And that would be mirrored in Britain. I voted Remain because I foresaw most of the chaos that is now happening. If I were told that that would have led to Euro membership - which I thought unlikely for the reasons I have given - I would unhesitatingly have voted leave, on the basis that ten difficult and chaotic years are better than economic collapse and thirty years of war, which I could easily see arising from our membership of the Euro without the even more improbable political Union to go with it.
'...the even more improbable political union to go with it.'
The European Community has always been a political union. People think in far too binary terms about the future development of the Eurozone and imagine that it will need a single government, but that is not the reality.
Which is why we should have stayed in EFTA
Which is why we left EFTA - the political power was in Brussels.
The political power was and is actually in Berlin.
Read a report that there were demonstrations in Perpignan today in favour of Catalonia Independence and seeking a unified Catalonia including their part of France.
Read a report that there were demonstrations in Perpignan today in favour of Catalonia Independence and seeking a unified Catalonia including their part of France.
The BBC seems to have found a third source to add to the claim there was porn on a computer in Damien Green's office. Which would leave the actual text of the Sunday Times article vindicated but not the allegation we all think we read and is being reported. It would also vindicate Green's denial which said there was no porn on his computer but carefully avoided saying their was mine on any computer in his office.
*If* that's how it turns out it's a political mess. Both the Sunday Times and Green will be able to say their statements were true and vindicated. But of course the damage from the media firestorm/witch hunt will be done.
In those circumstances my sympathies lie with Green in that he'll have been done over by the febrile atmosphere whereby the ST will have known how their text would have been reported.
@RochdalePioneers You do seem to be getting away with an awful lot of crap at the moment #1 You've curiously stopped mentioning your Leave vote.#2 You are posting increasingly apocalyptic posts about the impact of a No Deal Brexit ( which would be a consequence of your Leave vote. #3 Your acting like a classic europhobic fantasist in pretending there is an obvious pain free alternative which allows the end of FoM while retaining all the benefits of EU membership. #4 From your comments on FoM and the Customs Union you either don't understand what the EFTA is or are simply lying. I suspect the former.
You can pose as the voice of reason if you wish but you belong in the same circle of libertarian Brexit Hell as Dan Hannan in my view.
1. I've never hidden that I voted to leave the European Union. What I - and nobody - did not voted to leave was the Single Market or Customs Union. Which being separate to the EU were not on the ballot paper 2. My apocalypse posts are evidence based, partly from the impact it will have on the food industry in which I work, and partly from the evidence from the likes of the CBI, ports, HMRC etc etc. If people can't understand the impact of a hard border between the UK and EU then they're either deliberately ignorant or in denial. And a hard border is what the EU will impose without any deal. 3. Freedom of Movement is simple - we can impose the restrictions on movement allowed by the EU that we failed to impose. Its a restriction rather than a full ban, my supposition being that most people will accept that as a compromise 4. See point 3
When I voted to leave it was on three simple points: 1. There are many parts of the EU we'd be better without (CAP, CFP, mandatory marketisation). 2. As a non-Euro non-Schengen country we're already heading for the periphery of a Europe that needs a closer fiscal union to preserve the Euro - so better to forge our own course than to be flung off by centrifugal force, and 3. There is an alternative to the EU called EFTA. Membership of which can retain our EEA and CU membership.
What I didn't factor in was the rank stupidity of the Tory negotiation team in closing off pretty much all options apart from no deal WTO and some absurd fantasy about a bespoke deal thats better than what we have now and cost free.
The BBC seems to have found a third source to add to the claim there was porn on a computer in Damien Green's office. Which would leave the actual text of the Sunday Times article vindicated but not the allegation we all think we read and is being reported. It would also vindicate Green's denial which said there was no porn on his computer but carefully avoided saying their was mine on any computer in his office.
*If* that's how it turns out it's a political mess. Both the Sunday Times and Green will be able to say their statements were true and vindicated. But of course the damage from the media firestorm/witch hunt will be done.
In those circumstances my sympathies lie with Green in that he'll have been done over by the febrile atmosphere whereby the ST will have known how their text would have been reported.
I hope he stands his ground over something this trivial.
Let us do a quick number crunch of the numbers shall we.
In 2011 an astonishing 85% of British voters opposed joining the Euro with just 9% in favour. So less than a third of Remain voters back the Euro as well of course as all the Leave voters being opposed.
35% are Leavers who want immigration control above all, 52% just wanted to Leave the EU for immigration or sovereignty reasons, 85% will only accept the EU if it means staying out of the Euro.
As I say, they haven never been asked an either/or.
If 35% of the population strongly believe in remaining in the EU, it is _logically inconsistent_ for them to support an outcome that leaves them with no EU at all. Perhaps they are sheepish about the Euro, but if they want to remain and that is the price, one assumes they would go for the deal.
Proper polling would be needed to prove this hypothesis, but simply digging out figures from 2011 showing how many people opposed the Euro back then doesn't prove anything in 2017. The past, as they say, is a foreign country.
My theory is that things have moved on substantially and the hardcore of europhilies would accept Euro membership to stay in the EU, as would a decreasing percentage of all other voters - especially those most threatened by a potential cliff-edge Brexit that cost them their jobs.
I am spitballing here and I would love to see *recent* polling that supports or disproves my theory. But I would need to see some either/or polling to be sure of my caluclation.
For me, the deal works because Corbyn would be the one to capitalise on it.
In one fell swoop, he could ally the europhile wing of his party with the very traditional working class for whom, by your own admission in the previous thread, ending freedom of movement trumps all other concerns.
If such an idea gained traction it could tear the Conservative party apart and force an early election. Which Jezza would win.
I'm spitballing. But wouldn't an alliance of hardcore europhiles and hardcore end-freedom-of-movementers be interesting?
It would leave those of us of a more Hannanite disposition with egg on our faces, to be sure.
Polls whatever they show are irrelevant. Polls do not decide policy.
We had a democratic referendum, and the People voted to leave -and by leave they did not choose to leave just in name but to declare independence from EU control over our laws and borders.
It does not matter whether you disagree with that decision. What matters is that democracy is upheld.
If you think the decision to leave was to mistake, then campaign for us to rejoin AFTER we have left. But to frustrate the result of a democratic election would I believe leave millions frustrated and angry, would lead to people being driven into the arms of extremists, and I fear, into violence.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public can change their minds and are entitled to do so before Britain leaves the EU if they so wish. Right now they don't seem likely to so wish, but if they do, that will be entirely democratic.
But there is not going to be another referendum. Another referendum is just a device by those who do not like the result of the one on 23 June to frustrate the people. Lets keep having referendums until the people get it right.
No. No No.
There will be a second vote when it becomes clear that a majority of the public see the damage that the first vote is about to inflict on our country. The Labour Party will be its advocates, because it offers them a way off the hook of the conflict between their MPs' opinion and those of most of their constituents in 2016. The proposals to leave will be rejected decisively.
Corbyn would stay out of a second referendum campaign even if he granted one having become PM so that would likely leave Soubry, Umunna, Hammond, Sturgeon and Cable leading the Remain campaign against Boris, JRM, Farage, Hoey and Skinner leading the Leave campaign.
The idea that would be a walkover for Remain is a non starter.
You aren't deploying enough imagination to appreciate the changed circumstances in which such a vote will take place.
I agree Soubry and even Boris may not be MP's if the election happens soon
Farage will never have a significant role in British politics again. The way he abandoned us to earn mega-bucks in America, immediately after wreaking his Brexit havoc, and to be Trump's butler of all things, will never be forgiven in his native land. With luck he'll end his days as a Sir Francis Hinsley figure - a bitter and broken forgotten novelty beneath the Californian sun.
Let us do a quick number crunch of the numbers shall we.
In 2011 an astonishing 85% of British voters opposed joining the Euro with just 9% in favour. So less than a third of Remain voters back the Euro as well of course as all the Leave voters being opposed.
35% are Leavers who want immigration control above all, 52% just wanted to Leave the EU for immigration or sovereignty reasons, 85% will only accept the EU if it means staying out of the Euro.
As I say, they haven never been asked an either/or.
If 35% of the population strongly believe in remaining in the EU, it is _logically inconsistent_ for them to support an outcome that leaves them with no EU at all. Perhaps they are sheepish about the Euro, but if they want to remain and that is the price, one assumes they would go for the deal.
Proper polling would be needed to prove this hypothesis, but simply digging out figures from 2011 showing how many people opposed the Euro back then doesn't prove anything in 2017. The past, as they say, is a foreign country.
My theory is that things have moved on substantially and the hardcore of europhilies would accept Euro membership to stay in the EU, as would a decreasing percentage of all other voters - especially those most threatened by a potential cliff-edge Brexit that cost them their jobs.
I am spitballing here and I would love to see *recent* polling that supports or disproves my theory. But I would need to see some either/or polling to be sure of my caluclation.
For me, the deal works because Corbyn would be the one to capitalise on it.
In one fell swoop, he could ally the europhile wing of his party with the very traditional working class for whom, by your own admission in the previous thread, ending freedom of movement trumps all other concerns.
If such an idea gained traction it could tear the Conservative party apart and force an early election. Which Jezza would win.
I'm spitballing. But wouldn't an alliance of hardcore europhiles and hardcore end-freedom-of-movementers be interesting?
It would leave those of us of a more Hannanite disposition with egg on our faces, to be sure.
Anyway it's a good piece from Keiran based on hard numbers. My advice to europhiles looking at those numbers is #1 We've nothing left to lose. A50 has been activated. We are currently leaving. #2 Leave has no margin and no momentum. #3 Leave is now the Status Quo. The process of saddling them with responsibility and attaching every grievance to them, of framing them as the elite who lied, continues apace. #4 Even amidst the Ashes there are reasons for long term hope. #5 This is also about the Next One. Even if Brexit happens establishing it a con job born of lies which brought non of the promised benefits inoculates politics against the next crazy spasm of populism.
Even if we can't save the Status Quo we can establish the Leave horror as a Grimm's fairy tale for our grand children. Forza !
Did it ever occur to you that people who would rather watch the country burn to a cinder just to be proven right, than pitch in and try to find a compromise that works for as many as possible, if not all, might be part of the problem?
I feel no obligation to help implement a policy that I oppose. I do not agitate for a second referendum before Brexit.
I shall just ensure that my family and assets are protected from the damage inflicted.
Let us do a quick number crunch of the numbers shall we.
In 2011 an astonishing 85% of British voters opposed joining the Euro with just 9% in favour. So less than a third of Remain voters back the Euro as well of course as all the Leave voters being opposed.
35% are Leavers who want immigration control above all, 52% just wanted to Leave the EU for immigration or sovereignty reasons, 85% will only accept the EU if it means staying out of the Euro.
As I say, they haven never been asked an either/or.
If 35% of the population most threatened by a potential cliff-edge Brexit that cost them their jobs.
I am spitballing here and I would love to see *recent* polling that supports or disproves my theory. But I would need to see some either/or polling to be sure of my caluclation.
For me, the deal works because Corbyn would be the one to capitalise on it.
In one fell swoop, he could ally the europhile wing of his party with the very traditional working class for whom, by your own admission in the previous thread, ending freedom of movement trumps all other concerns.
If such an idea gained traction it could tear the Conservative party apart and force an early election. Which Jezza would win.
I'm spitballing. But wouldn't an alliance of hardcore europhiles and hardcore end-freedom-of-movementers be interesting?
It would leave those of us of a more Hannanite disposition with egg on our faces, to be sure.
Give up we are NEVER joining the Euro, far more people oppose the Euro than place immigration control above all including many liberals.
Plus of course those who want more immigration control want that AND to keep the £, they will never compromise one for the other. In addition most Europhiles see freedom of movement as sacrosanct making your argument even more ridiculous than it already is.
If the choice was 'rejoin the EU and join the Euro' it would be a thumping 80% Leave 20% Remain at least which would settle the EU question once and for all.
Corbyn opposes the Euro for ideological reasons as he does not want German imposed austerity undermining his plans for socialism in the UK
And that would be mirrored in Britain. I voted Remain because I foresaw most of the chaos that is now happening. If I were told that that would have led to Euro membership - which I thought unlikely for the reasons I have given - I would unhesitatingly have voted leave, on the basis that ten difficult and chaotic years are better than economic collapse and thirty years of war, which I could easily see arising from our membership of the Euro without the even more improbable political Union to go with it.
'...the even more improbable political union to go with it.'
The European Community has always been a political union. People think in far too binary terms about the future development of the Eurozone and imagine that it will need a single government, but that is not the reality.
I am aware the EU has always been a political union. I meant a federal superstate, with a common tax and defence policy. Sorry if that was unclear. No way on God's green earth is that going to end in anything other than catastrophe.
Polls whatever they show are irrelevant. Polls do not decide policy.
We had a democratic referendum, and the People voted to leave -and by leave they did not choose to leave just in name but to declare independence from EU control over our laws and borders.
It does not matter whether you disagree with that decision. What matters is that democracy is upheld.
If you think the decision to leave was to mistake, then campaign for us to rejoin AFTER we have left. But to frustrate the result of a democratic election would I believe leave millions frustrated and angry, would lead to people being driven into the arms of extremists, and I fear, into violence.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public can change their minds and are entitled to do so before Britain leaves the EU if they so wish. Right now they don't seem likely to so wish, but if they do, that will be entirely democratic.
But there is not going to be another referendum. Another referendum is just a device by those who do not like the result of the one on 23 June to frustrate the people. Lets keep having referendums until the people get it right.
No. No No.
There will be a second vote when it becomes clear that a majority of the public see the damage that the first vote is about to inflict on our country. The Labour Party will be its advocates, because it offers them a way off the hook of the conflict between their MPs' opinion and those of most of their constituents in 2016. The proposals to leave will be rejected decisively.
Corbyn would stay out of a second referendum campaign even if he granted one having become PM so that would likely leave Soubry, Umunna, Hammond, Sturgeon and Cable leading the Remain campaign against Boris, JRM, Farage, Hoey and Skinner leading the Leave campaign.
The idea that would be a walkover for Remain is a non starter.
You aren't deploying enough imagination to appreciate the changed circumstances in which such a vote will take place.
I agree Soubry and even Boris may not be MP's if the election happens soon
Farage will never have a significant role in British politics again. The way he abandoned us to earn mega-bucks in America, immediately after wreaking his Brexit havoc, and to be Trump's butler of all things, will never be forgiven in his native land. With luck he'll end his days as a Sir Francis Hinsley figure - a bitter and broken forgotten novelty beneath the Californian sun.
@RochdalePioneers You do seem to be getting away with an awful lot of crap at the moment #1 You've curiously stopped mentioning your Leave vote.#2 You are posting increasingly apocalyptic posts about the impact of a No Deal Brexit ( which would be a consequence of your Leave vote. #3 Your acting like a classic europhobic fantasist in pretending there is an obvious pain free alternative which allows the end of FoM while retaining all the benefits of EU membership. #4 From your comments on FoM and the Customs Union you either don't understand what the EFTA is or are simply lying. I suspect the former.
You can pose as the voice of reason if you wish but you belong in the same circle of libertarian Brexit Hell as Dan Hannan in my view.
1. I've never hidden that I voted to leave the European Union. What I - and nobody - did not voted to leave was the Single Market or Customs Union. Which being separate to the EU were not on the ballot paper .
Did you miss Michael Gove, Boris Johnson et al repeatedly saying a Leave victory meant leaving the Single Market?
I believe David Cameron also gave similar warnings too.
Of course the pound is wildly popular, and I myself said I felt the compromise was unpalatable. But I suspect in a round of horse trading, if it were possible to keep all the benefits of EU membership, while eliminating freedom of movement of people, and the cost the EU extracted from us was Euro membership, there would be a majority consensus for that deal.
I think actually the key problem with that is that Britain isn't even close to meeting the requirements for Euro membership and is never likely to be now.
That wouldn't necessarily matter of course. No country's economy with the lone exception of Luxembourg ever has been, and they still joined because essentially it's a political not an economic project.
However, if Britain's banking system had been added to those of Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland and Portugal in 2007-8 the euro would have collapsed. It almost collapsed as it was and Britain's banking sector was bigger and more damaged than all those others put together. So the EU would be taking on a huge risk if they allowed us to join especially when we have vast debts and a still significant deficit.
I cannot see them being willing to take on a member of the Euro that carries as many economic risks as Britain at a time when it has been graphically demonstrated that we are unenthusiastic about even our semi-detached status.
And that would be mirrored in Britain. I voted Remain because I foresaw most of the chaos that is now happening. If I were told that that would have led to Euro membership - which I thought unlikely for the reasons I have given - I would unhesitatingly have voted leave, on the basis that ten difficult and chaotic years are better than economic collapse and thirty years of war, which I could easily see arising from our membership of the Euro without the even more improbable political Union to go with it.
You're a historian (or at least a history buff). Was the choice of thirty years of war really accidental? Or perhaps your subconscious?
As I say, they haven never been asked an either/or.
If 35% of the population strongly believe in remaining in the EU, it is _logically inconsistent_ for them to support an outcome that leaves them with no EU at all. Perhaps they are sheepish about the Euro, but if they want to remain and that is the price, one assumes they would go for the deal.
Proper polling would be needed to prove this hypothesis, but simply digging out figures from 2011 showing how many people opposed the Euro back then doesn't prove anything in 2017. The past, as they say, is a foreign country.
My theory is that things have moved on substantially and the hardcore of europhilies would accept Euro membership to stay in the EU, as would a decreasing percentage of all other voters - especially those most threatened by a potential cliff-edge Brexit that cost them their jobs.
I am spitballing here and I would love to see *recent* polling that supports or disproves my theory. But I would need to see some either/or polling to be sure of my caluclation.
For me, the deal works because Corbyn would be the one to capitalise on it.
In one fell swoop, he could ally the europhile wing of his party with the very traditional working class for whom, by your own admission in the previous thread, ending freedom of movement trumps all other concerns.
If such an idea gained traction it could tear the Conservative party apart and force an early election. Which Jezza would win.
I'm spitballing. But wouldn't an alliance of hardcore europhiles and hardcore end-freedom-of-movementers be interesting?
It would leave those of us of a more Hannanite disposition with egg on our faces, to be sure.
It seems fanciful.
Of course, it's utter lunacy and I wouldn't bet fifty pence on it happening, let alone my life.
I started from a comment in the previous thread where I suggested that it was interesting that people are digging in on either side and *not even looking* for compromises any more - which will only lead to a terrible outcome.
My little thought experiment here is intended to show that compromises, even ones that seem ridiculous, are possible. *Maybe* 64% of the population would go for a second referendum deal that gives us the Euro but ends freedom of movement. Maybe they wouldn't.
But perhaps it is time to start thinking about what real-life compromises could be made instead of the current situation, borne out by current polling, that seems to show a 50/50 split of very angry people with nothing in common squaring off against each other in the pub car park.
As I say, they haven never been asked an either/or.
If 35% of the population strongly believe in remaining in the EU, it is _logically inconsistent_ for them to support an outcome that leaves them with no EU at all. Perhaps they are sheepish about the Euro, but if they want to remain and that is the price, one assumes they would go for the deal.
Proper polling would be needed to prove this hypothesis, but simply digging out figures from 2011 showing how many people opposed the Euro back then doesn't prove anything in 2017. The past, as they say, is a foreign country.
My theory is that things have moved on substantially and the hardcore of europhilies would accept Euro membership to stay in the EU, as would a decreasing percentage of all other voters - especially those most threatened by a potential cliff-edge Brexit that cost them their jobs.
I am spitballing here and I would love to see *recent* polling that supports or disproves my theory. But I would need to see some either/or polling to be sure of my caluclation.
For me, the deal works because Corbyn would be the one to capitalise on it.
In one fell swoop, he could ally the europhile wing of his party with the very traditional working class for whom, by your own admission in the previous thread, ending freedom of movement trumps all other concerns.
If such an idea gained traction it could tear the Conservative party apart and force an early election. Which Jezza would win.
I'm spitballing. But wouldn't an alliance of hardcore europhiles and hardcore end-freedom-of-movementers be interesting?
It would leave those of us of a more Hannanite disposition with egg on our faces, to be sure.
It is an absurd forced choice scenario.
A more realistic one is to explore the restrictions on free movement compatible with EEA membership.
In practice soft Brexit, remaining in the Single Market, is the only compromise that is likely to command majority support in the country, albeit not fully satisfying many hard liners on either end.
@RochdalePioneers You do seem to be getting away with an awful lot of crap at the moment #1 You've curiously stopped mentioning your Leave vote.#2 You are posting increasingly apocalyptic posts about the impact of a No Deal Brexit ( which would be a consequence of your Leave vote. #3 Your acting like a classic europhobic fantasist in pretending there is an obvious pain free alternative which allows the end of FoM while retaining all the benefits of EU membership. #4 From your comments on FoM and the Customs Union you either don't understand what the EFTA is or are simply lying. I suspect the former.
You can pose as the voice of reason if you wish but you belong in the same circle of libertarian Brexit Hell as Dan Hannan in my view.
1. I've never hidden that I voted to leave the European Union. What I - and nobody - did not voted to leave was the Single Market or Customs Union. Which being separate to the EU were not on the ballot paper .
Did you miss Michael Gove, Boris Johnson et al repeatedly saying a Leave victory meant leaving the Single Market?
I believe David Cameron also gave similar warnings too.
On the other hand a considerable number of Leavers on here and at large in the land advocated leaving to the EEA.
I suspect that EEA would have won if it had been a tripartite choice via an AV referendum.
@RochdalePioneers You do seem to be getting away with an awful lot of crap at the moment #1 You've curiously stopped mentioning your Leave vote.#2 You are posting increasingly apocalyptic posts about the impact of a No Deal Brexit ( which would be a consequence of your Leave vote. #3 Your acting like a classic europhobic fantasist in pretending there is an obvious pain free alternative which allows the end of FoM while retaining all the benefits of EU membership. #4 From your comments on FoM and the Customs Union you either don't understand what the EFTA is or are simply lying. I suspect the former.
You can pose as the voice of reason if you wish but you belong in the same circle of libertarian Brexit Hell as Dan Hannan in my view.
1. I've never hidden that I voted to leave the European Union. What I - and nobody - did not voted to leave was the Single Market or Customs Union. Which being separate to the EU were not on the ballot paper .
Did you miss Michael Gove, Boris Johnson et al repeatedly saying a Leave victory meant leaving the Single Market?
I believe David Cameron also gave similar warnings too.
It is true Daniel Hannan said at least once that nobody was suggesting leaving the single market.
However, it is also true that that was (a) a lie and (b) the most unconvincing lie since Richard III said he didn't kill the Princes in the Tower ,especially since he himself later went on to suggest it!
Did you miss Michael Gove, Boris Johnson et al repeatedly saying a Leave victory meant leaving the Single Market?
I believe David Cameron also gave similar warnings too.
Nope, saw all of those. And all of the other "lets be Norway" comments. But saying "we'll have to do y if you vote x" doesn't mean its true. I accept my rather embarrassing naivety on this issue...
And that would be mirrored in Britain. I voted Remain because I foresaw most of the chaos that is now happening. If I were told that that would have led to Euro membership - which I thought unlikely for the reasons I have given - I would unhesitatingly have voted leave, on the basis that ten difficult and chaotic years are better than economic collapse and thirty years of war, which I could easily see arising from our membership of the Euro without the even more improbable political Union to go with it.
'...the even more improbable political union to go with it.'
The European Community has always been a political union. People think in far too binary terms about the future development of the Eurozone and imagine that it will need a single government, but that is not the reality.
I am aware the EU has always been a political union. I meant a federal superstate, with a common tax and defence policy. Sorry if that was unclear. No way on God's green earth is that going to end in anything other than catastrophe.
In the old days, Thatcherite conservatives always used to focus on the size of the state as their benchmark and this still strikes me as the most practical way of thinking about the 'superstate' question.
The EU is currently around 1% of GDP and the US federal government is around 20% of GDP. I don't think you'd need to get anywhere near the latter in order to have an EU with a common defence policy and a robust European Monetary Fund.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Polls whatever they show are irrelevant. Polls do not decide policy.
We had a democratic referendum, and the People voted to leave -and by leave they did not choose to leave just in name but to declare independence from EU control over our laws and borders.
It does not matter whether you disagree with that decision. What matters is that democracy is upheld.
If you think the decision to leave was to mistake, then campaign for us to rejoin AFTER we have left. But to frustrate the result of a democratic election would I believe leave millions frustrated and angry, would lead to people being driven into the arms of extremists, and I fear, into violence.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public can change their minds and are entitled to do so before Britain leaves the EU if they so wish. Right now they don't seem likely to so wish, but if they do, that will be entirely democratic.
But there is not going to be another referendum. Another referendum is just a device by those who do not like the result of the one on 23 June to frustrate the people. Lets keep having referendums until the people get it right.
No. No No.
There will be a second vote when it becomes clear that a majority of the public see the damage that the first vote is about to inflict on our country. The Labour Party will be its advocates, because it offers them a way off the hook of the conflict between their MPs' opinion and those of most of their constituents in 2016. The proposals to leave will be rejected decisively.
Corbyn would stay out of a second referendum campaign even if he granted one having become PM so that would likely leave Soubry, Umunna, Hammond, Sturgeon and Cable leading the Remain campaign against Boris, JRM, Farage, Hoey and Skinner leading the Leave campaign.
The idea that would be a walkover for Remain is a non starter.
You aren't deploying enough imagination to appreciate the changed circumstances in which such a vote will take place.
I agree Soubry and even Boris may not be MP's if the election happens soon
Farage will never have a significant role in British politics again. The way he abandoned us to earn mega-bucks in America, immediately after wreaking his Brexit havoc, and to be Trump's butler of all things, will never be forgiven in his native land. With luck he'll end his days as a Sir Francis Hinsley figure - a bitter and broken forgotten novelty beneath the Californian sun.
@RochdalePioneers You do seem to be getting away with an awful lot of crap at the moment #1 You've curiously stopped mentioning your Leave vote.#2 You are posting increasingly apocalyptic posts about the impact of a No Deal Brexit ( which would be a consequence of your Leave vote. #3 Your acting like a classic europhobic fantasist in pretending there is an obvious pain free alternative which allows the end of FoM while retaining all the benefits of EU membership. #4 From your comments on FoM and the Customs Union you either don't understand what the EFTA is or are simply lying. I suspect the former.
You can pose as the voice of reason if you wish but you belong in the same circle of libertarian Brexit Hell as Dan Hannan in my view.
1. I've never hidden that I voted to leave the European Union. What I - and nobody - did not voted to leave was the Single Market or Customs Union. Which being separate to the EU were not on the ballot paper .
Did you miss Michael Gove, Boris Johnson et al repeatedly saying a Leave victory meant leaving the Single Market?
I believe David Cameron also gave similar warnings too.
It is true Daniel Hannan said at least once that nobody was suggesting leaving the single market.
However, it is also true that that was (a) a lie and (b) the most unconvincing lie since Richard III said he didn't kill the Princes in the Tower ,especially since he himself later went on to suggest it!
You have to feel sorry for Dan Hannan. The poor man spent his entire career drifting around with his head in the clouds. As if the forces of the euro-sceptic hard Right gave a tinker's cuss about his brand of unfettered-immigration ultra free-trade Utopianism. I mean really?
And that would be mirrored in Britain. I voted Remain because I foresaw most of the chaos that is now happening. If I were told that that would have led to Euro membership - which I thought unlikely for the reasons I have given - I would unhesitatingly have voted leave, on the basis that ten difficult and chaotic years are better than economic collapse and thirty years of war, which I could easily see arising from our membership of the Euro without the even more improbable political Union to go with it.
'...the even more improbable political union to go with it.'
The European Community has always been a political union. People think in far too binary terms about the future development of the Eurozone and imagine that it will need a single government, but that is not the reality.
I am aware the EU has always been a political union. I meant a federal superstate, with a common tax and defence policy. Sorry if that was unclear. No way on God's green earth is that going to end in anything other than catastrophe.
In the old days, Thatcherite conservatives always used to focus on the size of the state as their benchmark and this most practical way of thinking about the 'superstate' question.
The EU is currently around 1% of GDP and the US federal government is around 20% of GDP. I don't think you'd need to get anywhere near the latter in order to have an EU with a common defence policy and a robust European Monetary Fund.
I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning. My view is that a fully fledged federal Europe would not work. The forces, as we are seeing both in our own country and in Spain, are centrifugal not centripetal.
However, I also do not think that a common currency area can last without either (a) a political union or (b) full-blown economic imperialism from a dominant power within it. If we joined the Euro (a) would become urgent, but I don't think voters in England or possibly even Scotland would accept it.
That doesn't relate to the financial status or otherwise of the state - a political force like nationalism is not closely linked to economics or fiscal policy. If you don't believe me, google the Irish Land Acts and see what effect they had on Irish nationalism.
Those who are campaigning for a second referendum, or who seek to keep us under the control of the EU in the guise of a "soft Brexit", are not atacking the Leave cause. They are attacking democracy itself. They want to keep on and on asking the People until they get it right...They are the real fascists.
The People have spoken. They want to leave, and to remove us from EU control, not just leave in name only. The danger remains that if the People's will is frustrated, then they will conclude that democracy is serving them. History is littered with examples of what happens after that occurs..................
Those who oppose Brexit would be better advised to campaign for re-entry after we have left. It will take many many years. There were 41 between the 1975 and 2016 referendums. But they must not be allowed to frustrate the will of the People on Brexit for that would be an attack on democracy itself.
You have to feel sorry for Dan Hannan. The poor man spent his entire career drifting around with his head in the clouds. As if the forces of the euro-sceptic hard Right gave a tinker's cuss about his brand of unfettered-immigration ultra free-trade Utopianism. I mean really?
No sympathy for Hannan and other Leavers that cosied up to Farage or joined UKIP as a vehicle to facilitate Brexit, this is what you've beget.
Polls whatever they show are irrelevant. Polls do not decide policy.
We had a democratic referendum, and the People voted to leave -and by leave they did not choose to leave just in name but to declare independence from EU control over our laws and borders.
It does not matter whether you disagree with that decision. What matters is that democracy is upheld.
If you think the decision to leave was to mistake, then campaign for us to rejoin AFTER we have left. But to frustrate the result of a democratic election would I believe leave millions frustrated and angry, would lead to people being driven into the arms of extremists, and I fear, into violence.
Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public can change their minds and are entitled to do so before Britain leaves the EU if they so wish. Right now they don't seem likely to so wish, but if they do, that will be entirely democratic.
But there is not going to be another referendum. Another referendum is just a device by those who do not like the result of the one on 23 June to frustrate the people. Lets keep having referendums until the people get it right.
No. No No.
If a party promising a referendum can command a majority of the Commons to pass a referendum bill then there should be a referendum.
That will take many many years, and it wont be before we leave. Labour at the moment dare not do so and in any case is led by a leaver
Those who are campaigning for a second referendum, or who seek to keep us under the control of the EU in the guise of a "soft Brexit", are not atacking the Leave cause. They are attacking democracy itself. They want to keep on and on asking the People until they get it right...They are the real fascists.
Peacefully arguing your case and seeking to convince people of the merits of your argument until enough of them do is the very essence of democracy.
Article 50 has been invoked and the key senior members of the cabinet are lifelong Eurosceptics. If the policy of leaving the EU fails, it will not be through lack of trying.
Suppose we get a second referendum, and Leave wins? Does that settle it? Or if Remain wins, but public opinion subsequently shifts back to Leave, will we get a third?
Of course not !
If we vote remain by one vote that is an end to it for the next fifty years.
As Cromwell said, "If we win 100 times he is still King. If he wins once we are all dead." That is how it works.
More than a few home truths there. Too many Britons are living in LaLa land, including (it seems) many who post here. The UK is regaining its reputation as the sick man of Europe.
Those who are campaigning for a second referendum, or who seek to keep us under the control of the EU in the guise of a "soft Brexit", are not atacking the Leave cause. They are attacking democracy itself. They want to keep on and on asking the People until they get it right...They are the real fascists.
Peacefully arguing your case and seeking to convince people of the merits of your argument until enough of them do is the very essence of democracy.
Article 50 has been invoked and the key senior members of the cabinet are lifelong Eurosceptics. If the policy of leaving the EU fails, it will not be through lack of trying.
But Remoaners are not just doing that are they? They are actively seeking to frustrate and stop the Brexit that people voted for.
You have to feel sorry for Dan Hannan. The poor man spent his entire career drifting around with his head in the clouds. As if the forces of the euro-sceptic hard Right gave a tinker's cuss about his brand of unfettered-immigration ultra free-trade Utopianism. I mean really?
No sympathy for Hannan and other Leavers that cosied up to Farage or joined UKIP as a vehicle to facilitate Brexit, this is what you've beget
Remember when Boris Johsnon said Farage was a "rather engaging geezer"?
We Tories look at him – with his pint and cigar and sense of humour – and we instinctively recognise someone who is fundamentally indistinguishable from us.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
That’s a good point. It is pretty clear that there are a lot of people who will be campaigning to rejoin the EU. But at the moment their influence on the negotiations is exactly zero. The problem is that the European Union, the electrode as a whole and the House of Commons are all over the place in terms of what they want, and there are no easy answers. And things won’t get any easier from now on. A deal that pleases everyone is clearly impossible. However, a deal that pleases nobody at all seems only too likely.
@RochdalePioneers And incapacitated Gerbil let alone a political operator as sophisticated as you could see what the Leave event was by the 22/6/16. Anyone voting for it knew they were endorsing a nativist anti immigration spasm about ending FoM and all budget payments. The logical consequences of those two things were the hardest of hard Brexits.
Now it doesn't follow that all Leave voters shared those views. Or that there weren't perfectly valid other reasons to vote to Leave. But frankly voters like yourself knew the sort of cultural/political event you were validating with your vote. Dr Frankenstein doesn't get to adopt the moral high ground re the behaviour of his monster in my view.
More than a few home truths there. Too many Britons are living in LaLa land, including (it seems) many who post here. The UK is regaining its reputation as the sick man of Europe.
For people who are not as focused on politics as we are (the large majority) this is a very good country to live in. We take the view that the country is on the road to ruin if a vote goes against us.
The only problem with Brexit is the EU trying to cause problems by being (a) greedy and (b) not being reasonable about a deal.
There is no practical reason why all these issues could not be resolved quickly and easily. It is purely political to punish Britain and put off others from trying to Leave.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
More than a few home truths there. Too many Britons are living in LaLa land, including (it seems) many who post here. The UK is regaining its reputation as the sick man of Europe.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
Um no. They have been self inflicted by a Remain voting and (more importantly) utterly incompetent Prime Minister who has managed to make a mess of almost every aspect of the negotiations, even the straight forward bits.
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
@RochdalePioneers And incapacitated Gerbil let alone a political operator as sophisticated as you could see what the Leave event was by the 22/6/16. Anyone voting for it knew they were endorsing a nativist anti immigration spasm about ending FoM and all budget payments. The logical consequences of those two things were the hardest of hard Brexits.
Now it doesn't follow that all Leave voters shared those views. Or that there weren't perfectly valid other reasons to vote to Leave. But frankly voters like yourself knew the sort of cultural/political event you were validating with your vote. Dr Frankenstein doesn't get to adopt the moral high ground re the behaviour of his monster in my view.
A false equivalence.
The decision was never between leaving and the status quo, it was between leaving and being slowly consumed by an undemocratic superstate that has never had British interests at heart.
The only monster I see was the lumbering brute of the EU, devouring democratic freedoms one by one as Saturn devoured his children.
You have to feel sorry for Dan Hannan. The poor man spent his entire career drifting around with his head in the clouds. As if the forces of the euro-sceptic hard Right gave a tinker's cuss about his brand of unfettered-immigration ultra free-trade Utopianism. I mean really?
No sympathy for Hannan and other Leavers that cosied up to Farage or joined UKIP as a vehicle to facilitate Brexit, this is what you've beget.
More than a few home truths there. Too many Britons are living in LaLa land, including (it seems) many who post here. The UK is regaining its reputation as the sick man of Europe.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
It was very close and people are presumably allowed to change their minds based on the results of that decision? Or is it 'you've made your bed and you must lie on it'?
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
For people who are not as focused on politics as we are (the large majority) this is a very good country to live in. We take the view that the country is on the road to ruin if a vote goes against us.
The UK is living on a massive overdraft with a dire balance of payments deficit, in hock to unsavoury Middle-Eastern regimes. It has a devaluing currency despite the recent increase in interest rates, and poor productivity compared to most European countries. Most manufacturing industry (what little there is) and service companies are owned by foreigners. Post Brexit, London cannot be Europe's financial centre. The UK's armed forces are pitiful and it can't even afford to put aircraft on its 2 new aircraft carriers, which are waste of money as is a continuing pretence at maintaining a nuclear deterrent. I could go on...
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
Um no. They have been self inflicted by a Remain voting and (more importantly) utterly incompetent Prime Minister who has managed to make a mess of almost every aspect of the negotiations, even the straight forward bits.
It does now look like she is going to start FTA negotiations soon though having agreed the exit bill which is probably more than a Leaver like Boris or Leadsom would have achieved had they succeeded Cameron instead.
You have to feel sorry for Dan Hannan. The poor man spent his entire career drifting around with his head in the clouds. As if the forces of the euro-sceptic hard Right gave a tinker's cuss about his brand of unfettered-immigration ultra free-trade Utopianism. I mean really?
No sympathy for Hannan and other Leavers that cosied up to Farage or joined UKIP as a vehicle to facilitate Brexit, this is what you've beget.
So if it is easy, perhaps you can suggest a solution for the Irish border question?
Some of us did warn that it would be problematic to solve.
In broad terms:
* Sign a FTA with the EU - trade is unaffected.
* People can transit pretty much as now, but obviously (e.g.) any rights to live/work would be matched (equivalent for UK/EU citizens in each others countries).
Of course the pound is wildly popular, and I myself said I felt the compromise was unpalatable. But I suspect in a round of horse trading, if it were possible to keep all the benefits of EU membership, while eliminating freedom of movement of people, and the cost the EU extracted from us was Euro membership, there would be a majority consensus for that deal.
I think actually the key problem with that is that Britain isn't even close to meeting the requirements for Euro membership and is never likely to be now.
That wouldn't necessarily matter of course. No country's economy with the lone exception of Luxembourg ever has been, and they still joined because essentially it's a political not an economic project.
However, if Britain's banking system had been added to those of Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland and Portugal in 2007-8 the euro would have collapsed. It almost collapsed as it was and Britain's banking sector was bigger and more damaged than all those others put together. So the EU would be taking on a huge risk if they allowed us to join especially when we have vast debts and a still significant deficit.
I cannot see them being willing to take on a member of the Euro that carries as many economic risks as Britain at a time when it has been graphically demonstrated that we are unenthusiastic about even our semi-detached status.
And that would be mirrored in Britain. I voted Remain because I foresaw most of the chaos that is now happening. If I were told that that would have led to Euro membership - which I thought unlikely for the reasons I have given - I would unhesitatingly have voted leave, on the basis that ten difficult and chaotic years are better than economic collapse and thirty years of war, which I could easily see arising from our membership of the Euro without the even more improbable political Union to go with it.
You're a historian (or at least a history buff). Was the choice of thirty years of war really accidental? Or perhaps your subconscious?
It was entirely deliberate.
A shame few picked up on the nuances that were implied
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
Um no. They have been self inflicted by a Remain voting and (more importantly) utterly incompetent Prime Minister who has managed to make a mess of almost every aspect of the negotiations, even the straight forward bits.
It does now look like she is going to start FTA negotiations soon though having agreed the exit bill which is probably more than a Leaver like Boris or Leadsom would have achieved had they succeeded Cameron instead.
Theresa May embraced the hard Brexit cause on becoming Prime Minister. It seems plain that both Boris and May made their decisions as to which side to back based on what would be most likely to help them become PM.
For people who are not as focused on politics as we are (the large majority) this is a very good country to live in. We take the view that the country is on the road to ruin if a vote goes against us.
The UK is living on a massive overdraft with a dire balance of payments deficit, in hock to unsavoury Middle-Eastern regimes. It has a devaluing currency despite the recent increase in interest rates, and poor productivity compared to most European countries. Most manufacturing industry (what little there is) and service companies are owned by foreigners. Post Brexit, London cannot be Europe's financial centre. The UK's armed forces are pitiful and it can't even afford to put aircraft on its 2 new aircraft carriers, which are waste of money as is a continuing pretence at maintaining a nuclear deterrent. I could go on...
The UK has unemployment of just 4%, one of the lowest in Europe.
The UK has Europe's most visited city, London, a city which is currently the world's leading financial centre, let alone Europe's and whose closest European rival is Zurich, a city in a country also outside the EU. http://www.cityam.com/224938/london-top-world
Other than France the UK also has the most powerful armed forces in Europe, given Britain is in no imminent threat of invasion, certainly compared to the Baltic States, they need the protection the British military provides through NATO.
For people who are not as focused on politics as we are (the large majority) this is a very good country to live in. We take the view that the country is on the road to ruin if a vote goes against us.
The UK is living on a massive overdraft with a dire balance of payments deficit, in hock to unsavoury Middle-Eastern regimes. It has a devaluing currency despite the recent increase in interest rates, and poor productivity compared to most European countries. Most manufacturing industry (what little there is) and service companies are owned by foreigners. Post Brexit, London cannot be Europe's financial centre. The UK's armed forces are pitiful and it can't even afford to put aircraft on its 2 new aircraft carriers, which are waste of money as is a continuing pretence at maintaining a nuclear deterrent. I could go on...
Yet has a very high standard of living, impressive infrastructure, honest courts and civil service, a free press, full employment. Most people would settle for that.
@Stevef "Polls whatever they show are irrelevant. Polls do not decide policy " - It should beggar belief that you've posted that on a front rank political discussion site. The idea that politicians don't change policy in response to shifts in public opinion is so demonstrably untrue as to not need rebutting.
" would lead to people being driven into the arms of extremists, and I fear, into violence." - This is crypto facistic nonsense which would be laughable if it weren't mildly disturbing. "
But that is not much of an argument is it?
If you are one of those people who think that the will of the people should be frustrated, then the fascism is all yours. I am arguing for democracy.
But there hasnt been a shift in public opinion. Thats wishful thinking on your part. There was a democratic referendum last year in which a majority voted to leave the EU. Grasping at selected flawed polls ( amajority have got public opinion wrong at the last two elections, and at the 2016 referendum) will not change that. The only way that the UK will be a member of the EU will be when a political party wins a majority calling for a second referendum (Labour will not do that because it is led by a leaver, and it fears losing support in its heartlands-and in any case there wont be a general election until after Brexit is complete) It will be many many years before there is even a remote chance of what you want happening.
You have to feel sorry for Dan Hannan. The poor man spent his entire career drifting around with his head in the clouds. As if the forces of the euro-sceptic hard Right gave a tinker's cuss about his brand of unfettered-immigration ultra free-trade Utopianism. I mean really?
No sympathy for Hannan and other Leavers that cosied up to Farage or joined UKIP as a vehicle to facilitate Brexit, this is what you've beget.
Whereas you sided with the mass murderer Blair, the IRA and Satan's Sidekick Alistair Campbell. And of course the French.
I see you don't take well to people pointing out you propelled a Jew bashing, Nazi style propagandist to the top of British politics.
I assume you've been to the police to reports Blair's mass murders?
And you don't take well to being put in the same box as the IRA and the French.
And when I last looked Farage was no where near the top of British politics, not even an MP - unlike some of the unsavoury characters you have aligned yourself with.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
Um no. They have been self inflicted by a Remain voting and (more importantly) utterly incompetent Prime Minister who has managed to make a mess of almost every aspect of the negotiations, even the straight forward bits.
It does now look like she is going to start FTA negotiations soon though having agreed the exit bill which is probably more than a Leaver like Boris or Leadsom would have achieved had they succeeded Cameron instead.
Theresa May embraced the hard Brexit cause on becoming Prime Minister. It seems plain that both Boris and May made their decisions as to which side to back based on what would be most likely to help them become PM.
She embraced 'Brexit means Brexit' and leaving the single market to end free movement but Boris as he has made clear was willing to tell the EU to 'go whistle' for its money and is loathed in Brussels.
May it is now clear is the only Tory who can keep enough Leavers on board and also make the compromises necessary to do a deal with the EU.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
Excellent news if true. I've been saying for ages that we should just cough up and get on with it. Okay, we'll have a few days of Rees-Mogg's droning vowels, and Boris 'go whistle' Johnson will be humiliated, but who cares? Go for it Theresa - my darling, my one, my love!
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
I did not state that "people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe", merely that "the UK is regarded as the sick man of Europe". That is is true both inside and outside the UK. For example, the reason why the UK isn't in the Euro is because it couldn't comply with the rules for joining, in particular the government deficit, following its ignominious exit from the ERM in 1992. Even Greece was able to comply for a while.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
I did not state that "people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe", merely that "the UK is regarded as the sick man of Europe". That is is true both inside and outside the UK. For example, the reason why the UK isn't in the Euro is because it couldn't comply with the rules for joining, in particular the government deficit, following its ignominious exit from the ERM in 1992. Even Greece was able to comply for a while.
The "sick man of Europe" judgment back in the 70s was mainly the view of other people outside the UK. If we are regarded as the sick of man of Europe now, it must be (logically) mainly by people outside the UK -although of course the Remoaners who will do anything to talk down Britain will go along with that judgment.
Remoaners actually want us to be the sick man of Europe. They want us to fail. They rejoice in a falling Pound, they celebrate and grasp at every piece economic bad news (while ignoring the good|) that they can blame on Brexit. No one would be happier than the Remoaners if their predictions of economic catastrophe came true, in order to justify their view that we should return to the protection of the economic and political mafia that is the EU.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
I did not state that "people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe", merely that "the UK is regarded as the sick man of Europe". That is is true both inside and outside the UK. For example, the reason why the UK isn't in the Euro is because it couldn't comply with the rules for joining, in particular the government deficit, following its ignominious exit from the ERM in 1992. Even Greece was able to comply for a while.
The average EU unemployment rate is 7.5% in the UK it is 4.4%, what rubbish.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
I have frequently terminated contracts and leases, and then renegotiated different arrangements.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
But the democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of what people think.
Hilarious. Unintentionally I assume
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
Pay attention. This sentence was in response to the statement that people IN OTHER COUNTRIES regard us as the sick man of Europe because of Brexit. I merely asserted that the democratic wishes of the people of the UK cannot be frustrated because some people in other countries disapprove.
Or maybe you think they should?
If the democratic wishes of the people of the UK create costs for other people that they are unwilling to bear then those wishes certainly can be frustrated because of what other countries think about it. We don't have the power to impose our will on the EU27.
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The other EU countries do not have the power to stop us leaving. And the fact that they are behaving like the Mafia ("No one resigns from the Organisation) makes our departure even more justified.
More to the point, the EU's own constitution says that a member state can leave by serving notice, in exactly the same way that one can terminate a contract by notice.
Next time you write a resignation letter, try telling them you want a deep and special partnership with them and their security will be at risk if they don't offer you a good deal as a contractor.
lol
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
Some professions such as law and accountancy do so for when the trainees/graduates quit shortly after qualifying.
Makes sense - they were received a net benefit from the company, whereas the UK has been paying in for years.
I’m always somewhat darkly amused by the Leavers who say ‘we had a referendum, the people spoke, you lost, get over it. Or words like that.
Back in 1975 we had a referendum, the people spoke ..... by a much, much bigger margin....and we Joined but those who didn’t like the EU, for whatever reason didn’t give up. They kept nagging away, got some people who could buy information providers on their side..... IIRC the Mail was in favour of the EU then..... and eventually we had another vote with a much small majority for Leaving.
So why should those of us who believe we were right first time be barred from campaigning to reverse what we sincerely believe will turn out to be a disastrous decision?
Everyone can campaign to rejoin.
To prevent implementation of the democratic decision is something different
There is a big difference between campaigning to rejoin after we have left, and trying to frustrate a referendum whose result was that we should leave. Let us leave first, and then you can start your campaign to rejoin.
If only it really were 'Remoaners' who were frustrating your plans and not the realities of the trade-offs of Brexit...
Indeed, there has been no frustration of government plans at all by "Remoaners". All the problems encountered have been entirely self inflicted by Leavers.
Um no. They have been self inflicted by a Remain voting and (more importantly) utterly incompetent Prime Minister who has managed to make a mess of almost every aspect of the negotiations, even the straight forward bits.
Yes, the revolution has been failed by wreckers and old-thinkers. The People's State has to be ruthless with them to safeguard the revolution.
Comments
Interesting if this gets traction
Byeeeee
*If* that's how it turns out it's a political mess. Both the Sunday Times and Green will be able to say their statements were true and vindicated. But of course the damage from the media firestorm/witch hunt will be done.
In those circumstances my sympathies lie with Green in that he'll have been done over by the febrile atmosphere whereby the ST will have known how their text would have been reported.
2. My apocalypse posts are evidence based, partly from the impact it will have on the food industry in which I work, and partly from the evidence from the likes of the CBI, ports, HMRC etc etc. If people can't understand the impact of a hard border between the UK and EU then they're either deliberately ignorant or in denial. And a hard border is what the EU will impose without any deal.
3. Freedom of Movement is simple - we can impose the restrictions on movement allowed by the EU that we failed to impose. Its a restriction rather than a full ban, my supposition being that most people will accept that as a compromise
4. See point 3
When I voted to leave it was on three simple points: 1. There are many parts of the EU we'd be better without (CAP, CFP, mandatory marketisation). 2. As a non-Euro non-Schengen country we're already heading for the periphery of a Europe that needs a closer fiscal union to preserve the Euro - so better to forge our own course than to be flung off by centrifugal force, and 3. There is an alternative to the EU called EFTA. Membership of which can retain our EEA and CU membership.
What I didn't factor in was the rank stupidity of the Tory negotiation team in closing off pretty much all options apart from no deal WTO and some absurd fantasy about a bespoke deal thats better than what we have now and cost free.
If 35% of the population strongly believe in remaining in the EU, it is _logically inconsistent_ for them to support an outcome that leaves them with no EU at all. Perhaps they are sheepish about the Euro, but if they want to remain and that is the price, one assumes they would go for the deal.
Proper polling would be needed to prove this hypothesis, but simply digging out figures from 2011 showing how many people opposed the Euro back then doesn't prove anything in 2017. The past, as they say, is a foreign country.
My theory is that things have moved on substantially and the hardcore of europhilies would accept Euro membership to stay in the EU, as would a decreasing percentage of all other voters - especially those most threatened by a potential cliff-edge Brexit that cost them their jobs.
I am spitballing here and I would love to see *recent* polling that supports or disproves my theory. But I would need to see some either/or polling to be sure of my caluclation.
For me, the deal works because Corbyn would be the one to capitalise on it.
In one fell swoop, he could ally the europhile wing of his party with the very traditional working class for whom, by your own admission in the previous thread, ending freedom of movement trumps all other concerns.
If such an idea gained traction it could tear the Conservative party apart and force an early election. Which Jezza would win.
I'm spitballing. But wouldn't an alliance of hardcore europhiles and hardcore end-freedom-of-movementers be interesting?
It would leave those of us of a more Hannanite disposition with egg on our faces, to be sure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/sunday-review/britain-identity-crisis.html
I shall just ensure that my family and assets are protected from the damage inflicted.
Plus of course those who want more immigration control want that AND to keep the £, they will never compromise one for the other. In addition most Europhiles see freedom of movement as sacrosanct making your argument even more ridiculous than it already is.
If the choice was 'rejoin the EU and join the Euro' it would be a thumping 80% Leave 20% Remain at least which would settle the EU question once and for all.
Corbyn opposes the Euro for ideological reasons as he does not want German imposed austerity undermining his plans for socialism in the UK
I believe David Cameron also gave similar warnings too.
I started from a comment in the previous thread where I suggested that it was interesting that people are digging in on either side and *not even looking* for compromises any more - which will only lead to a terrible outcome.
My little thought experiment here is intended to show that compromises, even ones that seem ridiculous, are possible. *Maybe* 64% of the population would go for a second referendum deal that gives us the Euro but ends freedom of movement. Maybe they wouldn't.
But perhaps it is time to start thinking about what real-life compromises could be made instead of the current situation, borne out by current polling, that seems to show a 50/50 split of very angry people with nothing in common squaring off against each other in the pub car park.
A more realistic one is to explore the restrictions on free movement compatible with EEA membership.
In practice soft Brexit, remaining in the Single Market, is the only compromise that is likely to command majority support in the country, albeit not fully satisfying many hard liners on either end.
I suspect that EEA would have won if it had been a tripartite choice via an AV referendum.
However, it is also true that that was (a) a lie and (b) the most unconvincing lie since Richard III said he didn't kill the Princes in the Tower ,especially since he himself later went on to suggest it!
The EU is currently around 1% of GDP and the US federal government is around 20% of GDP. I don't think you'd need to get anywhere near the latter in order to have an EU with a common defence policy and a robust European Monetary Fund.
However, I also do not think that a common currency area can last without either (a) a political union or (b) full-blown economic imperialism from a dominant power within it. If we joined the Euro (a) would become urgent, but I don't think voters in England or possibly even Scotland would accept it.
That doesn't relate to the financial status or otherwise of the state - a political force like nationalism is not closely linked to economics or fiscal policy. If you don't believe me, google the Irish Land Acts and see what effect they had on Irish nationalism.
The People have spoken. They want to leave, and to remove us from EU control, not just leave in name only. The danger remains that if the People's will is frustrated, then they will conclude that democracy is serving them. History is littered with examples of what happens after that occurs..................
Those who oppose Brexit would be better advised to campaign for re-entry after we have left. It will take many many years. There were 41 between the 1975 and 2016 referendums. But they must not be allowed to frustrate the will of the People on Brexit for that would be an attack on democracy itself.
https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/925799680340094977
Article 50 has been invoked and the key senior members of the cabinet are lifelong Eurosceptics. If the policy of leaving the EU fails, it will not be through lack of trying.
If we vote remain by one vote that is an end to it for the next fifty years.
As Cromwell said, "If we win 100 times he is still King. If he wins once we are all dead." That is how it works.
We Tories look at him – with his pint and cigar and sense of humour – and we instinctively recognise someone who is fundamentally indistinguishable from us.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10024202/Keep-calm-everyone-now-is-notthe-time-to-do-a-Nicolas-Cage.html
https://www.ft.com/content/577a4ed8-c238-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
How many are on an amber warning?
A deal that pleases everyone is clearly impossible. However, a deal that pleases nobody at all seems only too likely.
Now it doesn't follow that all Leave voters shared those views. Or that there weren't perfectly valid other reasons to vote to Leave. But frankly voters like yourself knew the sort of cultural/political event you were validating with your vote. Dr Frankenstein doesn't get to adopt the moral high ground re the behaviour of his monster in my view.
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/927173930670010370
The only problem with Brexit is the EU trying to cause problems by being (a) greedy and (b) not being reasonable about a deal.
There is no practical reason why all these issues could not be resolved quickly and easily. It is purely political to punish Britain and put off others from trying to Leave.
Why would we want to be in a club like that?
The Brexit divorce from reality continues...
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/927219728443113472
The democratic wishes of the British people must prevail regardless of their democratic wishes...
The decision was never between leaving and the status quo, it was between leaving and being slowly consumed by an undemocratic superstate that has never had British interests at heart.
The only monster I see was the lumbering brute of the EU, devouring democratic freedoms one by one as Saturn devoured his children.
"literally thousands" is not a convincing explanation.
News at 11
I am well aware of the political reality and the problems being deliberately caused to try and frustrate Brexit.
So if it is easy, perhaps you can suggest a solution for the Irish border question?
Some of us did warn that it would be problematic to solve.
Or maybe you think they should?
I assume you've been to the police to reports Blair's mass murders?
* Sign a FTA with the EU - trade is unaffected.
* People can transit pretty much as now, but obviously (e.g.) any rights to live/work would be matched (equivalent for UK/EU citizens in each others countries).
then reconquer France
really have you no ambition ?
Thinking that might it right is one thing when you have it, but quite another when you don't.
The UK has Europe's most visited city, London, a city which is currently the world's leading financial centre, let alone Europe's and whose closest European rival is Zurich, a city in a country also outside the EU.
http://www.cityam.com/224938/london-top-world
Other than France the UK also has the most powerful armed forces in Europe, given Britain is in no imminent threat of invasion, certainly compared to the Baltic States, they need the protection the British military provides through NATO.
And when I last looked Farage was no where near the top of British politics, not even an MP - unlike some of the unsavoury characters you have aligned yourself with.
May it is now clear is the only Tory who can keep enough Leavers on board and also make the compromises necessary to do a deal with the EU.
https://twitter.com/David_Goodhart/status/927207074278313984
I see Laura Perrins is sympathetic to his view as well. Her appearance on QT is still giving me nightmares.
It appears another Trump appointment and associate, Mike Flynn (and possibly his son with him) is next up on the charge list.
Remoaners actually want us to be the sick man of Europe. They want us to fail. They rejoice in a falling Pound, they celebrate and grasp at every piece economic bad news (while ignoring the good|) that they can blame on Brexit. No one would be happier than the Remoaners if their predictions of economic catastrophe came true, in order to justify their view that we should return to the protection of the economic and political mafia that is the EU.
so do you have to pay your employer an exit fee when you resign ?
The European financial capital is London.
Plus look what being in the Euro did to Greece!