Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blaming the hard-line CON Brexit fundamentalists who are takin

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blaming the hard-line CON Brexit fundamentalists who are taking Britain to the brink

This from @stephenkb is right. Brexit's failing because it's being negotiated in the interests of the Tory Party https://t.co/KBzSvVIpDB

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.

    R-i-g-h-t..........

    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,948
    Second! Like Remain....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 4,760
    Tory Brextremists are not putting their country FIRST!

    EDIT or second or third, thanks to the disappearing Vanilla Threads Syndrome
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,242

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,948
    FPT

    Well there’s a surprise

    British negotiators are frustrated the EU has in effect “banked” the concessions made by Theresa May in Florence last month. In a set-piece speech, the UK prime minister promised to honour the financial commitments the country has made as a member and remain in the bloc in all but name until 2021.

    London is particularly upset that the EU is in effect calling for a second big set of concessions to close a deal — which may be impossible given political constraints in Westminster.


    https://amp.ft.com/content/ff329274-af42-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,103
    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/welfare/2017/10/i-was-under-18-when-i-claimed-universal-credit-delays-almost-left-me If they struggle with a claim from a single person on Universal Credit does not give confidence on the upcoming migration of existing claimants with complex family situations.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,948
    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    And the solution is to ignore the result?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 11,616
    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    That's a very serious bordering on libellous accusation, though not sure who you're levelling it against.

    What evidence do you have of malpractice?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited October 12
    Stephen Bush's article is nonsense, as we discussed on the previous thread: he's making exactly the same mistake some Brexiteers make, that the UK can unilaterally decide what relationship it wants with the EU. Lord only knows how he has failed to notice that the EU are not prepared to offer "control over immigration and an end to the free movement of people, without economic dislocation."

    Meanwhile, Mike is partly right when he says that 'squaring these factions.. is making it so difficult for TMay and her team.'. Of course it's not just factions within the Conservative Party, it's a whole range of MPs with mutually-exclusive red lines, plus the natural wish of opposition parties to cause as much trouble as possible.

    But then, voters declined to give her the majority she needed to be able to negotiate and make concessions, if necessary, without worrying about being ambushed. The first mistake of voters was to choose Leave; the second was to deny the government a mandate to implement it. We are likely to suffer considerably because of the interaction of these two mistakes; even though we can't be certain that the EU would negotiate in good faith even if we had a strong and stable government, it most certainly doesn't help that we don't. Our EU friends can't even be sure that the PM can make any deal stick.
  • " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    No.

    Our trust in the democratic system was already being destroyed by MPs who serve their parties and themselves first and the public a very distant third.

    It was being destroyed by the fact that much of what we elect MPs to do they cannot do because the decisions were being made in Brussels so the MPs can just shrug their shoulders and say 'nothing to do with us guv'.

    It was being destroyed by a coalition government that was able to ignore the promises it made all in the name of coalition.

    The EU referendum was won because people were sick and tired of arrogant people like you who thought they knew better than the unwashed masses who are apparently too dumb to make their own decisions on how their country is run.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    Typical. Bitch about the results you don't like, say it was not down to actual voters but dirty tricks of our opponents...

    You might be given a better hearing if your party weren't the leaders in that particular field.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,596
    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    FPT

    Well there’s a surprise

    British negotiators are frustrated the EU has in effect “banked” the concessions made by Theresa May in Florence last month. In a set-piece speech, the UK prime minister promised to honour the financial commitments the country has made as a member and remain in the bloc in all but name until 2021.

    London is particularly upset that the EU is in effect calling for a second big set of concessions to close a deal — which may be impossible given political constraints in Westminster.


    https://amp.ft.com/content/ff329274-af42-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4

    Well colour me shocked.

    Those concessions needed to have a tight expiry date. Move on - or they are off the table. It's not too late to add that "clarification", Prime Minister. They were intended to show good faith on the part of the UK, to break the deadlock and fire the starting pistol for the EU negotiators being sensible.

    Sometimes, you just have to shuffle your papers together and walk out the room.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    Those concessions needed to have a tight expiry date. Move on - or they are off the table. It's not too late to add that "clarification", Prime Minister. They were intended to show good faith on the part of the UK, to break the deadlock and fire the starting pistol for the EU negotiators being sensible.

    Sometimes, you just have to shuffle your papers together and walk out the room.

    "Give us a trade deal by this date or we'll have a hard border in Ireland"?

    The UK only wants to leave the EU in theory, but not in practice.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,242

    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    Typical. Bitch about the results you don't like, say it was not down to actual voters but dirty tricks of our opponents...
    You might be given a better hearing if your party weren't the leaders in that particular field.
    No, Mr Mark. Your lot win that one hands down.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,247
    Evening all :)

    Bush isn't commenting on the vote unlike some on here but on the manner of the negotiation and I agree with a lot of what he says.

    I was told a few days ago I rarely repeat myself (unlike some on here who trot out the same arguments ad nauseam and ad infinitum) but on this occasion I will.

    The problem is that after the vote nobody sat down to work out what it meant. In lieu of any contingency planning in Government (thanks Dave and George), the LEAVE campaign should, instead of falling over themselves not to win the Conservative Party leadership, should have started the process of the national discussion over what LEAVE want in reality.

    Instead, the electorate were patted on the head and told "don't worry about any of this. Have your holidays and leave the thinking to Theresa and her boys". May of course said everything and nothing and pandered to everyone's idea of Brexit without entering into any real specifics and as we now know, you can't win an election on Presidential style and platitudes (well, you can, you also need personality).

    "Where's the Beef ?" someone once said. "In a pub in Torbay" might be one response but the fact is I'm no clearer now than I was on 24/6/16 as to what the British Government wants from A50. This isn't a game of poker but the economic future of our country.

    Perhaps Bush is wrong but the self-preservation society at the heart of Government seems more interested in getting a deal it can sell to the electorate in the hope of keeping in power (whether it's the Johnson/Gove show as some want or some other combination) rather than a deal in the economic interests of the country.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819
    stodge said:

    The problem is that after the vote nobody sat down to work out what it meant. In lieu of any contingency planning in Government (thanks Dave and George), the LEAVE campaign should, instead of falling over themselves not to win the Conservative Party leadership, should have started the process of the national discussion over what LEAVE want in reality.

    Almost

    I think what LEAVE want is obvious. All of the cake and all of the eating thereof.

    Dismantle the 4 freedoms, maintain preferential access for goods and services, close our borders to migrants but keep expats in Spain, all at no cost. Job done.

    Those are the things LEAVE promised.

    What they didn't do, and still dare not do, is explain to the public how much of that was lies. Which bits might be achievable, and at what cost.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    edited October 12

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    Exactly. I've asked some Brexiteer posters in the past on here like Philip Thompson or Richard Tyndall whether they think the average Leave voter particularly wants or cares about some of the government's top Brexit priorities (such as ability to make trade deals with America, Asia, etc., or leaving the ECJ), and they respond that they don't care what the voters want, all that matters is what's right.

    Which is....somewhat hypocritical when they otherwise say that anyone who doesn't want Brexit at all is "defying the will of the people". If you believe the will of the people doesn't matter in deciding what kind of Brexit we have, then logically you can't demand that we be bound by the will of the people in deciding whether we have Brexit at all.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,445

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    It may be a terrific phrase but it's bollocks. Do you want to name a couple of these people so we can see what you are on about, or are they Dr Evil sort of types who live in secret hideaways under tropical islands, out of the public gaze?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 146
    edited October 12

    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    That's a very serious bordering on libellous accusation, though not sure who you're levelling it against.

    What evidence do you have of malpractice?
    Using taxpayer money to send a £10 million leaflet to every household explaining why we should vote one way in a referendum perhaps - in addition to the legal spending of the official campaign promoting that?

    There was of course no electoral malpractice and lies and half truths were told by both sides. Just like in every general election we have had for decades including last June. Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message whereas remain was too London centric and was just negative negative negative.
  • @Richard_Nabavi In fairness to Bush he makes it clear how he sees us getting our Cake and eating it. Increased net payments to the EU budget. We've never asked if a bespoke deal would be available around our immigration monomania if we were prepared to pay extra.

    But that as so much else is constrained by the Leave event. What we are all grappling with is the Leave event being a political, cultural, psychological event well beyond the question on the ballot paper.

    Leave is simultaneously written in stone and can't be betrayed AND no longer exists and can't be held accountable for it's promises or asked to pull a shift in implementing it's fantasy.

    In short the question of the times is this. What does a political class do when voters vote for something that can't be delivered ? Would we " respect " a referendum result to cure cancer ? The political class buying into the contradictions of the Leave event as opposed to the referendum question it's self was only ever a delaying tactic and now we are running out of road.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,200
    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    Ishmael_Z said:

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    It may be a terrific phrase but it's bollocks. Do you want to name a couple of these people so we can see what you are on about, or are they Dr Evil sort of types who live in secret hideaways under tropical islands, out of the public gaze?
    Johnson, Fox, IDS, Hannan, Redwood, Howard, to name a few. The Tory party is riddled with these people.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    HYUFD said:

    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible

    Did you even read the piece? It doesn't argue about free movement at all.

    The point is that it's the government's red lines of the ECJ and "independent" trade deals that have made a deal far more complicated than it needed to be - and what's more, those red lines were democratically totally unnecessary, since the average Leave voter in the Doncasters of the world didn't care about them. A handful of Tory politicians are the ones who mostly cared about the ECJ and trade deals, and it's their desires who seem to be dictating the government's whole negotiating strategy rather than the public's desires.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 31,819
    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    Ishmael_Z said:

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    It may be a terrific phrase but it's bollocks. Do you want to name a couple of these people so we can see what you are on about, or are they Dr Evil sort of types who live in secret hideaways under tropical islands, out of the public gaze?
    Daniel Hannan.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    EEA and WTO both involve leaving the customs union, so where would the customs border with Ireland be?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    Typical. Bitch about the results you don't like, say it was not down to actual voters but dirty tricks of our opponents...
    You might be given a better hearing if your party weren't the leaders in that particular field.
    No, Mr Mark. Your lot win that one hands down.

    No, your lot tried to tar our lot with a load of bullshit charges that the police had to spend many, many millions investigating. To naught.

    Some of your lot are very fortunate not to be facing charges of wasting police time. Indeed, I'm not sure whether all those decisions have yet been fully considered.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 146
    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    Good job with explaining all that to the voters.

    You could see it panning out as - do we want to be a free and independent nation controlling our borders and laws and negotiating trade deals with the world or in the EU in all but name still with freedom of movement, still paying money in and still with some external control over our laws via transnational courts but lose all our direct influence and voting rights.

    Do we want to be Australia, the USA or Canada - or to be Norway and Iceland?

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    brendan16 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    Good job with explaining all that to the voters.

    You could see it panning out as - do we want to be a free and independent nation controlling our borders and laws and negotiating trade deals with the world or in the EU in all but name still with freedom of movement, still paying money in and still with some external control over our laws via transnational courts but lose all our direct influence and voting rights.

    Do we want to be Australia, the USA or Canada - or to be Norway and Iceland?

    LOL, here we go again. How much do you think Jo(e) Public cares about "negotiating trade deals with the world"?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,247
    Scott_P said:


    Almost

    I think what LEAVE want is obvious. All of the cake and all of the eating thereof.

    Dismantle the 4 freedoms, maintain preferential access for goods and services, close our borders to migrants but keep expats in Spain, all at no cost. Job done.

    Those are the things LEAVE promised.

    What they didn't do, and still dare not do, is explain to the public how much of that was lies. Which bits might be achievable, and at what cost.

    Indeed and to have had that honest national debate would have been hugely beneficial.

    I consider the Single Market hugely damaging though I know I'm in a minority. The EU that evolved from the Single European Act isn't the EU I wanted or could support. The depopulation of parts of Romania and Bulgaria and the migration of perhaps 400,000 of their citizens (possibly many more) to the UK isn't the EEC (or the EU) I hoped for.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,800
    Spot on. The Tory Party no longer thinks less in terms of what is best for the economic wellbeing of this country and its people, but more in terms of what will keep Jacob Rees-Mogg happy. It'd be funny, if the consequences for the rest of us were not so potentially dire.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,041
    Look on the bright side, they will take the Tory party down with them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,596
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible

    Did you even read the piece? It doesn't argue about free movement at all.

    The point is that it's the government's red lines of the ECJ and "independent" trade deals that have made a deal far more complicated than it needed to be - and what's more, those red lines were democratically totally unnecessary, since the average Leave voter in the Doncasters of the world didn't care about them. A handful of Tory politicians are the ones who mostly cared about the ECJ and trade deals, and it's their desires who seem to be dictating the government's whole negotiating strategy rather than the public's desires.
    You cannot stay in the single market without free movement and payments so at best that is an argument for staying in the customs union alone
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304
    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    edited October 12
    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible

    Did you even read the piece? It doesn't argue about free movement at all.

    The point is that it's the government's red lines of the ECJ and "independent" trade deals that have made a deal far more complicated than it needed to be - and what's more, those red lines were democratically totally unnecessary, since the average Leave voter in the Doncasters of the world didn't care about them. A handful of Tory politicians are the ones who mostly cared about the ECJ and trade deals, and it's their desires who seem to be dictating the government's whole negotiating strategy rather than the public's desires.
    You cannot stay in the single market without free movement and payments so at best that is an argument for staying in the customs union alone
    Who says? By "you cannot", you mean the EU hasn't allowed it hitherto. But the EU has also hitherto never allowed (as far as I know) no hard border between themselves and a non-Single Market/Customs Union country, yet that is exactly what the government is asking for, so....

    If it's a choice between two unprecedented bids from the UK side, we may as well bid for one that the British public actually wants rather than one a few Tory MPs want, no?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,596
    edited October 12
    IanB2 said:

    Look on the bright side, they will take the Tory party down with them.

    What would take the Tory Party down would be supporting keeping free movement unchecked and vast payments to the EU to stay in the single market given most Tory voters and members back hard Brexit. It would likely end with a Labour victory and UKIP replacing the Tories as the main party of the right, much as in Canada in 1993 the Liberals won comfortably and the Reform Party replaced the Progressive Conservatives as the main right-wing party
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    The Remain side was sloppy, complacent and uninspiring. You won't have such luck next time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 33,596
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible

    Did you even read the piece? It doesn't argue about free movement at all.

    The point is that it's the government's red lines of the ECJ and "independent" trade deals that have made a deal far more complicated than it needed to be - and what's more, those red lines were democratically totally unnecessary, since the average Leave voter in the Doncasters of the world didn't care about them. A handful of Tory politicians are the ones who mostly cared about the ECJ and trade deals, and it's their desires who seem to be dictating the government's whole negotiating strategy rather than the public's desires.
    You cannot stay in the single market without free movement and payments so at best that is an argument for staying in the customs union alone
    Who says? By "you cannot", you mean the EU hasn't allowed it hitherto. But the EU has also hitherto never allowed (as far as I know) no hard border between themselves and a non-Single Market/Customs Union country, yet that is exactly what the government is asking for, so....

    If it's a choice between two unprecedented bids from the UK side, we may as well bid for one that the British public actually wants rather than one a few Tory MPs want, no?
    If you think from all their statements Juncker and Barnier and Merkel are going to allow the UK to restrict free movement you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

    Though much of the fault for Brexit lies with Blair and his failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,445
    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    It may be a terrific phrase but it's bollocks. Do you want to name a couple of these people so we can see what you are on about, or are they Dr Evil sort of types who live in secret hideaways under tropical islands, out of the public gaze?
    Daniel Hannan.
    Is a sort of puppetmaster manipulating 52% of the population, is he? Bollocks. If you are looking for a toxic elite in all this, how about the tiny number of well-heeled soft left eurofederalists to whom unfettered immigration means cheap unskilled labour, and any strain on the NHS and social housing and education is immaterial because only the proles rely on the state for for those things.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible

    Did you even read the piece? It doesn't argue about free movement at all.

    The point is that it's the government's red lines of the ECJ and "independent" trade deals that have made a deal far more complicated than it needed to be - and what's more, those red lines were democratically totally unnecessary, since the average Leave voter in the Doncasters of the world didn't care about them. A handful of Tory politicians are the ones who mostly cared about the ECJ and trade deals, and it's their desires who seem to be dictating the government's whole negotiating strategy rather than the public's desires.
    You cannot stay in the single market without free movement and payments so at best that is an argument for staying in the customs union alone
    Who says? By "you cannot", you mean the EU hasn't allowed it hitherto. But the EU has also hitherto never allowed (as far as I know) no hard border between themselves and a non-Single Market/Customs Union country, yet that is exactly what the government is asking for, so....

    If it's a choice between two unprecedented bids from the UK side, we may as well bid for one that the British public actually wants rather than one a few Tory MPs want, no?
    Freedom of Movement is written into the treaties that underpin the whole of the EU. Even if the EU was to agree it as part of the Brexit negotiations it would be shot down by the ECJ as it is a fundamental part of what the EU is.

    To change it would require a whole new treaty to rewrite the whole basis of the EU. How long exactly do you think that is going to take? And that will require unanimity from all 27 countries. There isn't a snowball in hell's chance it will ever be agreed.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,200
    The Bush article is garbage. Which party would go to the electorate promising to give Brussels more money when we are already the second-largest contributor, in exchange for controls on immigration which most of the public think we should have regardless?

    It's perfect in theory, but politically ludicrous.
  • Anyway this is also the way out. Voters won't blame themselves for the Summer of Shame in June 2016. We'd be fools to expect more than a handful to admit they were had. We need a scapegoat. The danger is we further internalise things. The truck Trump is pulling with the NFL is hardly subtle as his administration collapses. We are further behind in the arc as Trump took office a few months after his election while there are 2 years 9 months between the Referendum and Brexit Day. The UK could go to a very dark place if the devastation of a No Deal Brexit is internalised. It'll be EU emigration that would be the problem in that scenario.

    The safety value is ensuring the electorate hangs the Tory Party from a lamp post using piano wire. It'll be a vulgar business for many of us colluding with the view that Brexit was deliverable in principle if only the Tories hadn't f***ed it all up but voters won't blame themselves and the alternative scapegoats are worse. We must ensure the Tory Party takes the propitiatory fall for all of this when the final reckoning comes.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    edited October 12
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    It may be a terrific phrase but it's bollocks. Do you want to name a couple of these people so we can see what you are on about, or are they Dr Evil sort of types who live in secret hideaways under tropical islands, out of the public gaze?
    Daniel Hannan.
    Is a sort of puppetmaster manipulating 52% of the population, is he?
    Um.....no.

    You also don't seem to have bothered to read the article before commenting on it, because one of the main points of it is drawing a distinction between the so-called "Brexit elite" and most of the 52% who voted to Leave. It's precisely the fact that Hannan et al do not reflect or manipulate their views that is the point.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 4,691

    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    The Remain side was sloppy, complacent and uninspiring. You won't have such luck next time.
    Next time? Do you mean when Denmark holds a referendum on leaving?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    RoyalBlue said:

    It's perfect in theory, but politically ludicrous.

    Do you see any way out for Brexit that isn't politically ludicrous?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,657

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.
    Perhaps, just perhaps, none of the messages appeared positive to you because you were too blind to see them. I fear you would see anything remain had said as automatically negative.

    I gave a very small but important area where the EU *had* certainly done good, along with evidence, and leavers just shouted me down. In one case, after admitting he had not even read the links.

    It was a rather instructive exercise, and a very different reaction to when I criticise the EU on here.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    The Remain side was sloppy, complacent and uninspiring. You won't have such luck next time.
    "Next time" you will be asking to rejoin the EU.

    Except it will be to the Euro. A European Army. Unified taxation rates. The Robin Hood tax - and anything else they can think of to dismantle the City of London. All the stuff that will stick in the craw of a mass of Remain voters in 2016. We will have no ability to resist anything. You will be asking the UK to wear the blue gimp suit, with yellow stars on it.

    Good luck selling that.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844
    Danny565 said:

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    Exactly. I've asked some Brexiteer posters in the past on here like Philip Thompson or Richard Tyndall whether they think the average Leave voter particularly wants or cares about some of the government's top Brexit priorities (such as ability to make trade deals with America, Asia, etc., or leaving the ECJ), and they respond that they don't care what the voters want, all that matters is what's right.

    Which is....somewhat hypocritical when they otherwise say that anyone who doesn't want Brexit at all is "defying the will of the people". If you believe the will of the people doesn't matter in deciding what kind of Brexit we have, then logically you can't demand that we be bound by the will of the people in deciding whether we have Brexit at all.
    I have never said I don't care what the voters want. That is an outright lie. In fact I wrote thread header on here based on the polling showing that the majority of people would favour an EEA type deal over a no deal. It was based on yougov polling. I have also made it clear in the past that I think that in the end it is unlikely we will get exactly the sort of Brexit I want but that I am resigned to that.

    So before you start accusing people of ignoring the electorate do please learn some fucking facts.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.
    Perhaps, just perhaps, none of the messages appeared positive to you because you were too blind to see them. I fear you would see anything remain had said as automatically negative.

    I gave a very small but important area where the EU *had* certainly done good, along with evidence, and leavers just shouted me down. In one case, after admitting he had not even read the links.

    It was a rather instructive exercise, and a very different reaction to when I criticise the EU on here.
    Wrong, as so often. I was quite prepared to vote to Remain - if only Cameron had got some meaningful concessions.

    That - and the antics of Osborne - tipped me into becoming a reluctant Leaver. Not that I expected to be on the winning side.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,791
    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    I said at the time that we needed a second question on the referendum, because otherwise *everybody* claims a mandate for "their" Brexit.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,445
    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Danny565 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    " Brexit elite " is a terrific phrase. We see it on here hour after hour, day after day, week after week. The tiny number of right wing, globalising, deregulating, Atlanticists who've driven Brexit for 25 years. They care as much about the views of most Leave voters as I do. The proles have served their purpose in June 2016 and Brexit can now be safely refined in terms of their own obsessions. If that leaves most Leave voters worse off and not a penny extra for the NHS it's a price worth paying. When even a fiscally dry and socially conservative figure like Phillip Hammond is portrayed as a eurofederalist you know how extreme the people you are dealing with really are.

    It may be a terrific phrase but it's bollocks. Do you want to name a couple of these people so we can see what you are on about, or are they Dr Evil sort of types who live in secret hideaways under tropical islands, out of the public gaze?
    Daniel Hannan.
    Is a sort of puppetmaster manipulating 52% of the population, is he?
    Um.....no.

    You also don't seem to have bothered to read the article before commenting on it, because one of the main points of it is drawing a distinction between the so-called "Brexit elite" and most of the 52% who voted to Leave. It's precisely the fact that Hannan et al do not reflect or manipulate their views that is the point.
    Nope; I've read it and it doesn't draw a distinction, it just claims without evidence that there is one. It is just another version of the Remainer claim that you can ignore a majority by characterising all its members as xenophobic proles.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 250

    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    The Remain side was sloppy, complacent and uninspiring. You won't have such luck next time.
    The big swing was in Tory voters, among those who were undecided and wanted to see what kind of deal Cameron would get out of his trumpeted renegotiation. He brought back very little.

    Everything about the process of Brexit negotiations has been likely to cement the anti-EU attitude among this group.

    Imagine the turmoil if we had another referendum and it was like 51% remain...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    edited October 12

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Danny565 said:

    HYUFD said:

    It is actually the vast majority of Leavers who want to end free movement as a result of Brexit and a clear majority of voters as a whole who do not want to pay large sums to the EU. It is only a small elite of Leave voters who are quite happy to leave the EU and go straight to the EEA while leaving immigration untouched, in the short term at least the Leave victory means that is not possible

    Did you even read the piece? It doesn't argue about free movement at all.

    The point is that it's the government's red lines of the ECJ and "independent" trade deals that have made a deal far more complicated than it needed to be - and what's more, those red lines were democratically totally unnecessary, since the average Leave voter in the Doncasters of the world didn't care about them. A handful of Tory politicians are the ones who mostly cared about the ECJ and trade deals, and it's their desires who seem to be dictating the government's whole negotiating strategy rather than the public's desires.
    You cannot stay in the single market without free movement and payments so at best that is an argument for staying in the customs union alone
    Who says? By "you cannot", you mean the EU hasn't allowed it hitherto. But the EU has also hitherto never allowed (as far as I know) no hard border between themselves and a non-Single Market/Customs Union country, yet that is exactly what the government is asking for, so....

    If it's a choice between two unprecedented bids from the UK side, we may as well bid for one that the British public actually wants rather than one a few Tory MPs want, no?
    Freedom of Movement is written into the treaties that underpin the whole of the EU. Even if the EU was to agree it as part of the Brexit negotiations it would be shot down by the ECJ as it is a fundamental part of what the EU is.

    To change it would require a whole new treaty to rewrite the whole basis of the EU. How long exactly do you think that is going to take? And that will require unanimity from all 27 countries. There isn't a snowball in hell's chance it will ever be agreed.
    But again, all you've done is show that a "Single Market minus free movement + extra contributions" deal would be breaking new ground. But no border between SingleMarket/CustomsUnion countries and non-SM/CU countries would be breaking new ground as well, yet that idea is one of the lynchpins of the government's whole negotiating strategy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,791

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    EEA and WTO both involve leaving the customs union, so where would the customs border with Ireland be?
    Norway and Sweden seem to do OK.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,420
    Bitterness is strong on here tonight. Push is finally coming to shove on this. Not sure the current impasse can really sustain the pressure from within the Tory Party. Meanwhile, for most people life goes on...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,657

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.
    Perhaps, just perhaps, none of the messages appeared positive to you because you were too blind to see them. I fear you would see anything remain had said as automatically negative.

    I gave a very small but important area where the EU *had* certainly done good, along with evidence, and leavers just shouted me down. In one case, after admitting he had not even read the links.

    It was a rather instructive exercise, and a very different reaction to when I criticise the EU on here.
    Wrong, as so often. I was quite prepared to vote to Remain - if only Cameron had got some meaningful concessions.

    That - and the antics of Osborne - tipped me into becoming a reluctant Leaver. Not that I expected to be on the winning side.
    "Wrong, as so often."

    Care to cite other examples. ;)

    "I was quite prepared to vote to Remain"

    I am very surprised to hear this, as you come across as being fairly fiercely anti-EU. I might be doing you a disservice, but I cannot recall a comment from you that has commended the EU on anything.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678
    rcs1000 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    EEA and WTO both involve leaving the customs union, so where would the customs border with Ireland be?
    Norway and Sweden seem to do OK.
    There is no peace process between Norway and Sweden, and as we've discussed, the UK and EU's position already rules out copying their arrangements.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..
  • RoyalBlue said:

    It's perfect in theory, but politically ludicrous.

    Do you see any way out for Brexit that isn't politically ludicrous?
    That's the Post of the Year William. Every single possible outcome of where we now are, from chaotic WTO to revoking A50 and remaining and everything in-between, is politically ludicrous. And Time's Arrow means one of those myrriad politically ludicrous outcomes has to happen. For an event labelled as taking back control the chaos unleashed by the referendum is extraordinary.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,421
    Stephen Bush‏Verified account @stephenkb 2h2 hours ago
    More
    More chance of "more money, ECJ supreme, no FOM" than "magic customs union with no border anywhere on or around island of Ireland" & yet...
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,065
    I suspect the Irish Republic will lose their financial services to Frankfurt in years to come, Germany will make it happen.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 250
    edited October 12

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..
    As it reached most voters, though, via Cameron, this positive message was translated into scare-mongering front pages about WW3. WW3 if we Leave and EU Nazi superstate if we Remain were contending ideas at one point iirc.

    EDIT: Here we go:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/08/cameron-brexit-will-increase-risk-of-europe-descending-into-war/

    versus

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/14/boris-johnson-the-eu-wants-a-superstate-just-as-hitler-did/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 14,304

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.
    Perhaps, just perhaps, none of the messages appeared positive to you because you were too blind to see them. I fear you would see anything remain had said as automatically negative.

    I gave a very small but important area where the EU *had* certainly done good, along with evidence, and leavers just shouted me down. In one case, after admitting he had not even read the links.

    It was a rather instructive exercise, and a very different reaction to when I criticise the EU on here.
    Wrong, as so often. I was quite prepared to vote to Remain - if only Cameron had got some meaningful concessions.

    That - and the antics of Osborne - tipped me into becoming a reluctant Leaver. Not that I expected to be on the winning side.
    "Wrong, as so often."

    Care to cite other examples. ;)

    "I was quite prepared to vote to Remain"

    I am very surprised to hear this, as you come across as being fairly fiercely anti-EU. I might be doing you a disservice, but I cannot recall a comment from you that has commended the EU on anything.
    Not since June 2016 you won't have. But I was one of those that Cameron lost - and with it, the Remain win.

    Nobody promised me a rose garden. But in the end, I voted the way I thought was right for my fellow 60 million citizens, and not 360m EU members.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,657

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..
    As it reached most voters, though, via Cameron, this positive message was translated into scare-mongering front pages about WW3. WW3 if we Leave and EU Nazi superstate if we Remain were contending ideas at one point iirc.
    What exactly did Cameron say in that speech?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313

    PClipp said:

    PClipp said:

    Typical. Ignore the majority who voted for it. Brexit is all down to a tiny minority.
    ..........
    It's all the Remainers have to hold onto. It's what fuels their belief - that they are justified in canning Brexit. Their intellectual superiority should have counted for ten votes each in 2016.

    The EU referendum was "won" because of a barrage of lies, plus probably some electoral mal-practice. Why hard-line Conservatives are so proud of what they did, when they destroyed not only our economy, but also our trust in a democratic system, is very hard to understand.
    Typical. Bitch about the results you don't like, say it was not down to actual voters but dirty tricks of our opponents...
    You might be given a better hearing if your party weren't the leaders in that particular field.
    No, Mr Mark. Your lot win that one hands down.

    No, your lot tried to tar our lot with a load of bullshit charges that the police had to spend many, many millions investigating. To naught.

    Some of your lot are very fortunate not to be facing charges of wasting police time. Indeed, I'm not sure whether all those decisions have yet been fully considered.
    Did you ever return that money that had been stolen from pensioners by your donor?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..
    As it reached most voters, though, via Cameron, this positive message was translated into scare-mongering front pages about WW3. WW3 if we Leave and EU Nazi superstate if we Remain were contending ideas at one point iirc.
    Sadly, yes. Cameron will undoubtedly go down, however good he was earlier, as one of the most incompetent PM’s ever. At least as far as PR on his policies was concerned.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002

    You will be asking the UK to wear the blue gimp suit, with yellow stars on it.

    I bet Mark Oaten has one of those!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,657

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.
    Perhaps, just perhaps, none of the messages appeared positive to you because you were too blind to see them. I fear you would see anything remain had said as automatically negative.

    I gave a very small but important area where the EU *had* certainly done good, along with evidence, and leavers just shouted me down. In one case, after admitting he had not even read the links.

    It was a rather instructive exercise, and a very different reaction to when I criticise the EU on here.
    Wrong, as so often. I was quite prepared to vote to Remain - if only Cameron had got some meaningful concessions.

    That - and the antics of Osborne - tipped me into becoming a reluctant Leaver. Not that I expected to be on the winning side.
    "Wrong, as so often."

    Care to cite other examples. ;)

    "I was quite prepared to vote to Remain"

    I am very surprised to hear this, as you come across as being fairly fiercely anti-EU. I might be doing you a disservice, but I cannot recall a comment from you that has commended the EU on anything.
    Not since June 2016 you won't have. But I was one of those that Cameron lost - and with it, the Remain win.

    Nobody promised me a rose garden. But in the end, I voted the way I thought was right for my fellow 60 million citizens, and not 360m EU members.
    Fair enough, but I'm surprised to hear you were particularly pro-EU pre the referendum.

    Leaving that aside, hopefully you can also see that many remain voters also voted in the way they thought right for their fellow 60 million citizens?

  • Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
    ·
    10m
    May = Karensky, attempting to lead Provisional Government. Not sure whether it's Corbyn or S Baker steaming into Finland Station
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 250


    Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
    ·
    10m
    May = Karensky, attempting to lead Provisional Government. Not sure whether it's Corbyn or S Baker steaming into Finland Station

    Ew he's got the timeline all wrong there.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,536
    Off Topic. For those betting on when Trump will leave, I post this from Vanity Fair in case you missed it:

    "Even before Corker’s remarks, some West Wing advisers were worried that Trump’s behavior could cause the Cabinet to take extraordinary Constitutional measures to remove him from office. Several months ago, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation, former chief strategist Steve Bannon told Trump that the risk to his presidency wasn’t impeachment, but the 25th Amendment—the provision by which a majority of the Cabinet can vote to remove the president. When Bannon mentioned the 25th Amendment, Trump said, “What’s that?” According to a source, Bannon has told people he thinks Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term."

    There is an increasing sense this side of the pond that things are unravelling for Trump, at least within DC. His base support seems rock solid - the majority of NFL fans, for instance, support Trump over the kneelers.

    Apocryphally, I spoke with our farrier today who hails from deepest darkest rural PA. His take remains that he does not like everything that Trump is doing, but he hates the liberals with their identity politics and their professional victimhood far more. He very much likes that Trump is shaking it all up, even if elements of his behaviour in doing that are extremely offensive per se.

    So, I think Bannon is right. The threat to Trump lies not in the electorate, certainly not in the primary voters, but within the Beltway. Congress can kill his agenda and even impeach him. The Cabinet has the quickest and cleanest route to removing him.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    edited October 12
    Couple squabbling over one partner going for the cheap version...of terrorist training equipment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41602007
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 19,978
    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    It's a simple and good idea, yet it sadly won't happen. Let us now vote on the kind of Brexit we should try and negotiate with the EU (if they agree)

    WTO and Hard Brexit, or EEA/EFTA and Soft Brexit.

    I suspect the latter would win, fairly easily. Looking back, TMay should have gone for this. A 2nd referendum which respected the result of the first, but asked the public for more clarity.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 12,844

    rcs1000 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    EEA and WTO both involve leaving the customs union, so where would the customs border with Ireland be?
    Norway and Sweden seem to do OK.
    There is no peace process between Norway and Sweden, and as we've discussed, the UK and EU's position already rules out copying their arrangements.
    No, the situation would be identical. Norway are in the Single Market but outside the Customs Union just as the UK would be.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,107


    Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
    ·
    10m
    May = Karensky, attempting to lead Provisional Government. Not sure whether it's Corbyn or S Baker steaming into Finland Station

    Ew he's got the timeline all wrong there.
    May as Prince Lvov, the mere figurehead being pulled about by the whims of her Foreign Secretary, works well too though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002
    rcs1000 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    EEA and WTO both involve leaving the customs union, so where would the customs border with Ireland be?
    Norway and Sweden seem to do OK.
    I see your point.
    Not having a border with Ireland would certainly make the problem easier to solve.
    :smile:

  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,536

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..

    I did not spend years avoiding air raids, but my father did. He was shipped off to the country (Hooe) and would sit on the cliffs as the Luftwaffe bombed Plymouth and Devonport into rubble. I was brought up on RAF bases, hearing those and other stories and met many of the men who flew in 1940.

    To me, the EU was never the guarantor of peace. To my mind, NATO, and more pertinently, the Marshal Plan, did that.

    I recognize that the EU played an important supporting role to both those in keeping the peace, but without the US' largesse and protective umbrella, the EU alone could not have been a guarantor of European peace.

    My criticism of the EU is not historical. It has done good things. But I think the costs of membership have come to outweigh the positives going forwards.

    I truly regret the way the negotiations are going, even if I in my more pessimistic moments suggested this might happen, but it need not have gone this way. Both parties have made significant errors. But ultimately, it is the EU's paranoia that Brexit will cause other exits rather than being confident in its own project, and thus its approaching the negotiations in a defensive crouch rather than positively, that has led us to this impasse.

    Britain and the EU will both survive and survive well, even if the divorce is nastier and more costly than it need have been
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,002
    Nigelb said:
    Will the last one kicked out of Hollywood, please remember to turn the lights off.
  • nielhnielh Posts: 658
    SeanT said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    It's a simple and good idea, yet it sadly won't happen. Let us now vote on the kind of Brexit we should try and negotiate with the EU (if they agree)

    WTO and Hard Brexit, or EEA/EFTA and Soft Brexit.

    I suspect the latter would win, fairly easily. Looking back, TMay should have gone for this. A 2nd referendum which respected the result of the first, but asked the public for more clarity.
    Wont happen because the hard line brexit fundamentalists are taking Britain to the brink.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 990
    edited October 12

    rcs1000 said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    EEA and WTO both involve leaving the customs union, so where would the customs border with Ireland be?
    Norway and Sweden seem to do OK.
    There is no peace process between Norway and Sweden, and as we've discussed, the UK and EU's position already rules out copying their arrangements.
    It is apparent that a land border across Ireland may be unavoidable. I expect it will take the form of conventional customs posts, at least to begin with. Ireland could of course leave the EU and form a free trade area with the UK (with which it does the great majority of its trade) and then there need be no hard border.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 250
    ydoethur said:


    Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
    ·
    10m
    May = Karensky, attempting to lead Provisional Government. Not sure whether it's Corbyn or S Baker steaming into Finland Station

    Ew he's got the timeline all wrong there.
    May as Prince Lvov, the mere figurehead being pulled about by the whims of her Foreign Secretary, works well too though.
    I'd have Boris as Kornilov, his movements could bring the whole thing down
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,038
    edited October 12
    MTimT said:

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..

    I did not spend years avoiding air raids, but my father did. He was shipped off to the country (Hooe) and would sit on the cliffs as the Luftwaffe bombed Plymouth and Devonport into rubble. I was brought up on RAF bases, hearing those and other stories and met many of the men who flew in 1940.

    To me, the EU was never the guarantor of peace. To my mind, NATO, and more pertinently, the Marshal Plan, did that.

    I recognize that the EU played an important supporting role to both those in keeping the peace, but without the US' largesse and protective umbrella, the EU alone could not have been a guarantor of European peace.

    My criticism of the EU is not historical. It has done good things. But I think the costs of membership have come to outweigh the positives going forwards.

    I truly regret the way the negotiations are going, even if I in my more pessimistic moments suggested this might happen, but it need not have gone this way. Both parties have made significant errors. But ultimately, it is the EU's paranoia that Brexit will cause other exits rather than being confident in its own project, and thus its approaching the negotiations in a defensive crouch rather than positively, that has led us to this impasse.

    Britain and the EU will both survive and survive well, even if the divorce is nastier and more costly than it need have been
    NATO kept the peace with the Soviet Union; the EU means, to me, that Europe will live at peace with itself. And the history I was taught was mostly a succession of European wars, largely due to either religion or the ambitions of (usually) aristocrats, careless of the PBI who actually did the fighting.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,103
    SeanT said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    It's a simple and good idea, yet it sadly won't happen. Let us now vote on the kind of Brexit we should try and negotiate with the EU (if they agree)

    WTO and Hard Brexit, or EEA/EFTA and Soft Brexit.

    I suspect the latter would win, fairly easily. Looking back, TMay should have gone for this. A 2nd referendum which respected the result of the first, but asked the public for more clarity.
    Seant good to hear from someone who had doubts and was not a party apparatchik.Totally agree with your last paragraph.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 224
    WTO or indefinitely postponed Brexit seem to be the two most likely outcomes. The latter would set the Conservative Party back a generation, the former would set back the UK economy for a generation. WTO it is then!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,948
    edited October 12
    Andrew Lilico:

    I judge the chances of no deal as now perhaps above 50 per cent. We need to be clear and straightforward with the EU about how we see this. There is no scope for further concessions ahead of trade talks and if they do not start by some date (which I would like to be November 1, but perhaps a couple of weeks’ later is necessary) we shall interpret that as meaning the EU does not want a deal. If that date is passed with no signal of appetite for an agreement, we shall appoint a Minister for No Deal and commence significant expenditure, making a take-it-or-leave-it no deal offer on the three outstanding issues.

    https://reaction.life/get-ready-no-deal-brexit/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,002

    Nigelb said:
    Will the last one kicked out of Hollywood, please remember to turn the lights off.
    With a character called 'The Flash', they're asking for trouble...

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    And the history I was taught was mostly a succession of European wars, largely due to either religion or the ambitions of (usually) aristocrats, careless of the PBI who actually did the fighting.

    That's what was so chilling to me about Boris's 'divided loyalties' comment. It's as if what troubled him was the difficulty this posed to those who would lead their people into battle.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,678

    There is no scope for further concessions ahead of trade talks and if they do not start by some date (which I would like to be November 1, but perhaps a couple of weeks’ later is necessary) we shall interpret that as meaning the EU does not want a deal.

    ...I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    Being negotiated in the interests of the Tory Party?

    OK let's break that down. Firstly, every Tory gov't since McMillan has been pro EU. Only a minority of its backbenchers were for Leave even in the referendum.

    There are more remainers than leaver in the cabinets top positions (whatever their positions now).

    So why is Hard Brexit in the Tories best interest? There can only be one answer to that: they fear the Brexit 2 movement that will come back again in 5-10 years time if things inside the Single Market keep going the way they currently are, slipping more from the purely market to the social and political sphere. Because it would destroy them.

    They want the pain now, and once - not later and in stages. So Bush might be right, but his reasoning is not something I would recognise.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    edited October 12

    MTimT said:

    Scott_P said:

    brendan16 said:

    Leave won-as it at least offered some sort of positive message

    Even though it was total bollocks



    And none of the Leave immigration messages were positive.
    None of the Remain messages were positive. Forty years of membership, and nothing to sell of its benefits to the voters.

    Nothing.

    No. A Europe which was dedicated to peaceful co-operation was an incredible benefit. You didn’t spend three or so of years of your childhood nights in a shelter with bombers flying over. I did. You may or may not have had family members killed or severely wounded in European wars. I did.
    To me the EU meant, and, I hope still means peace in Europe.It meant and hopefully still means, co-operation across the Channel and North Sea. Opportunities for my children and grandchildren to work all over Europe..
    My criticism of the EU is not historical. It has done good things. But I think the costs of membership have come to outweigh the positives going forwards.

    I truly regret the way the negotiations are going, even if I in my more pessimistic moments suggested this might happen, but it need not have gone this way. Both parties have made significant errors. But ultimately, it is the EU's paranoia that Brexit will cause other exits rather than being confident in its own project, and thus its approaching the negotiations in a defensive crouch rather than positively, that has led us to this impasse.

    Britain and the EU will both survive and survive well, even if the divorce is nastier and more costly than it need have been
    NATO kept the peace with the Soviet Union; the EU means, to me, that Europe will live at peace with itself. And the history I was taught was mostly a succession of European wars, largely due to either religion or the ambitions of (usually) aristocrats, careless of the PBI who actually did the fighting.
    Peace is more than the absence of war, it is a positive act of engagement with neighbours to resolve issues, to share benefits as well as difficulties. The EU has spread democracy, human rights, respect for the rule of law across Southern and Eastern Europe into places that well within my lifetime were brutal tyrannies. We played our part in that, and while our continent is a better place than probably any time in history, the job is not yet complete.
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665
    Yorkcity said:

    SeanT said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    It's a shame we couldn't have had a second referendum on EEA vs WTO. I reckon EEA would have won on 55-60% and the government would have had a clear mandate.

    Maybe it's not too late?

    It's a simple and good idea, yet it sadly won't happen. Let us now vote on the kind of Brexit we should try and negotiate with the EU (if they agree)

    WTO and Hard Brexit, or EEA/EFTA and Soft Brexit.

    I suspect the latter would win, fairly easily. Looking back, TMay should have gone for this. A 2nd referendum which respected the result of the first, but asked the public for more clarity.
    Seant good to hear from someone who had doubts and was not a party apparatchik.Totally agree with your last paragraph.
    The thing is, we supposed that it would win in Parliament because 90% of the house was pro EU - and then we would see the slow grind of the gears for Brexit 2, the Single Market Escape in 5-10 years.

    I had hoped that SM escape would come through EFTA as a whole, solving the problem of having a political waiting room what was never going to clear, the fear of the EU rolling up the agreement in the one year notice they needed to give and putting inside the treaty, and the Swiss problem all in one go.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,107

    ydoethur said:


    Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
    ·
    10m
    May = Karensky, attempting to lead Provisional Government. Not sure whether it's Corbyn or S Baker steaming into Finland Station

    Ew he's got the timeline all wrong there.
    May as Prince Lvov, the mere figurehead being pulled about by the whims of her Foreign Secretary, works well too though.
    I'd have Boris as Kornilov, his movements could bring the whole thing down
    Nobody in their senses would put Boris in charge of an army, which lets out Kornilov.

    Kerensky might be a better parallel - the drug-ridden egotist with a messianic sense of his own destiny that was rather rudely interrupted by a still more egotistical Communist with a handful of fanatics behind him and no clue of what to do next?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 24,948

    There is no scope for further concessions ahead of trade talks and if they do not start by some date (which I would like to be November 1, but perhaps a couple of weeks’ later is necessary) we shall interpret that as meaning the EU does not want a deal.

    ...I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received.
    I don’t believe May has scope to fold – or indeed, to concede anything more – and I’m not convinced she actually wants to. The UK flat refusing to discuss money any more and the UK government publishing plans for no deal preparations, with hints of major expenditure in the New Year, are very encouraging.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 22,416
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:


    Matthew Holehouse @mattholehouse
    ·
    10m
    May = Karensky, attempting to lead Provisional Government. Not sure whether it's Corbyn or S Baker steaming into Finland Station

    Ew he's got the timeline all wrong there.
    May as Prince Lvov, the mere figurehead being pulled about by the whims of her Foreign Secretary, works well too though.
    I'd have Boris as Kornilov, his movements could bring the whole thing down
    Nobody in their senses would put Boris in charge of an army, which lets out Kornilov.

    Kerensky might be a better parallel - the drug-ridden egotist with a messianic sense of his own destiny that was rather rudely interrupted by a still more egotistical Communist with a handful of fanatics behind him and no clue of what to do next?
    Kerensky made his biggest mistake by continuing the war, with his summer offensive. This radicalised the people to the Communist cause, as the only body promising a weary and suffering people peace. Of course the October Revolution led to a brutal civil war and famine that may well have killed as many as the war with the Germans.

    Not sure who our Lenin is. Possibly JRM, as the only character who has the gleam of the fanatic about him, and the same sense of mission.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,103



    I did not spend years avoiding air raids, but my father did. He was shipped off to the country (Hooe) and would sit on the cliffs as the Luftwaffe bombed Plymouth and Devonport into rubble. I was brought up on RAF bases, hearing those and other stories and met many of the men who flew in 1940.

    To me, the EU was never the guarantor of peace. To my mind, NATO, and more pertinently, the Marshal Plan, did that.

    I recognize that the EU played an important supporting role to both those in keeping the peace, but without the US' largesse and protective umbrella, the EU alone could not have been a guarantor of European peace.

    My criticism of the EU is not historical. It has done good things. But I think the costs of membership have come to outweigh the positives going forwards.

    I truly regret the way the negotiations are going, even if I in my more pessimistic moments suggested this might happen, but it need not have gone this way. Both parties have made significant errors. But ultimately, it is the EU's paranoia that Brexit will cause other exits rather than being confident in its own project, and thus its approaching the negotiations in a defensive crouch rather than positively, that has led us to this impasse.

    Britain and the EU will both survive and survive well, even if the divorce is nastier and more costly than it need have been

    NATO kept the peace with the Soviet Union; the EU means, to me, that Europe will live at peace with itself. And the history I was taught was mostly a succession of European wars, largely due to either religion or the ambitions of (usually) aristocrats, careless of the PBI who actually did the fighting.


    Totally agree was surprised that many of the older generation did not consider the benefit of the EU in assisting in keeping that peace .My grandfather survived the Battle of the Somme after been shot.He never spoke about it to me but his visceral contempt for war was deeply ingrained in all his comments when I was a child.My mother told me he always refused to go in the air raid shelters during WW2 saying if your numbers up so be it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,427
    Evening to one and all.

    I am, possibly, being a bit thick here but why can’t we stay in the Single Market, Customs Union with FoM and reduce non-EU immigration?

    If what people care about is reducing immigration and having control over it, why not take steps to reduce that over which we indisputably do have control? And parts of which, frankly, create more problems for the country than allowing all of Spain’s nurses to move here.

    Sure - we lose the ability to have our own trade deals but in the real world (a) how important is that to voters and (b) we will be the weaker party so that freedom is probably more apparent than real.

    Sure - we will still face ECJ jurisdiction but any agreement we have with anyone is going to need some final court of adjudication. The ECJ is not notably so much worse than any other possible court.

    I simply do not understand why the government does not put forward a proposal that would go some way to reconciling those who voted Remain, would put our relations with the EU on a better footing (they are not going to go away, after all) and would not cause unnecessary and potentially very serious economic disruption.

    It would also have the benefit of giving us time to think about what our European strategy should be over the long-term and does not burn our bridges with the EU should changes happen within it that might make us want to reconsider.

    Well, I do - the government has painted itself into a corner and is scared of the hard Brexiteers. But surely there are the votes in the Commons for such an outcome?

    Or am I being thick / naive / a dreamer / insanely optimistic?
This discussion has been closed.