There was an interesting line someone else had, that a referendum should be held when the government seeks a specific change, the alternative being the status quo.
A problem with it, however, is when the status quo is changed by tiny increments, over a long period of time. How can that be redressed otherwise?
Part of that is down to when the centre ground of politics has no common ground with the electorate. I'm sure many would like to see foreign aid slashed and the money spent here instead. But the political class like it. And so it stays.
The disparity between the political class and the electorate is a natural consequence of FPTP which allows the views of 60-70% of the country to be effectively ignored.
Osborne will come to be regarded as a hero of Brexit. without his cunning wheeze of targeting LD seats in 2015, Dave would never have had the majority to call a referendum. I agree that he sacrificed himself too is a bonus.
I am not sure what to think of Osborne. Cameron, OTOH, is the sort that gives "posh-boys" a bad rep.
My late father who was a Lib/LD voter used to talk about certain tory MP's having what he called a 'smug git' quality about them. Osborne had that by the bucket load. A none Tory MP with it is Keith Vaz
Corbyn gets my vote on that one, with Farage being in a photo-finish position
I wrote a long critique of the OP but it seems to have vanished from the thread. I assume this is now being edited by Geordie Greig?
Anyway, good to see the Remainers slapping each others backs in mutual congratulation on missing the point of the referendum. The real news today is the Junker is joining Barnier in trying to get it through Theresa May's thick head that the only thing that the EU want to offer is a Canada Plus FTA. Which is what the Leavers want. That must be a bit awkward.
Can we have a few more Remainers on here criticising Leavers for refusing to back the 'pragmatic compromise' of Chequers, despite the fact that the EU have completely ruled it out? Or maybe it is time to accept after all that the referendum was a binary question - fully in or fully out - and that you lost?
"Or maybe it is time to accept after all that the referendum was a binary question - fully in or fully out"
No, it wasn't.
Did you vote in the referendum?
Somebody else thinks so....
Junker: “[We] ask the British government to understand that someone who leaves the Union cannot be in the same privileged position as a member state. If you leave the Union, you are of course no longer part of our single market, and certainly not only in the parts of it you choose,” said Juncker, referring to the U.K. proposal that it remain within the single market for goods but not services. "...We agree with the statement made in Chequers that the starting point for such a partnership should be a free-trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union,” he said.
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
Dont be silly, she wasn't telling him where to live, she was merely pointing out the weakness of someone who argues for Brexit when they don't/won't live with the consequences
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
I’ll be back, as soon as I can easily get a visa for my wife to join me.
Good for you
It will be interesting to see how many others will return. Surely your wife can just return as she is your spouse and you will have documentation that you are indeed married, etc? At this point the UK is still bound by EU rules and a non-EU national married to an EU national has right of entry.
I believe Mrs Sandpit is non EU, so it is government policy to keep her out if possible, not that it is very good at meeting its tens of thousands target.
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
Is it not worse than that? Is it not the case that our government can do this to you but not EU nationals who are not from the UK?
This is correct. UK citizens have to go through the UK spousal visa process which costs thousands of pounds and takes 5 years to get permanent residency. EU non-UK citizens can use the EEA family permit route, which is free.
Yup!
The other big spanner in the works is the salary requirement, which can’t take into account earnings outside the U.K.
You best prospect for returning home post Brexit will be under a Corbyn government that relaxes the non EU spouse requirements.
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
I’ll be back, as soon as I can easily get a visa for my wife to join me.
Good for you
It will be interesting to see how many others will return. Surely your wife can just return as she is your spouse and you will have documentation that you are indeed married, etc? At this point the UK is still bound by EU rules and a non-EU national married to an EU national has right of entry.
I believe Mrs Sandpit is non EU, so it is government policy to keep her out if possible, not that it is very good at meeting its tens of thousands target.
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
Is it not worse than that? Is it not the case that our government can do this to you but not EU nationals who are not from the UK?
This is correct. UK citizens have to go through the UK spousal visa process which costs thousands of pounds and takes 5 years to get permanent residency. EU non-UK citizens can use the EEA family permit route, which is free.
Yup!
The other big spanner in the works is the salary requirement, which can’t take into account earnings outside the U.K.
Could she "temporarily" emigrate to some other EU country with easier rules and gain residency there? Then moving to the UK would be simple...
She’d need to gain citizenship, not just residency. As Mr @not_on_fire says, there’s official ways of doing it but they take years and cost thousands.
By far the easiest way would be to find a passport office worker in Bucharest who earns €500 a month..... which is easy. That’s not how things should be.
You could not have voted for a "Soft Brexit" - the ballot only had "Leave" or "Stay" (and is possibly the most accurate thing about the whole Brexit process)
I took my own view on the likely outcome since the politicians couldnt arrticulate one, its shorthand for
1. I believed we'd always have a trading relationship with the EU and that out wouldnt be that much different from in in trade terms 2. Im not that worried about EU conributions as long as theyre doing something useful 3. once out we can decide what and how we wish to devlop our trade 4. a kick up the backside is what is needed to change our complacent establishment 5. I didnt believe any of the "guarantees" on further integration
I did not believe any guarantees about further integration either, but the shambolic ineptitude of Westminster has changed my mind to believing that maybe neutering nation parliaments to a degree may not be a bad thing. It is highly amusing that Corbyn appears to support Brexit because getting rid of EU influence will let him indulge his more madcap schemes.
I totally agree about the kick up the backside for the Establishment.
I always prefer politicans having a limited remit and decision making as close to the voters as is practical.
I am pleased that you have come round to the idea of more regular referendums. When should we have the next one on the stupidity of Brexit?
We are where we are precisely because there was no referendum on the Single Market, Masstricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon.
Funny how Remainers are always especially quiet on that latter one, because that was the moment they went double or quits. " Yeah we know we are blatantly reneging on a manifesto promise by all parties, but we are not going to trust the voters on this, so sod 'em. They'll have to suck it up, because there isn't a way back from this without actually leaving, and they will never get there in a month of Sundays". I think that about sums it up. If it was such a great idea why did Brown sneak in under cover of darkness to sign it rather than in the full glare of publicity. Beacause he knew what he was doing, and deep down he knew it was plain wrong is my guess.
We never voted for what we ended up in.
So yes once we've left and it's bedded in, let's have votes about every 15 years. Just like we should've done between 1975 and 2016.
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
I’ll be back, as soon as I can easily get a visa for my wife to join me.
Good for you
It will be interesting to see how many others will return. Surely your wife can just return as she is your spouse and you will have documentation that you are indeed married, etc? At this point the UK is still bound by EU rules and a non-EU national married to an EU national has right of entry.
I believe Mrs Sandpit is non EU, so it is government policy to keep her out if possible, not that it is very good at meeting its tens of thousands target.
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
Is it not worse than that? Is it not the case that our government can do this to you but not EU nationals who are not from the UK?
This is correct. UK citizens have to go through the UK spousal visa process which costs thousands of pounds and takes 5 years to get permanent residency. EU non-UK citizens can use the EEA family permit route, which is free.
Yup!
The other big spanner in the works is the salary requirement, which can’t take into account earnings outside the U.K.
You best prospect for returning home post Brexit will be under a Corbyn government that relaxes the non EU spouse requirements.
If there’s a Corbyn government I definitely won’t be returning home.
I wrote a long critique of the OP but it seems to have vanished from the thread. I assume this is now being edited by Geordie Greig?
Can we have a few more Remainers on here criticising Leavers for refusing to back the 'pragmatic compromise' of Chequers, despite the fact that the EU have completely ruled it out? Or maybe it is time to accept after all that the referendum was a binary question - fully in or fully out - and that you lost?
"Or maybe it is time to accept after all that the referendum was a binary question - fully in or fully out"
No, it wasn't.
Did you vote in the referendum?
Somebody else thinks so....
Junker: “[We] ask the British government to understand that someone who leaves the Union cannot be in the same privileged position as a member state. If you leave the Union, you are of course no longer part of our single market, and certainly not only in the parts of it you choose,” said Juncker, referring to the U.K. proposal that it remain within the single market for goods but not services. "...We agree with the statement made in Chequers that the starting point for such a partnership should be a free-trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union,” he said.
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
Dont be silly, she wasn't telling him where to live, she was merely pointing out the weakness of someone who argues for Brexit when they don't/won't live with the consequences
And she is talking nonsense. I live in Spain, voted Remain and my UK pension dropped nearly 20% as a result of the vote. I think I know a fair bit about consequences and have to live with them as do thousands of others living abroad. We are all entitled to a view as long as we retain citizenship. The difference is some of us accept a democratic vote however painful it was.
And she is talking nonsense. I live in Spain, voted Remain and my UK pension dropped nearly 20% as a result of the vote. I think I know a fair bit about consequences and have to live with them as do thousands of others living abroad. We are all entitled to a view as long as we retain citizenship. The difference is some of us accept a democratic vote however painful it was.
What does acceptance look like in practice? Does acceptance require people to desist from stating their opinions? It's absurd and sinister to accuse law-abiding citizens of some kind of thought crime because they argue against a decision taking by a majority.
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
We are where we are precisely because there was no referendum on the Single Market, Masstricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon.
Funny how Remainers are always especially quiet on that latter one, because that was the moment they went double or quits. " Yeah we know we are blatantly reneging on a manifesto promise by all parties, but we are not going to trust the voters on this, so sod 'em. They'll have to suck it up, because there isn't a way back from this without actually leaving, and they will never get there in a month of Sundays". I think that about sums it up. If it was such a great idea why did Brown sneak in under cover of darkness to sign it rather than in the full glare of publicity. Beacause he knew what he was doing, and deep down he knew it was plain wrong is my guess.
We never voted for what we ended up in.
So yes once we've left and it's bedded in, let's have votes about every 15 years. Just like we should've done between 1975 and 2016.
Lisbon is a red herring designed to give the Tories a get-out-of-jail-free card by blaming Gordon Brown. You can tell this because they blame Brown and not Blair whose decision it was. By the time Lisbon was signed, the EU had watered it down after the French and Dutch referendums rejected the original constitutional treaty. As for Cameron and Lisbon, we'd have been voting for or against a fait accompli with no means of changing it.
And she is talking nonsense. I live in Spain, voted Remain and my UK pension dropped nearly 20% as a result of the vote. I think I know a fair bit about consequences and have to live with them as do thousands of others living abroad. We are all entitled to a view as long as we retain citizenship. The difference is some of us accept a democratic vote however painful it was.
What does acceptance look like in practice? Does acceptance require people to desist from stating their opinions? It's absurd and sinister to accuse law-abiding citizens of some kind of thought crime because they argue against a decision taking by a majority.
I have no idea what you are talking about except you are accusing me of being absurd and sinister which is kind of amusing and entirely predictable.
Not sure if this has been discussed (I was AFK for quite a while), but this on Corbyn's staff member, who was refused a pass by security services but has been working for him anyway and using a visitor's pass, is utter nonsense from the Lord High Wreath Layer.
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
We are where we are precisely because there was no referendum on the Single Market, Masstricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon.
Funny how Remainers are always especially quiet on that latter one, because that was the moment they went double or quits. " Yeah we know we are blatantly reneging on a manifesto promise by all parties, but we are not going to trust the voters on this, so sod 'em. They'll have to suck it up, because there isn't a way back from this without actually leaving, and they will never get there in a month of Sundays". I think that about sums it up. If it was such a great idea why did Brown sneak in under cover of darkness to sign it rather than in the full glare of publicity. Beacause he knew what he was doing, and deep down he knew it was plain wrong is my guess.
We never voted for what we ended up in.
So yes once we've left and it's bedded in, let's have votes about every 15 years. Just like we should've done between 1975 and 2016.
Lisbon is a red herring designed to give the Tories a get-out-of-jail-free card by blaming Gordon Brown. You can tell this because they blame Brown and not Blair whose decision it was. By the time Lisbon was signed, the EU had watered it down after the French and Dutch referendums rejected the original constitutional treaty. As for Cameron and Lisbon, we'd have been voting for or against a fait accompli with no means of changing it.
How much was it watered down? Aren't all the provisions of the constitution now on the EU statute book? I know they spun Lisbon as only a 'tidying up exercise' and all that.
Due to have some major bowel surgery at the RVI in Newcastle on Friday. Quite nervous but I’m in very good hands. My surgeon and other NHS staff have been/are fantastic.
Hope all goes well. When at it’s best ...... which is usually.....the NHS is the best!
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
Is it not worse than that? Is it not the case that our government can do this to you but not EU nationals who are not from the UK?
This is correct. UK citizens have to go through the UK spousal visa process which costs thousands of pounds and takes 5 years to get permanent residency. EU non-UK citizens can use the EEA family permit route, which is free.
Yup!
The other big spanner in the works is the salary requirement, which can’t take into account earnings outside the U.K.
Could she "temporarily" emigrate to some other EU country with easier rules and gain residency there? Then moving to the UK would be simple...
She’d need to gain citizenship, not just residency. As Mr @not_on_fire says, there’s official ways of doing it but they take years and cost thousands.
By far the easiest way would be to find a passport office worker in Bucharest who earns €500 a month..... which is easy. That’s not how things should be.
Unfortunately, after Brexit, given the continuing political cost of supporting immigration the most likely change to immigration rules is that these barriers are extended to cover EU spouses of British citizens (unless the EU spouse happened to already be resident in the UK before Brexit day).
This sounds like some of that levelling down that Tories always claim to be against. Lack of rights all round! Great.
Re UK citizens marrying non-EU citizens and rights of return:
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
Surely it's pretty much exactly the same as what Theresa May proposes. It seems to be much ado about nothing. It seems to me that the ERG are right that agreeing to the backstop was daft, but the backstop won't apply anyway if there's a deal, so it's academic.
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
I am sure that if the EU accepted there would be a soft border as per this plan, there could be an agreement that the UK would leave the SM/CU at the end of the transition and NI say two years later to allow time for arrangements to be made. As long as it was a fixed period with a clearly agreed outcome then the DUP could be bought onside.
In this case we can commit to CETA and everything will be fine.
The problem is that the EU want a veto and that cannot happen. But the ERG are showing the way that this can be solved. High class people doing what they were elected to do.
Can we have some clarity in these perpetual moans from Remainers …
(1) Remain had all then advantages during the referendum. The government, TV, especially the BBC (with the exception of the three week purdah period), and the money that was spent.
(2) The lack of preparation and plan was down to one man. David Cameron. He prevented the civil service working on alternative plans - something they would automatically have done. Yet somehow it's all Brexit's fault. I had no ready-made plan in my pocket, and neither had Labour,for exactly the same reason. We're not in charge of the civil service. This isn't rocket science, but why hasn't Cameron been widely castigated for this cock-up?
(3) After a binary referendum, the idea of appealing to the Remainers by accepting many of their policies is akin to Labour winning a GE and taking on much of the Tory manifesto. Why?
(4) The country is split. Another referendum, and possibly another after that until we get the 'right' answer won't solve that.
Two is such bullshit.
He asked for prep to be done but the civil service couldn’t reconcile the contradictions in the Leave campaigns.
Such as we’re leaving the single market but no one is threatening our place in the single market.
Cameron called the referendum. He could, and should, have had the country vote on a specific vision of Brexit.
Say he had; what would it have said, and how do you think the various leave camps would have reacted?
Hint: leave wanted to win.
The official leave campaign would be the ones writing it. Either they would have written something very vague, in which case they couldn't have credibly claimed after the referendum that they had a mandate for a hard brexit and May would have had much more scope to negotiate a good deal, or they would have gone with something specific. In that case, they may well have lost. But if they won, at least we wouldn't have the toxic division that's been dominating the last couple of years of politics about what Brexit means and about whether people knew what they were voting for
Re UK citizens marrying non-EU citizens and rights of return:
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
Which is fine until you get to the point that the UK government is powerless to apply it to non-UK EU citizens.
She’s a qualified teacher of English in Ukraine, she’d walk into a job as a teacher of Russian in a private school in U.K. for probably £40k salary, a net contributor even if she wasn’t my wife.
You've got my sympathies. We went through this shit for almost five years. It will basically never happen unless you lawyer up. The universal Home Office response to any case that slightly unusual (my wife is Indian and qualified/practiced as a dentist in Russia) is incompetence, inactivity and indifference. If I had to do it again I wouldn't even bother trying; I'd just move to Ireland for 5 years and naturalise her as an EU citizen there.
Gospozha Sandpit will still need a QTS qualification (assuming she already has RFL quals) to teach in the UK (assuming her Ukranian degree is recognised which is another expensive and lengthy rigmarole). I have never heard of a single subject Russian teacher although somewhere like St Pauls might have one. She'd probably have to double up with another language and/or subject. Spanish teachers are the hot property at the moment for some reason.
"Or maybe it is time to accept after all that the referendum was a binary question - fully in or fully out"
No, it wasn't.
Did you vote in the referendum?
Somebody else thinks so....
Junker: “[We] ask the British government to understand that someone who leaves the Union cannot be in the same privileged position as a member state. If you leave the Union, you are of course no longer part of our single market, and certainly not only in the parts of it you choose,” said Juncker, referring to the U.K. proposal that it remain within the single market for goods but not services. "...We agree with the statement made in Chequers that the starting point for such a partnership should be a free-trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union,” he said.
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
I’ll be back, as soon as I can easily get a visa for my wife to join me.
Good for you
It will be interesting to see how many others will return. Surely your wife can just return as she is your spouse and you will have documentation that you are indeed married, etc? At this point the UK is still bound by EU rules and a non-EU national married to an EU national has right of entry.
I believe Mrs Sandpit is non EU, so it is government policy to keep her out if possible, not that it is very good at meeting its tens of thousands target.
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
BBC East of England is trying to get UKIP-voting Essex exercised over a Chinese (I think) lady who has some minor fault with her paper-work, who is probably to be deported although 7 or 8 months pregnant.
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
Surely it's pretty much exactly the same as what Theresa May proposes. It seems to be much ado about nothing. It seems to me that the ERG are right that agreeing to the backstop was daft, but the backstop won't apply anyway if there's a deal, so it's academic.
The key difference is avoiding the Chequers common rulebook - use declarations and penalties to enforce standards and stop 'inferior' goods getting into the EU market.
Due to have some major bowel surgery at the RVI in Newcastle on Friday. Quite nervous but I’m in very good hands. My surgeon and other NHS staff have been/are fantastic.
Best wishes. Hope all goes as well as possible.
And a thank you to @AlistairMeeks for a very good article. Nothing to disagree with. The Tories are immolating themselves on Brexit. I couldn't really care less about them but they are immolating the country as well and making a Corbyn government evermore likely and I care about that very much indeed.
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
I never mentioned taxes, nor am I telling anyone where to live. I was merely wondering if those pushing the "Leave" agenda from abroad are prepared to live in the post-Brexit UK that they argue for. Brexit has no consequences for them but it does for those of us who stay in the UK.
If they refuse to live in post-Brexit Britain then I think that diminishes any argument they put forward on its behalf - and that is the politest I can put it.
Re UK citizens marrying non-EU citizens and rights of return:
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
Isn't that what the primary purpose rule was for? Why hasn't it or something similar designed to deal with the particular problems of young girls of South East Asian origin being forced into marriage been reintroduced?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
I never mentioned taxes, nor am I telling anyone where to live. I was merely wondering if those pushing the "Leave" agenda from abroad are prepared to live in the post-Brexit UK that they argue for. Brexit has no consequences for them but it does for those of us who stay in the UK.
If they refuse to live in post-Brexit Britain then I think that diminishes any argument they put forward on its behalf - and that is the politest I can put it.
Well done. You managed not to say, f---ing hypocrites, which would have been much less polite I'd say.
We are where we are precisely because there was no referendum on the Single Market, Masstricht, Nice, Amsterdam, and above all Lisbon.
Funny how Remainers are always especially quiet on that latter one, because that was the moment they went double or quits. " Yeah we know we are blatantly reneging on a manifesto promise by all parties, but we are not going to trust the voters on this, so sod 'em. They'll have to suck it up, because there isn't a way back from this without actually leaving, and they will never get there in a month of Sundays". I think that about sums it up. If it was such a great idea why did Brown sneak in under cover of darkness to sign it rather than in the full glare of publicity. Beacause he knew what he was doing, and deep down he knew it was plain wrong is my guess.
We never voted for what we ended up in.
So yes once we've left and it's bedded in, let's have votes about every 15 years. Just like we should've done between 1975 and 2016.
Lisbon is a red herring designed to give the Tories a get-out-of-jail-free card by blaming Gordon Brown. You can tell this because they blame Brown and not Blair whose decision it was. By the time Lisbon was signed, the EU had watered it down after the French and Dutch referendums rejected the original constitutional treaty. As for Cameron and Lisbon, we'd have been voting for or against a fait accompli with no means of changing it.
There was a commitment to hold a referendum on the Constitution.
Giscard D'Estaing came up with his grandiose plans for integration. Straw, amongst others, dragged a reluctant Blair to offering a vote because it was so far reaching. The French and the Dutch said no. So in responsive democracy there would've been a rethink and a coming back to the table with something far more watered down to vote on.
But no this is the EU. Nothing can stop ever closer union, certainly nothing as trivial as whether the governed actually want it. They have to be told what's good for them. So they crossed out the title, called it a treaty and hey presto with one bound they were free from British voters because "governments negotiate "treaties", and so we don't need a vote".
What could possibly go wrong?
Granted Brown was the patsy holding the baby when it peed on him, because Blair had shuffled off stage by then. He gets the blame for not stopping it when he could have, but don't think I absolve Blair either. They were both utter fools on this, and gave the whole debate added impetus to an even bigger decision.
I learnt they won't let you vote your way out of EU integration, if you are in the EU. They'll even stop you voting if they think they are going to lose. So voting out is the only way to stop that. All else is noise.
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
"Or maybe it is time to accept after all that the referendum was a binary question - fully in or fully out"
No, it wasn't.
Did you vote in the referendum?
Somebody else thinks so....
Junker: “[We] ask the British government to understand that someone who leaves the Union cannot be in the same privileged position as a member state. If you leave the Union, you are of course no longer part of our single market, and certainly not only in the parts of it you choose,” said Juncker, referring to the U.K. proposal that it remain within the single market for goods but not services. "...We agree with the statement made in Chequers that the starting point for such a partnership should be a free-trade area between the United Kingdom and the European Union,” he said.
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
I’ll be back, as soon as I can easily get a visa for my wife to join me.
Good for you
It will be interesting to see how many others will return. Surely your wife can just return as she is your spouse and you will have documentation that you are indeed married, etc? At this point the UK is still bound by EU rules and a non-EU national married to an EU national has right of entry.
I believe Mrs Sandpit is non EU, so it is government policy to keep her out if possible, not that it is very good at meeting its tens of thousands target.
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
I am deeply relieved that my wife, who has lived here for thirty odd years, finally got around to applying for citizenship just before we reached peak immigration nonsense.
Mr Welshowl, I was most amused by your post. I could just imagine your eyes swivelling as you got to your climax (hitting "Post Comment"). Do you read anything else other than the "Daily Express"? or are you a Mail man?
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
Yes, it is reasonable.
Can you give us a synopsis please? I don't want to sign up to Guido Fawkes
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern on this. He didn't even come close).
Can we have some clarity in these perpetual moans from Remainers …
(1) Remain had all then advantages during the referendum. The government, TV, especially the BBC (with the exception of the three week purdah period), and the money that was spent.
(2) The lack of preparation and plan was down to one man. David Cameron. He prevented the civil service working on alternative plans - something they would automatically have done. Yet somehow it's all Brexit's fault. I had no ready-made plan in my pocket, and neither had Labour,for exactly the same reason. We're not in charge of the civil service. This isn't rocket science, but why hasn't Cameron been widely castigated for this cock-up?
(3) After a binary referendum, the idea of appealing to the Remainers by accepting many of their policies is akin to Labour winning a GE and taking on much of the Tory manifesto. Why?
(4) The country is split. Another referendum, and possibly another after that until we get the 'right' answer won't solve that.
Two is such bullshit.
He asked for prep to be done but the civil service couldn’t reconcile the contradictions in the Leave campaigns.
Such as we’re leaving the single market but no one is threatening our place in the single market.
They began planning but could reconcile the unbelievable promises of Leave and Yes.
For example Yes said the Bank of England would be an Independent Scotland’s lender of last resort and the FCA/PRA would supervise the Financial Services/Banking sectors, both would have been illegal.
You can make any crap you want legal if you want to.
Mr Welshowl, I was most amused by your post. I could just imagine your eyes swivelling as you got to your climax (hitting "Post Comment"). Do you read anything else other than the "Daily Express"? or are you a Mail man?
Neither.
And I pressed the key rather gently as it happens.
They have calculated and discovered their results would be about as pleasing as Jeremy Corbyn's A-levels
This is good news, not that I believed a coup likely in the first place. As good as Canada + would be the only way to stop Brexit would be through the internal destruction of the Conservative party. As expected Mogg and Davis have more sense than that - they can chip away at Chequers in years to come. Chequers is a damn sight better than our current EU relationship and most pragmatic leave voters will recognise that you can't get everything you want when the parliamentary maths doesn't stack up.
Can we have some clarity in these perpetual moans from Remainers …
(1) Remain had all then advantages during the referendum. The government, TV, especially the BBC (with the exception of the three week purdah period), and the money that was spent.
(2) The lack of preparation and plan was down to one man. David Cameron. He prevented the civil service working on alternative plans - something they would automatically have done. Yet somehow it's all Brexit's fault. I had no ready-made plan in my pocket, and neither had Labour,for exactly the same reason. We're not in charge of the civil service. This isn't rocket science, but why hasn't Cameron been widely castigated for this cock-up?
(3) After a binary referendum, the idea of appealing to the Remainers by accepting many of their policies is akin to Labour winning a GE and taking on much of the Tory manifesto. Why?
(4) The country is split. Another referendum, and possibly another after that until we get the 'right' answer won't solve that.
Two is such bullshit.
He asked for prep to be done but the civil service couldn’t reconcile the contradictions in the Leave campaigns.
Such as we’re leaving the single market but no one is threatening our place in the single market.
They began planning but could reconcile the unbelievable promises of Leave and Yes.
For example Yes said the Bank of England would be an Independent Scotland’s lender of last resort and the FCA/PRA would supervise the Financial Services/Banking sectors, both would have been illegal.
You can make any crap you want legal if you want to.
That's what fascists/nationalists always believe. Glad you have told us where you stand
Very good header. Your Michelin restaurant metaphor is almost perfect. The most hideous of all Leavers- IDS- yesterday said almost precisely that. "It's not our job to say what kind of Brexit we want that's for the government. We just have to say what we don't want and you can start with Chequers''
How such an unattractive politician ever got to lead a serious political party is something students of politics will be scratching their heads over for decades.
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern on this. He didn't even come close).
Does it not strike you that the parties were all in agreement because the alternative was obviously silly?
Osborne will come to be regarded as a hero of Brexit. without his cunning wheeze of targeting LD seats in 2015, Dave would never have had the majority to call a referendum. I agree that he sacrificed himself too is a bonus.
I am not sure what to think of Osborne. Cameron, OTOH, is the sort that gives "posh-boys" a bad rep.
My late father who was a Lib/LD voter used to talk about certain tory MP's having what he called a 'smug git' quality about them. Osborne had that by the bucket load. A none Tory MP with it is Keith Vaz
Seems like the ERG have put forward a much saner solution to Northern Ireland than the ludicrous backstop. Let's hope it gets adopted and we can move on. Won't hold my breath.
Re UK citizens marrying non-EU citizens and rights of return:
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
Isn't that what the primary purpose rule was for? Why hasn't it or something similar designed to deal with the particular problems of young girls of South East Asian origin being forced into marriage been reintroduced?
Because designing such a rule that catches the wrongdoers whilst ensuring genuine cases do not fall foul of it is extremely hard.
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
I never mentioned taxes, nor am I telling anyone where to live. I was merely wondering if those pushing the "Leave" agenda from abroad are prepared to live in the post-Brexit UK that they argue for. Brexit has no consequences for them but it does for those of us who stay in the UK...
To be fair, those who have been earning overseas for a while would benefit significantly should they decide to return after a 30% devaluation in sterling.
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern this. He didn't even come close).
I think you missed my point. Referenda are un-British. I don't support them and this one was deeply flawed as the question was too simplistic, hence why all the subsequent ambiguity. This one is fundamentally undemocratic as it did not allow any "middle-way", or the possibility to ask again for approval of a subsequent deal. GEs happen every 5 years so people have a democratic right to change their mind. We will pay the price of its stupidity for generations to come both economically and politically.
Can you give us a synopsis please? I don't want to sign up to Guido Fawkes
Executive Summary - Part 1 The issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been allowed to frame the Brexit negotiations. Both the UK and the European Union have committed to introduce no new physical infrastructure. There is, at present, a border between the two countries for tax, VAT, currency, excise and security; these are managed using technologies without infrastructure at the physical border.
The key obstacle in the negotiations is the EU’s concern that goods could enter into the Single Market area through the Irish border without being compliant with EU standards or tariffs. The question for the EU is whether this risk to the integrity of the Single Market is so serious that it could block a Free Trade Agreement with the UK.
It is in the interest of all parties to ensure that this is resolved as easily as possible and that the current border arrangements are modified to deal with the necessary extra checks. Both the CEO of HMRC and the Head of Irish Revenue have confirmed that there will be no need for new customs facilities on the border to make this happen.
The checks that are required post-Brexit to retain the integrity of the EU Single Market and Customs Union include customs declarations, declarations of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary checks and checks on product compliance
Cross-border trade on the island of Ireland is mostly comprised of regular shipments of the same goods. This repetitive trade is well suited to established technical solutions and simplified customs procedures already available in the Union Customs Code.
Larger companies may take advantage of trusted trader-type schemes. This status provides assurance of a high degree of compliance and hence entitles the bearer to simplified procedures
For all companies, the requirements for additional declarations can be incorporated into the existing system used for VAT returns. Licensed customs brokers can be engaged to support businesses in dealing with rules of origin and customs arrangements.
For agricultural products, the Government should agree equivalence of UK and EU regulations and conformity assessment. Since UK and EU standards are identical and will remain identical at the point of departure, determining equivalence after Brexit should be straightforward. The current smooth movement of agricultural products across the Irish border, without the need for border inspection posts, can be continued by maintaining the island of Ireland as a Common Biosecurity Zone.
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
I never mentioned taxes, nor am I telling anyone where to live. I was merely wondering if those pushing the "Leave" agenda from abroad are prepared to live in the post-Brexit UK that they argue for. Brexit has no consequences for them but it does for those of us who stay in the UK.
If they refuse to live in post-Brexit Britain then I think that diminishes any argument they put forward on its behalf - and that is the politest I can put it.
Well done. You managed not to say, f---ing hypocrites, which would have been much less polite I'd say.
"... f---ing hypocrites ... " - that one never occurred to me. I reserve my swearin' and cussin' for exceptional ocassions
Osborne will come to be regarded as a hero of Brexit. without his cunning wheeze of targeting LD seats in 2015, Dave would never have had the majority to call a referendum. I agree that he sacrificed himself too is a bonus.
I am not sure what to think of Osborne. Cameron, OTOH, is the sort that gives "posh-boys" a bad rep.
My late father who was a Lib/LD voter used to talk about certain tory MP's having what he called a 'smug git' quality about them. Osborne had that by the bucket load. A none Tory MP with it is Keith Vaz
you have plenty to pick from for sure
"The alleged fiddler" doesn't look smug at all of course
Can you give us a synopsis please? I don't want to sign up to Guido Fawkes
Executive Summary - Part 2
The proposals set out below can be realised within the existing legal and operational frameworks of the EU and the UK, based on the mutual trust on which regular trade depends. Any risk of fraud or smuggling can be addressed by effective co-operation by authorities on both sides of the border, as already occurs with smuggling of drugs, cigarettes, fuel and alcohol.
Such measures can ensure that the trade across the Irish border is maintained. They do nothing to alter the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and do not violate the Principle of Consent enshrined in the Belfast Agreement. The integrity of the EU Single Market is safeguarded. The UK and the EU would be free to conclude a far-reaching Free Trade Agreement.
Harnessing the latest developments in international best practice can deliver continued co-operation and prosperity in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Seems like the ERG have put forward a much saner solution to Northern Ireland than the ludicrous backstop. Let's hope it gets adopted and we can move on. Won't hold my breath.
It's not an alternative to the backstop. It's a proposal for what could be in a deal with the EU (which would obviate the need for a backstop, as would Chequers of course). Do keep up.
It's true that it's perfectly sane, albeit vague on the crucial point of issue:
- Initial full regulatory alignment, making goods unacceptable for sale in the Republic of Ireland equally unacceptable in Northern Ireland.
- Data-sharing and co-operation between authorities can raise suspected non-compliance or infringement speedily if regulations diverge
How can it be that DD didn't get agreement on this from our EU friends, if it's so easy?
As others have said, fudge is very tasty. Don't mistake negotiating positions for final positions.
I'd like to know if you actually voted in the referendum?
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
I’ll be back, as soon as I can easily get a visa for my wife to join me.
Good for you
It will be interesting to see how many others will return. Surely your wife can just return as she is your spouse and you will have documentation that you are indeed married, etc? At this point the UK is still bound by EU rules and a non-EU national married to an EU national has right of entry.
I believe Mrs Sandpit is non EU, so it is government policy to keep her out if possible, not that it is very good at meeting its tens of thousands target.
Indeed. The government pretty much treats all non-EU wives as if they were arranged marriages among teenagers, they don’t understand that people might go away for a few years and fall in love. Plenty of stories around of Australian and Canadian spouses with the same problem, we all feel that we were swept up in the net of legislation designed to discourage subcontinental marriage practices and immigration scams.
Is it not worse than that? Is it not the case that our government can do this to you but not EU nationals who are not from the UK?
This is correct. UK citizens have to go through the UK spousal visa process which costs thousands of pounds and takes 5 years to get permanent residency. EU non-UK citizens can use the EEA family permit route, which is free.
Yup!
The other big spanner in the works is the salary requirement, which can’t take into account earnings outside the U.K.
Could she "temporarily" emigrate to some other EU country with easier rules and gain residency there? Then moving to the UK would be simple...
She’d need to gain citizenship, not just residency. As Mr @not_on_fire says, there’s official ways of doing it but they take years and cost thousands.
By far the easiest way would be to find a passport office worker in Bucharest who earns €500 a month..... which is easy. That’s not how things should be.
Due to have some major bowel surgery at the RVI in Newcastle on Friday. Quite nervous but I’m in very good hands. My surgeon and other NHS staff have been/are fantastic.
Best wishes for a successful op, and speedy recuperation.
Very good header. Your Michelin restaurant metaphor is almost perfect. The most hideous of all Leavers- IDS- yesterday said almost precisely that. "It's not our job to say what kind of Brexit we want that's for the government. We just have to say what we don't want and you can start with Chequers''
How such an unattractive politician ever got to lead a serious political party is something students of politics will be scratching their heads over for decades.
IDS epitomises the nasty party to a tee.
You need to look closer to home for the "Nasty Party" epithet.
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern on this. He didn't even come close).
Does it not strike you that the parties were all in agreement because the alternative was obviously silly?
In what way?
The alternative was we said "no". The Lisbon Treaty would be never have come in effect. As I said, in a responsive democratic environment something would've been done to water the process down to allay the fears of a majority of those voting "no" in the UK electorate. If they didn't, nothing happened, we just stayed as we were pre Lisbon.
Why was that "obviously silly"?
Now if that resulted in "deadlock" and made "decsion making amonst the EU countries harder" well think of something different, or give us opt out or whatever. If you just blatantly ignore the concerns of the voters don't be surprised if it eventually comes back and bites you on the bum. Which is what happened.
Osborne will come to be regarded as a hero of Brexit. without his cunning wheeze of targeting LD seats in 2015, Dave would never have had the majority to call a referendum. I agree that he sacrificed himself too is a bonus.
I am not sure what to think of Osborne. Cameron, OTOH, is the sort that gives "posh-boys" a bad rep.
My late father who was a Lib/LD voter used to talk about certain tory MP's having what he called a 'smug git' quality about them. Osborne had that by the bucket load. A none Tory MP with it is Keith Vaz
Corbyn gets my vote on that one, with Farage being in a photo-finish position
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
Yes, it is reasonable.
Can you give us a synopsis please? I don't want to sign up to Guido Fawkes
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern on this. He didn't even come close).
Does it not strike you that the parties were all in agreement because the alternative was obviously silly?
Well said. There was a party that advocated leaving the EU and it was called UKIP. Under our normal parliamentary democratic system they got no seats in the HoC.
Can we have some clarity in these perpetual moans from Remainers …
(1) Remain had all then advantages during the referendum. The government, TV, especially the BBC (with the exception of the three week purdah period), and the money that was spent.
(2) The lack of preparation and plan was down to one man. David Cameron. He prevented the civil service working on alternative plans - something they would automatically have done. Yet somehow it's all Brexit's fault. I had no ready-made plan in my pocket, and neither had Labour,for exactly the same reason. We're not in charge of the civil service. This isn't rocket science, but why hasn't Cameron been widely castigated for this cock-up?
(3) After a binary referendum, the idea of appealing to the Remainers by accepting many of their policies is akin to Labour winning a GE and taking on much of the Tory manifesto. Why?
(4) The country is split. Another referendum, and possibly another after that until we get the 'right' answer won't solve that.
Two is such bullshit.
He asked for prep to be done but the civil service couldn’t reconcile the contradictions in the Leave campaigns.
Such as we’re leaving the single market but no one is threatening our place in the single market.
They began planning but could reconcile the unbelievable promises of Leave and Yes.
For example Yes said the Bank of England would be an Independent Scotland’s lender of last resort and the FCA/PRA would supervise the Financial Services/Banking sectors, both would have been illegal.
You can make any crap you want legal if you want to.
That's what fascists/nationalists always believe. Glad you have told us where you stand
The migration of millions of families in the next two years onto Universal Credit will be problematic if the the government sticks to its current procedure.
The government currently proposes to write to claimentts saying they will end their payments and asking them to re apply for UC .
The government especially for severely disabled children , should migrate the information they already hold.Then ask them to say this is still correct.
If they do not do this , they will create a crisis , when one could be avoided. The PM should listen to the concerns.
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern this. He didn't even come close).
I think you missed my point. Referenda are un-British. I don't support them and this one was deeply flawed as the question was too simplistic, hence why all the subsequent ambiguity. This one is fundamentally undemocratic as it did not allow any "middle-way", or the possibility to ask again for approval of a subsequent deal. GEs happen every 5 years so people have a democratic right to change their mind. We will pay the price of its stupidity for generations to come both economically and politically.
I agree the referendum was flawed. Of course it was.
But it was the only chance I was ever going to get to do anything to stop the direction of travel I did not like. The fact that Lisbon vote was reneged on weighed heavily in my calculation.
This was it, the sole chance in my lifetime (I was at primary school in 1975). there was no 45/55 grey box. It was all or nothing. So I chose all.
I do not regret it for a moment, because I want to live in that responsive democracy to my dying day, and I simply lost any faith that the EU was or could become that, because my judgement was democracy was always going to be subverted to "ever closer union".
Can you give us a synopsis please? I don't want to sign up to Guido Fawkes
Executive Summary - Part 2
The proposals set out below can be realised within the existing legal and operational frameworks of the EU and the UK, based on the mutual trust on which regular trade depends. Any risk of fraud or smuggling can be addressed by effective co-operation by authorities on both sides of the border, as already occurs with smuggling of drugs, cigarettes, fuel and alcohol.
Such measures can ensure that the trade across the Irish border is maintained. They do nothing to alter the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and do not violate the Principle of Consent enshrined in the Belfast Agreement. The integrity of the EU Single Market is safeguarded. The UK and the EU would be free to conclude a far-reaching Free Trade Agreement.
Harnessing the latest developments in international best practice can deliver continued co-operation and prosperity in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Has anyone wondered why Cameron blocked the Brexit contingency plans?
Options ….
(1) He was worried it might show some popular options, and thereby give it credibility.
(2) Hubris.
(3) Fear of giving it the oxygen of publicity.
(4) Cost. Don't snigger, I know he splurged £9 million on a Pro-Remain leaflet and the CS is a fixed cost anyway.
(5) He thought it would give the Leave campaign a stick to beat him with because the outcome of any such planning would be easy to paint as an attempt to discredit Brexit or otherwise be regarded as inadequate.
Re UK citizens marrying non-EU citizens and rights of return:
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
Which is fine until you get to the point that the UK government is powerless to apply it to non-UK EU citizens.
One of my sons, some 15 years ago met, and a year or so later, married a very nice Thai lady. They now have three children and although they have a very nice life-style in Thailand he says that he ‘doesn’t rule out’ returning to the UK. She is, of course, a Thai citizen; the children have dual nationality. I wonder whether, in thinking he can bring his family here to live, he’s being wildly over optimistic. His wife has some qualifications, but nothing significant. He is an export consultant; earns well, but not megabucks.
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern this. He didn't even come close).
I think you missed my point. Referenda are un-British. I don't support them and this one was deeply flawed as the question was too simplistic, hence why all the subsequent ambiguity. This one is fundamentally undemocratic as it did not allow any "middle-way", or the possibility to ask again for approval of a subsequent deal. GEs happen every 5 years so people have a democratic right to change their mind. We will pay the price of its stupidity for generations to come both economically and politically.
I agree the referendum was flawed. Of course it was.
But it was the only chance I was ever going to get to do anything to stop the direction of travel I did not like. The fact that Lisbon vote was reneged on weighed heavily in my calculation.
This was it, the sole chance in my lifetime (I was at primary school in 1975). there was no 45/55 grey box. It was all or nothing. So I chose all.
I do not regret it for a moment, because I want to live in that responsive democracy to my dying day, and I simply lost any faith that the EU was or could become that, because my judgement was democracy was always going to be subverted to "ever closer union".
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
Fine. Put a vote on the Monarchy (or whatever) in a manifesto. Have the other two possible parties of government join you, effectively depriving the electorate of a choice because all are agreed. Win the election. And then don't hold the vote.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern this. He didn't even come close).
I think you missed my point. Referenda are un-British. I don't support them and this one was deeply flawed as the question was too simplistic, hence why all the subsequent ambiguity. This one is fundamentally undemocratic as it did not allow any "middle-way", or the possibility to ask again for approval of a subsequent deal. GEs happen every 5 years so people have a democratic right to change their mind. We will pay the price of its stupidity for generations to come both economically and politically.
I agree the referendum was flawed. Of course it was.
But it was the only chance I was ever going to get to do anything to stop the direction of travel I did not like. The fact that Lisbon vote was reneged on weighed heavily in my calculation.
This was it, the sole chance in my lifetime (I was at primary school in 1975). there was no 45/55 grey box. It was all or nothing. So I chose all.
I do not regret it for a moment, because I want to live in that responsive democracy to my dying day, and I simply lost any faith that the EU was or could become that, because my judgement was democracy was always going to be subverted to "ever closer union".
Can we have some clarity in these perpetual moans from Remainers …
(1) Remain had all then advantages during the referendum. The government, TV, especially the BBC (with the exception of the three week purdah period), and the money that was spent.
(2) The lack of preparation and plan was down to one man. David Cameron. He prevented the civil service working on alternative plans - something they would automatically have done. Yet somehow it's all Brexit's fault. I had no ready-made plan in my pocket, and neither had Labour,for exactly the same reason. We're not in charge of the civil service. This isn't rocket science, but why hasn't Cameron been widely castigated for this cock-up?
(3) After a binary referendum, the idea of appealing to the Remainers by accepting many of their policies is akin to Labour winning a GE and taking on much of the Tory manifesto. Why?
(4) The country is split. Another referendum, and possibly another after that until we get the 'right' answer won't solve that.
Two is such bullshit.
He asked for prep to be done but the civil service couldn’t reconcile the contradictions in the Leave campaigns.
Such as we’re leaving the single market but no one is threatening our place in the single market.
They began planning but could reconcile the unbelievable promises of Leave and Yes.
For example Yes said the Bank of England would be an Independent Scotland’s lender of last resort and the FCA/PRA would supervise the Financial Services/Banking sectors, both would have been illegal.
You can make any crap you want legal if you want to.
That's what fascists/nationalists always believe. Glad you have told us where you stand
You cretin, Tories do it all the time
Good to see you conforming to the abusive stereotype of all extremists, particularly those of a nationalist/fascist preference. You are also wrong in your childish statement. Although the Tory party has been infiltrated by English Nationalists (their eyes swivel in the opposite direction to yours, but otherwise they are very similar), proper Conservatives believe in the rule of law.
Mr. P, doesn't the Civil Service, as a matter of course, run contingency planning for various election results?
They do, indeed more recently they actually hold meetings with shadow ministers. Obviously that wasn't necessary in this case since Cameron had promised to carry on and implement the result of the referendum....
I agree the referendum was flawed. Of course it was.
But it was the only chance I was ever going to get to do anything to stop the direction of travel I did not like. The fact that Lisbon vote was reneged on weighed heavily in my calculation.
This was it, the sole chance in my lifetime (I was at primary school in 1975). there was no 45/55 grey box. It was all or nothing. So I chose all.
I do not regret it for a moment, because I want to live in that responsive democracy to my dying day, and I simply lost any faith that the EU was or could become that, because my judgement was democracy was always going to be subverted to "ever closer union".
You may disagree, fair enough.
(Presses lightly on Post Comment).
I agree with this almost entirely.
It does look like the deal will be a bit of a fudge, in order to try and keep as many people as possible content, not happy as that's almost impossible. If we finally leave the EU as far as I'm concerned it's job done. We can diverge further over time, and we won't be bound to ever closer union.
When the sky doesn't come crashing down we can go back to worrying about actually important things again.
Mr. P, doesn't the Civil Service, as a matter of course, run contingency planning for various election results?
Indeed a lot of time at both central and local Government level is spent planning for things which will hopefully never happen. Most County Council Emergency Planning departments have plans for all kinds of disasters ranging from plane crashes to riots to the zombie apocalypse.
Finance departments scenario plan for budgetary difficulties and are doing plenty of that at present. I am confident Hammond will throw local Government a substantial lifeline of several hundred million in the Budget (you can forget tax cuts) to help offset rising care costs but at the moment that can't be assumed and if your Council is millions in the hold what can you do?
I'm certain the Civil Service looked at the consequences of a LEAVE win and probably advised that without an immediate triggering of A50 (for which no one had really been prepared), there wouldn't be anything too severe. After all, we were still in the EU then as we still are now.
If Cameron thought it would show Brexit in a bad light, he have been all in favour of it. He may be arrogant but he was an excellent politician. I can only assume he was frit of some of the possible options getting credibility.
Mr Eagles, Micky Mouse contingency plans by a private company would have no credibility, but the CS would. I'm not downplaying the quality of your people, but they would have their own specialised motives.
Seems like the ERG have put forward a much saner solution to Northern Ireland than the ludicrous backstop. Let's hope it gets adopted and we can move on. Won't hold my breath.
Barnier would throw it out in less than 5 minutes, so it won't
I agree the referendum was flawed. Of course it was.
But it was the only chance I was ever going to get to do anything to stop the direction of travel I did not like. The fact that Lisbon vote was reneged on weighed heavily in my calculation.
This was it, the sole chance in my lifetime (I was at primary school in 1975). there was no 45/55 grey box. It was all or nothing. So I chose all.
I do not regret it for a moment, because I want to live in that responsive democracy to my dying day, and I simply lost any faith that the EU was or could become that, because my judgement was democracy was always going to be subverted to "ever closer union".
You may disagree, fair enough.
(Presses lightly on Post Comment).
I agree with this almost entirely.
It does look like the deal will be a bit of a fudge, in order to try and keep as many people as possible content, not happy as that's almost impossible. If we finally leave the EU as far as I'm concerned it's job done. We can diverge further over time, and we won't be bound to ever closer union.
When the sky doesn't come crashing down we can go back to worrying about actually important things again.
A fudge brexit will definitely be more preferable to most than the hard boiled variety
Re UK citizens marrying non-EU citizens and rights of return:
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
Isn't that what the primary purpose rule was for? Why hasn't it or something similar designed to deal with the particular problems of young girls of South East Asian origin being forced into marriage been reintroduced?
Because designing such a rule that catches the wrongdoers whilst ensuring genuine cases do not fall foul of it is extremely hard.
Really? A woman contacts her Doctor / Social Worker / Copper / etc and says "I am in a forced marriage. Help!", how hard can it be to check if she was married abroad very young? She must have a marriage licence somewhere or how did her hubby get in to the UK?
No one runs from a happy, mutual-consent marriage and shouts for help in getting divorced.
I would like to know if, post-Brexit, he will be returning to the UK to live in the paradise he is so passionate about.
TBF, it is a question that could be asked of other "remote Leavers" who urge a risky course (Brexit) from the safety of their ex-pat bunkers
Who are you to tell British citizens who pay UK taxes where they should live - regardless of how they voted?
I never mentioned taxes, nor am I telling anyone where to live. I was merely wondering if those pushing the "Leave" agenda from abroad are prepared to live in the post-Brexit UK that they argue for. Brexit has no consequences for them but it does for those of us who stay in the UK.
If they refuse to live in post-Brexit Britain then I think that diminishes any argument they put forward on its behalf - and that is the politest I can put it.
Of course you didn't mention taxes because you don't understand that probably the majority of Brits who live abroad pay probably the bulk of their taxes straight into the UK coffers. I certainly do and as a British citizen I take the old-fashioned view that this gives me every right to comment on the actions of the UK government. Your implication seems to be that if British citizens choose to live outside the UK that diminishes them in some way.I beg to differ. We have as much right as anyone to opine on matters pertaining to the UK as any other citizen - including even those with dual passports.
I think your core reason for leaving resonates with millions of leavers. Whatever type of Brexit we end up with we can be assured the direction of travel regarding further EU integration will have been reversed, and will undo the surrender of powers that have taken place in the past generation. For many of the 17 million this alone will be cause for satisfaction. Some of the most ardent Europhiles fail to realise that the majority of voters on both sides are not overly concerned or understanding of the specifics, it is our broad relationship with the EU rather than the type of deal that matters most.
Gospozha Sandpit will still need a QTS qualification (assuming she already has RFL quals) to teach in the UK (assuming her Ukranian degree is recognised which is another expensive and lengthy rigmarole). I have never heard of a single subject Russian teacher although somewhere like St Pauls might have one.
My school had one - the delightful Olga. Late 80s/early 90s, reasonably well-ranking Midlands independent school.
Comments
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/could-a-visit-to-ireland-still-be-on-the-cards-trumps-economic-chief-not-convinced-us-presidents-trip-is-cancelled-37308093.html
By far the easiest way would be to find a passport office worker in Bucharest who earns €500 a month..... which is easy. That’s not how things should be.
Funny how Remainers are always especially quiet on that latter one, because that was the moment they went double or quits. " Yeah we know we are blatantly reneging on a manifesto promise by all parties, but we are not going to trust the voters on this, so sod 'em. They'll have to suck it up, because there isn't a way back from this without actually leaving, and they will never get there in a month of Sundays". I think that about sums it up. If it was such a great idea why did Brown sneak in under cover of darkness to sign it rather than in the full glare of publicity. Beacause he knew what he was doing, and deep down he knew it was plain wrong is my guess.
We never voted for what we ended up in.
So yes once we've left and it's bedded in, let's have votes about every 15 years. Just like we should've done between 1975 and 2016.
https://www.scribd.com/document/388422755/ERG-The-Border-Between-Northern-Ireland-and-the-Republic-of-Ireland#download&from_embed
Of course people will view this through their prism of preconceptions, but it isn't the car crash that I was expecting - actually it seems somewhat reasonable. The problem is the short timescale to get it done, and then the need to have real punishments for people who game the system (on both sides).
This says more about AM than the supposed subject
https://twitter.com/pollycurtis/status/1039619899465887750
Why don't we have referenda on the UN, NATO, The Commonwealth, The Monarchy, the House of Lords, our unwritten constitution, the Established Church, our system of local government, the police etc.etc.?
I was simply taking the rise out of Mr Alanbrooke's position. Funny how the swivel-eyed only want votes on their favourite subject, EUROPE. that terrible place that is full of ghastly furriners. Referenda are a very un-British way of making policy, hence the problems with this one. For the record, I didn't favour this recent fiasco, and I don't favour any more. The only benefit would be to wind up paranoid negative Leave voters
This sounds like some of that levelling down that Tories always claim to be against. Lack of rights all round! Great.
As with schools term time holiday prohibition, it's aimed at a certain segment of population. One can't clearly say that though so the policy is applied widely regardless of consequence. If civil servants apply rules in a subjective way there would be the usual complaints.
In this case we can commit to CETA and everything will be fine.
The problem is that the EU want a veto and that cannot happen. But the ERG are showing the way that this can be solved. High class people doing what they were elected to do.
Gospozha Sandpit will still need a QTS qualification (assuming she already has RFL quals) to teach in the UK (assuming her Ukranian degree is recognised which is another expensive and lengthy rigmarole). I have never heard of a single subject Russian teacher although somewhere like St Pauls might have one. She'd probably have to double up with another language and/or subject. Spanish teachers are the hot property at the moment for some reason.
And a thank you to @AlistairMeeks for a very good article. Nothing to disagree with. The Tories are immolating themselves on Brexit. I couldn't really care less about them but they are immolating the country as well and making a Corbyn government evermore likely and I care about that very much indeed.
If they refuse to live in post-Brexit Britain then I think that diminishes any argument they put forward on its behalf - and that is the politest I can put it.
Isn't that what the primary purpose rule was for? Why hasn't it or something similar designed to deal with the particular problems of young girls of South East Asian origin being forced into marriage been reintroduced?
why do they bother ?
There was a commitment to hold a referendum on the Constitution.
Giscard D'Estaing came up with his grandiose plans for integration. Straw, amongst others, dragged a reluctant Blair to offering a vote because it was so far reaching. The French and the Dutch said no. So in responsive democracy there would've been a rethink and a coming back to the table with something far more watered down to vote on.
But no this is the EU. Nothing can stop ever closer union, certainly nothing as trivial as whether the governed actually want it. They have to be told what's good for them. So they crossed out the title, called it a treaty and hey presto with one bound they were free from British voters because "governments negotiate "treaties", and so we don't need a vote".
What could possibly go wrong?
Granted Brown was the patsy holding the baby when it peed on him, because Blair had shuffled off stage by then. He gets the blame for not stopping it when he could have, but don't think I absolve Blair either. They were both utter fools on this, and gave the whole debate added impetus to an even bigger decision.
I learnt they won't let you vote your way out of EU integration, if you are in the EU. They'll even stop you voting if they think they are going to lose. So voting out is the only way to stop that. All else is noise.
That's what happened. That's why so many of us started seriously looking askance at the whole situation. (I really wanted Cameron to come back with something meaningful to change the direction of my thought pattern on this. He didn't even come close).
And I pressed the key rather gently as it happens.
The issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been allowed to frame the Brexit negotiations. Both the UK and the European Union have committed to introduce no new physical infrastructure. There is, at present, a border between the two countries for tax, VAT, currency, excise and security; these are managed using technologies without infrastructure at the physical border.
The key obstacle in the negotiations is the EU’s concern that goods could enter into the Single Market area through the Irish border without being compliant with EU standards or tariffs. The question for the EU is whether this risk to the integrity of the Single Market is so serious that it could block a Free Trade Agreement with the UK.
It is in the interest of all parties to ensure that this is resolved as easily as possible and that the current border arrangements are modified to deal with the necessary extra checks. Both the CEO of HMRC and the Head of Irish Revenue have confirmed that there will be no need for new customs facilities on the border to make this happen.
The checks that are required post-Brexit to retain the integrity of the EU Single Market and Customs Union include customs declarations, declarations of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary checks and checks on product compliance
Cross-border trade on the island of Ireland is mostly comprised of regular shipments of the same goods. This repetitive trade is well suited to established technical solutions and simplified customs procedures already available in the Union Customs Code.
Larger companies may take advantage of trusted trader-type schemes. This status provides assurance of a high degree of compliance and hence entitles the bearer to simplified procedures
For all companies, the requirements for additional declarations can be incorporated into the existing system used for VAT returns. Licensed customs brokers can be engaged to support businesses in dealing with rules of origin and customs arrangements.
For agricultural products, the Government should agree equivalence of UK and EU regulations and conformity assessment. Since UK and EU standards are identical and will remain identical at the point of departure, determining equivalence after Brexit should be straightforward. The current smooth movement of agricultural products across the Irish border, without the need for border inspection posts, can be continued by maintaining the island of Ireland as a Common Biosecurity Zone.
The proposals set out below can be realised within the existing legal and operational frameworks of the EU and the UK, based on the mutual trust on which regular trade depends. Any risk of fraud or smuggling can be addressed by effective co-operation by authorities on both sides of the border, as already occurs with smuggling of drugs, cigarettes, fuel and alcohol.
Such measures can ensure that the trade across the Irish border is maintained. They do nothing to alter the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and do not violate the Principle of Consent enshrined in the Belfast Agreement. The integrity of the EU Single Market is safeguarded. The UK and the EU would be free to conclude a far-reaching Free Trade Agreement.
Harnessing the latest developments in international best practice can deliver continued co-operation and prosperity in the best interests of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
It's true that it's perfectly sane, albeit vague on the crucial point of issue:
- Initial full regulatory alignment, making goods unacceptable for sale in the Republic of Ireland equally unacceptable in Northern Ireland.
- Data-sharing and co-operation between authorities can raise suspected non-compliance or infringement speedily if regulations diverge
How can it be that DD didn't get agreement on this from our EU friends, if it's so easy?
https://twitter.com/jjvincent/status/1039834968745287681
SNP, the clue is in the name
The alternative was we said "no". The Lisbon Treaty would be never have come in effect. As I said, in a responsive democratic environment something would've been done to water the process down to allay the fears of a majority of those voting "no" in the UK electorate. If they didn't, nothing happened, we just stayed as we were pre Lisbon.
Why was that "obviously silly"?
Now if that resulted in "deadlock" and made "decsion making amonst the EU countries harder" well think of something different, or give us opt out or whatever. If you just blatantly ignore the concerns of the voters don't be surprised if it eventually comes back and bites you on the bum. Which is what happened.
Options ….
(1) He was worried it might show some popular options, and thereby give it credibility.
(2) Hubris.
(3) Fear of giving it the oxygen of publicity.
(4) Cost. Don't snigger, I know he splurged £9 million on a Pro-Remain leaflet and the CS is a fixed cost anyway.
The government currently proposes to write to claimentts saying they will end their payments and asking them to re apply for UC .
The government especially for severely disabled children , should migrate the information they already hold.Then ask them to say this is still correct.
If they do not do this , they will create a crisis , when one could be avoided.
The PM should listen to the concerns.
I agree the referendum was flawed. Of course it was.
But it was the only chance I was ever going to get to do anything to stop the direction of travel I did not like. The fact that Lisbon vote was reneged on weighed heavily in my calculation.
This was it, the sole chance in my lifetime (I was at primary school in 1975). there was no 45/55 grey box. It was all or nothing. So I chose all.
I do not regret it for a moment, because I want to live in that responsive democracy to my dying day, and I simply lost any faith that the EU was or could become that, because my judgement was democracy was always going to be subverted to "ever closer union".
You may disagree, fair enough.
(Presses lightly on Post Comment).
It is not possible they could write it before the vote.
I wonder whether, in thinking he can bring his family here to live, he’s being wildly over optimistic. His wife has some qualifications, but nothing significant. He is an export consultant; earns well, but not megabucks.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brett-kavanaugh-debts-sheldon-whitehouse_us_5b982a36e4b0511db3e6e487
Obviously that wasn't necessary in this case since Cameron had promised to carry on and implement the result of the referendum....
It does look like the deal will be a bit of a fudge, in order to try and keep as many people as possible content, not happy as that's almost impossible. If we finally leave the EU as far as I'm concerned it's job done. We can diverge further over time, and we won't be bound to ever closer union.
When the sky doesn't come crashing down we can go back to worrying about actually important things again.
Finance departments scenario plan for budgetary difficulties and are doing plenty of that at present. I am confident Hammond will throw local Government a substantial lifeline of several hundred million in the Budget (you can forget tax cuts) to help offset rising care costs but at the moment that can't be assumed and if your Council is millions in the hold what can you do?
I'm certain the Civil Service looked at the consequences of a LEAVE win and probably advised that without an immediate triggering of A50 (for which no one had really been prepared), there wouldn't be anything too severe. After all, we were still in the EU then as we still are now.
If Cameron thought it would show Brexit in a bad light, he have been all in favour of it. He may be arrogant but he was an excellent politician. I can only assume he was frit of some of the possible options getting credibility.
Mr Eagles, Micky Mouse contingency plans by a private company would have no credibility, but the CS would. I'm not downplaying the quality of your people, but they would have their own specialised motives.
No one runs from a happy, mutual-consent marriage and shouts for help in getting divorced.
I think your core reason for leaving resonates with millions of leavers. Whatever type of Brexit we end up with we can be assured the direction of travel regarding further EU integration will have been reversed, and will undo the surrender of powers that have taken place in the past generation. For many of the 17 million this alone will be cause for satisfaction. Some of the most ardent Europhiles fail to realise that the majority of voters on both sides are not overly concerned or understanding of the specifics, it is our broad relationship with the EU rather than the type of deal that matters most.