To me its a joke that the UK is a legally Christian country and the head of state is titled "Protector of the faith". Its particularly ridiculous in Scotland too when a large majority are now Atheist, Agnostic or non-religious.
My mrs is Japanese and - if you give them language lessons - would be capable of successfully integrating anywhere in Europe. Same for Koreans, Chinese, Taiwanese etc. The main reasons being they are not fundamentally religious in their day to day lives. The Portuguese tried to take Christianity to Japan in the 16th Century and they were thrown out and Japan largely closed its doors until the Meiji restoration in 1876. Now they largely think Chrisianity and Islam are crazy and they certainly aint wrong!
Fundamentally, I just think its sad that the English are happy to turn their backs on friends and allies in Europe. Scotland traditionally was a country that traded with other European countries and I would say that Scots are far more outward looking compared to the rest of the UK. You can't help but feel the whole thing reeks of the British Superiority Complex and the "Good ole days of the Empire".
RE the EU, there are arguments about sovereignty etc. I would say that common fisheries has been bad for Scotland - I don't see the issue with selling "Scottish fish" in Europe. Merkel fundamentally undermined the Unity of Europe (East vs West) with "Wir schaffen es" and she knew that the Visegrad countries would not back her - ideology getting in the way of pragmatism. Having one body in control of fiscal policy and another in charge of monetary policy is always going to cause trouble and this is one of the main reasons why the Euro has largely failed. Finland has been in economic stagnation foe years because they no longer have full access to their monetary policy. And these are just a few things that come to mind. I often wonder whether the good points of Europe could have been created with treaties rather than creating a full legislative body, but it is what it is.
Bare in mind though that the Brits joined later and have not done much other than complain since they joined rather than working to find workable solutions and then you start to understand why we are where we are.
I've got the popcorn though - this is going to be a hilariously horrendous mess for the Tories and Westminster to deal with...
Post Edited (Sun 18 Nov 12:58)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Sun 18 Nov 13:11
HJ I normally enjoy your posts but this para bears no resemblance to fact and is imo ill informed.
"Fundamentally, I just think its sad that the English are happy to turn their backs on friends and allies in Europe. Scotland traditionally was a country that traded with other European countries and I would say that Scots are far more outward looking compared to the rest of the UK. You can't help but feel the whole thing reeks of the British Superiority Complex and the "Good ole days of the Empire".
No one is turning backs or shunning friends or allies or not wishing to trade with Europe or are lacking outwardness.
If you want to see a "superiority complex" go listen to Brussels.
Brussels to me are England to Scotland, it will be no different in the second referendum and I bet we will have the same calls for punitive measures against us as the UK has when we try to leave.
We have already endured the "I just think its sad that the English are happy to turn their backs on friends and allies in Europe. Scotland traditionally was a country that traded with other European countries and I would say that Scots are far more outward looking compared to the rest of the UK.......just change the names to Scotland and England.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Sun 18 Nov 19:39
"As for the rest of the para - well maybe you should walk in some of their shoes before you get all self righteous."
I have no idea what you mean. Are EU nationals being told to "go home"? Yes, it's both been widely reported and I've heard from a German friend that he's heard similar. Are there large numbers of Leave voters who have complained about the number of non-EU immigrants? Yes, it has also been widely reported and there's the sort of comments that sadly GG has alluded to above. Are there people who mark back to the old British Empire? Yes, all you have to do is see the number of people who say that the EU need us more than we need them, and that we should be negotiating trade agreements with Canada, Australia and New Zealand - countries far away and with less consumers than the EU for our products but of course are all former colonies who speak English. And was the Bus claim a big driver? Yes of course it was, it's been given specifically as a reason by Leave voters - and of course none of the money from the Need it dividend (if there is one) is heading that way. What exactly have I said that's controversial or can be described as "righteous"? Genuine question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Sun 18 Nov 22:42
I have been a member of the Australian British Chamber of Commerce for a long time now and over the years have popped along to various functions to hear UK ministers give a talk.
As time has gone by, I have become less inclined to attend them as it is clear that despite the politicians' smooth words, Britain is utterly dependent on the EU for the bulk of its trade. Importantly, nowadays it does not hold a particular attraction to Australian businesses outside of the finance sector. The markets in Asia firmly hold our attention.
There is no way that Australia, NZ or Canada will make anything more than a small dent in the UK trade figures after Brexit. As kelty pointed out, the combined population of these three countries (67 million) is miniscule compared to the EU's 743 million.
What trade in goods there is between our countries is already quite robust and I don't see much growth opportunity on either side. I doubt that you would want too many more bottles of Aussie wine on your shelves and we probably have quite enough Johnnie Walker on ours.
The tyranny of distance is probably the most significant factor. Shipping goods between the UK and Australia normally takes more than 40 days by sea and for the Brits there are obviously higher costs involved than moving goods, often overnight, from mainland Europe or Ireland.
I cannot see a lot of merit in the UK saying, "stuff the EU; we can trade with the rest of the world".
It is just not going to happen. Your supermarkets will stiil stock French, German, Dutch, Italian products; the problem is that they are going to cost you more because of Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Sun 18 Nov 23:02
I probably agree that the way the EU is developing is wrong but leaving was an option twenty years ago.Now the world,and common market which we went into,has changed and trade is controlled so tightly that being out of a massive group that can,sort of,control the multinational companies is a necessity.Leave the EU,in any way,and we have no say in what they decide.
If anybody really thinks we'll get great deals with Trumps USA or anybody else when we leave they are living in dreamland.Too many people hark back to the days when Britain was a major power which we are not any more.The sharks are swimming around waiting to eat us.
Never mind we can have blue passports just like we could have had in the EU anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Mon 19 Nov 06:06
So I'm ill-informed because I disagree with you Bertie? No very logical that!
Agree with OzPar too. All the bluster about deals with the Commonwealth etc are a fart in the wind. Asia, particularly SE Asia is where the large-scale growth is at the minute. The EU already has a trade deal with Canada that the UK would have had access to and there are ones with Japan (which I think is being ratified) and South Korea (which I think is agreed but being written). I'm sure the EU are also working with the South American confederation as well on Trade. All that's happened is the UK has taken a 15 year step backwards in terms of trade as they'll need to negotiate their own deals.
Donj - Unless I'm mistaken, we ain't allowed blue passports in the EU. They do actually have to be Burgandy ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Mon 19 Nov 06:18
''Are EU nationals being told to "go home"? Yes, it's both been widely reported and I've heard from a German friend that he's heard similar. Are there large numbers of Leave voters who have complained about the number of non-EU immigrants? Yes, it has also been widely reported and there's the sort of comments that sadly GG has alluded to above.''
In fairness to my colleague, he explained that his fears were based on his assumption that Turkey would be allowed to join the EU and that this would provide a highway route for anyone with extreme Muslim Fundamentalist views to enter the UK. (He also has some Pakistani neighbours with whom he is not on the best of terms.)
Of course, the Turkish argument was put out there by Farage and Co. In actual fact, Turkey was set 33 conditions by the EU, some years ago, which it must satisfy before it can even apply to be considered for full EU membership. Since then, I believe they have managed to overtake just one condition. In other areas, such as human rights issues, they are actually moving in the wrong direction, so I wouldn't imagine Turkey will be joining the EU any time soon.......
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Mon 19 Nov 07:08
Absolutely GG. Bertie keeps talking about using fear... well there was the prime example - the famous Vote Leave leaflet that was dropped through millions of letterboxes implying Turkey was primed to join the EU and that every single Turk was heading this way. They should have been called to task for that but the little Englanders in particular lapped it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parsweep
Date: Mon 19 Nov 18:32
We Scots are getting exactly what we deserve for not taking the chance to break free from those charlatans at Westminster .
We may yet get another opportunity though , and at least we won't be conned by a train load of MP's on a flying visit or a Cameron mark 2 telling us that the only way to guarantee Scotland's membership in the EU is to vote no to independance . Because we won't be in it !
All this gnashing of teeth makes me laugh . Especially since everything we're getting is self inflicted .
Bobvo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 20 Nov 16:02
I beg thy pardon donj! You are correct is seems.
Pretty much agree with you too ParSweep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Tue 20 Nov 23:39
<,It is just not going to happen. Your supermarkets will stiil stock French, German, Dutch, Italian products; the problem is that they are going to cost you more because of Brexit. >>
How so?
The EU don't/can't impose 'exit-tariffs" on goods, it's up to the UK to decide to have import duties on incoming goods. (or not...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 20 Nov 23:45
Even if there are no tariffs applied it depends on what the Customs and VAT deals are like.
If there is a border that requires clearance processes etc then that's going to cost businesses which is either going to reduce their profit margin or increase the cost of the goods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Wed 21 Nov 00:06
Agreed - but it is the UK who declares <what the Customs and VAT deals are like> on incoming goods.
There is absolutely no way that anyone can state with any certainty what these would be, far less the resulting impact on consumer prices.
On the other side of the coin - even if you are right - there then may be an increase in manufacturing/farming/brewing/whatever in the UK to fill the gaps created...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 21 Nov 00:56
I think we might find selling to the EU a teensy bit harder,meaning our exports go down but imports up,and the Tories have already done their best to destroy our manufacturing/farming/brewing businesses.Remember we only control one side.That means prices up as we need to cover the deficit some way.
Remember when the pound got you one euro forty.Now one euro ten.This means expense.
All very well we can let stuff in cheap but we need them to let ours in the same way.Unfortunately this magic world where we produce all we need might take a wee bit of time to arrive.
Also this dream of immediate great trade deals with all these countries dying to give us the deals from heaven might not actually come true,deals take a long time to agree anyway.In fact I guarantee the deals we get go the one way and not in our favour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 21 Nov 12:21
"Absolutely GG. Bertie keeps talking about using fear... well there was the prime example - the famous Vote Leave leaflet that was dropped through millions of letterboxes implying Turkey was primed to join the EU and that every single Turk was heading this way. They should have been called to task for that but the little Englanders in particular lapped it up."
So you agree about the "fear" then.
Actually I would not be surprised if Turkey is eventually admitted. - do you have any quotes saying they will NOT be admitted?
My point was the way May has set this up ie her deal or no deal (no deal meaning all kinds of nightmare scenarios) is just pure scaremongering and as I said, the reason a remainer should never have been put in charge in the first place.
Are you really going to deny the Project Fear usEven ed to frighten the Scots in the independence referendum? Jeez even the BBC were conscripted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Wed 21 Nov 13:57
No way will Turkey ever be admitted, Bertie, unless an amazing series of changes was to take place and that isn't going to happen. That's why the EU set them these 33 preconditions before they can even apply for membership, knowing full well they will never satisfy them all.
You can't tell a country they've no chance of joining, anymore than you can tell someone they can't get a job because they're too fat.
In Italy, you have to be able to run a kilometre in under 4 mins if you want to join the Carabinieri. That eliminates quite a number of would be applicants right away. I'm you'll catch my drift.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: kelty_par
Date: Wed 21 Nov 14:21
"My point was the way May has set this up ie her deal or no deal (no deal meaning all kinds of nightmare scenarios) is just pure scaremongering and as I said, the reason a remainer should never have been put in charge in the first place."
The Brexiteers have been well represented all times, with David Davis the Brexit Secretary (albeit he only managed a grand total of four hours of meetings in a year) followed by Dominic Raab. And there's nothing to stop any of the big guns in the Leave movement from coming out with their own ideas. Boris had a stab with his laughably bad Canada ++ plan which bore no scutinty at all, but the likes of JRM and Michael Gove have been silent on this. In Gove's case it's probably because he had no clue. In Rees-Mogg's case it's because he'll make a tonne of money in the event of a no deal. Were there even any decent Brexiteer candidates for leader when Cameron left? They've had their chance to speak and haven't used it. That's hardly May's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
