Hi Beverly_C ... "otherwise we are heading for the WTO cliff or EU vassalage". Which of those would you choose?
Vasslage. The economic effects should be less bad than falling off the WTO cliff. I have no desire to see the UK driven into the brick wall of Leave's fantasy, although, in the aftermath, watching them deny it is their fault would be highly entertaining.
As someone who voted Remain, and who continues to think we'll be fortunate if Brexit can be contained to be merely a mistake rather than a disaster, I have to say that the only significant new piece of information since the referendum is that the economic damage from Brexit uncertainty, so far at least, is less than anyone expected. It's hard to see how that justifies a rerun of the People's Vote. That's the plain truth of the matter; sorry guys'n'gals.
Agree with your general point. However, the sheer incompetence of those who advocated Leave surely counts as a "significant new piece of information"?
As someone who voted Remain, and who continues to think we'll be fortunate if Brexit can be contained to be merely a mistake rather than a disaster, I have to say that the only significant new piece of information since the referendum is that the economic damage from Brexit uncertainty, so far at least, is less than anyone expected. It's hard to see how that justifies a rerun of the People's Vote. That's the plain truth of the matter; sorry guys'n'gals.
Fine. If I am wrong about effects of Brexit then the UK will be fine and I will have egg on my face. I can live with that.
If you are wrong, the UK will be screwed up. I hope you can live with that.
Why should I have trouble living with being shown to be right? If voters want to ignore warnings from people like me and David Cameron, more fool them, but as a democrat I'd say that's better than the alternative.
As someone who voted Remain, and who continues to think we'll be fortunate if Brexit can be contained to be merely a mistake rather than a disaster, I have to say that the only significant new piece of information since the referendum is that the economic damage from Brexit uncertainty, so far at least, is less than anyone expected. It's hard to see how that justifies a rerun of the People's Vote. That's the plain truth of the matter; sorry guys'n'gals.
Agree with your general point. However, the sheer incompetence of those who advocated Leave surely counts as a "significant new piece of information"?
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
Hi Beverly_C ... "otherwise we are heading for the WTO cliff or EU vassalage". Which of those would you choose?
Vasslage. The economic effects should be less bad than falling off the WTO cliff. I have no desire to see the UK driven into the brick wall of Leave's fantasy, although, in the aftermath, watching them deny it is their fault would be highly entertaining.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
If the sovreign will of the people was to abolish death, we could not enact it. There are some things that "sovereign will" cannot accomplish.
The world is more interconnected than at any previous time in history. There are more limits on "sovereign will" than ever before. It is called progress.
As someone who voted Remain, and who continues to think we'll be fortunate if Brexit can be contained to be merely a mistake rather than a disaster, I have to say that the only significant new piece of information since the referendum is that the economic damage from Brexit uncertainty, so far at least, is less than anyone expected. It's hard to see how that justifies a rerun of the People's Vote. That's the plain truth of the matter; sorry guys'n'gals.
Agree with your general point. However, the sheer incompetence of those who advocated Leave surely counts as a "significant new piece of information"?
No, we knew that.
Fair enough. Must say the breathtaking full extent of it continues to confound me on an almost daily basis. Maybe I was naive...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
Hi Beverly_C ... "otherwise we are heading for the WTO cliff or EU vassalage". Which of those would you choose?
Vasslage. The economic effects should be less bad than falling off the WTO cliff. I have no desire to see the UK driven into the brick wall of Leave's fantasy, although, in the aftermath, watching them deny it is their fault would be highly entertaining.
Thank you. Very telling.
Telling? That I am prepared to chose the lesser of two evils?
Okay, Brexit can't be delivered in less than 10 years and possibly not in less than 20- by which time public opinion will have swung against it and one or probably both of the main parties will be committed to remaining/rejoining. So there is at best a very narrow window whereby we could just about slip out if a set of unlikely but not impossible circumstances arise. Common sense cries out to stop it now.
I think Corbyn would be a disaster. What he wants wouldn’t work in my view in ten or twenty years, by which time anyway, I’ve little doubt opinion will have changed and we will have royally booted him out big time. However, if he wins 330 seats next time he can form a narrow majority govt and have a go. What wouldn’t be right is preventing him from forming a govt for nearly three years whilst we all moan about the impact his policies would have, and hankering for a rerun of the GE before he’s even sat down in Downing St because “ we think know more now about his policies than we did”.
Do we live in a free country with a responsive democracy or not? If not, I fear the consequences for our society, because the ballot box will demonstrably have been shown not to count.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
As this lamentable Government confirmed in the Brexit White Paper, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
As this lamentable Government confirmed in the Brexit White Paper, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
Do you disagree?
If we can't leave when we want to because it's "impossible" then obviously no were were not sovereign?
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Unlike the folk on here who are tremendously well informed, though mysteriously not especially good at predictions, most people would assume that if the government offers them a choice of options then both options are viable. I certainly assumed that before the vote was called some office somewhere in Whitehall had put together a plan for how it was to be implemented. Mugged is a pretty good adjective, and it applies to remain voters like myself as well. I did think through how to vote before I cast it - but it turns out I needn't have bothered putting in the effort. The guys selling it hadn't.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
As this lamentable Government confirmed in the Brexit White Paper, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
Do you disagree?
(Post script. Much as most of our trade _is_ via Dover, it just didn’t feel like it. To the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that is.)
Unlike the folk on here who are tremendously well informed, though mysteriously not especially good at predictions, most people would assume that if the government offers them a choice of options then both options are viable. I certainly assumed that before the vote was called some office somewhere in Whitehall had put together a plan for how it was to be implemented. Mugged is a pretty good adjective, and it applies to remain voters like myself as well. I did think through how to vote before I cast it - but it turns out I needn't have bothered putting in the effort. The guys selling it hadn't.
In July 2016, on the eve of his appointment as secretary of state for Brexit, David Davis predicted that the whole thing would be a doddle. Brussels would cater to Britain’s needs and the prime minister would simultaneously negotiate “a free trade area massively larger than the EU”. Within a year, Davis had changed his tune. It was complicated, he conceded. In June 2017, he told an audience of business leaders that the intricacies of the negotiations “make the Nasa moonshot look quite simple”. In July 2018, Davis resigned.
He is not the only gung-ho Eurosceptic to meet a steep learning curve in government. His successor, Dominic Raab, is at a different stage on the journey, but the trajectory looks familiar. His speech to Tory conference this year had the swagger of the Brexit buccaneer who has yet to experience the pitch and roll of open water. “If the EU want a deal, they need to get serious,” he said. He did not specify what aspect of the continental position was, in his eminent opinion, unserious.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
Yes. We are also sovereign to declare war on the USA, Russia and China at the same time. It is not impossible. The issue is whether it is a good idea or not.
As someone who voted Remain, and who continues to think we'll be fortunate if Brexit can be contained to be merely a mistake rather than a disaster, I have to say that the only significant new piece of information since the referendum is that the economic damage from Brexit uncertainty, so far at least, is less than anyone expected. It's hard to see how that justifies a rerun of the People's Vote. That's the plain truth of the matter; sorry guys'n'gals.
Agree with your general point. However, the sheer incompetence of those who advocated Leave surely counts as a "significant new piece of information"?
No, we knew that.
Fair enough. Must say the breathtaking full extent of it continues to confound me on an almost daily basis. Maybe I was naive...
As a party member Richard no doubt sees the abject idiocy of the Conservative Leavers at close quarters. I have to say the complete ineptness of every Leaver who has sought to effect Brexit has not surprised me.
I’m not a fan of a second referendum unless it looks likely to produce a decisive result either way. At present it doesn’t. As a result Britain is entering a long term tailspin.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
As this lamentable Government confirmed in the Brexit White Paper, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
Do you disagree?
If we can't leave when we want to because it's "impossible" then obviously no were were not sovereign?
Sigh. We can and are leaving. But our destination won’t be the promised sunlit uplands. You really don’t get it after all this time and these millions of words.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
A diamond hard Brexit was always possible, and still is.
What makes it disastrous is the near total incompetence of the Tory government to prepare for it.
We have spent the last 12 months trying to break our word that we agreed last December in the WA. The Tories have sown the wind, they will reap the whirlwind.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
... set against the benefits of leaving. These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
As this lamentable Government confirmed in the Brexit White Paper, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
Do you disagree?
(Post script. Much as most of our trade _is_ via Dover, it just didn’t feel like it. To the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that is.)
Our trade is 55% to 60% RoW and 45% to 40% EU. So how can most of our trade come via Dover?
oh, you mean vote again until you get the result you want.
How very EU
No. Vote again because we now have a much clearer idea of the brick wall the Leavers are pointing us at.
And if people still vote to leave, what then? Will you accept the result then? The polls have hardly changed in two and a half years, despite well over two years of relentless campaigning from the remain side.
A second referendum, particularly a "people's" vote that can be framed as the establishment dismissing the first one for the wrong type of people voting for the wrong sort of thing, would have no guarantee of victory.
So what then? A third? A fourth? How many will it take?
If people reinforce the Leave vote, then we Leave no matter how bad or disastrous it will be. But there cannot be any recriminations from Leavers if the whole thing is a pile of poop.
If the country is certain it wants to indulge in a national hiri-kiri then so be it, but we should have the opportunity to step back from the precipice.
Yet we were told there would only be one chance ot say remain - we were told that again and again.
Of course now remain lost they want to forget all of that
As I say how very EU
The calls for a #peoplesvote are not coming from the EU, they are coming from Britons in Britain.
23.6.16 was a people's vote.
We had a 'people's vote' on 2015-05-07. We had another on 2017-06-08. Whilst many Conservatives might want to wipe the latter from their memory, I am unconvinced many people believe it was not a 'people's vote' or in any way invalid because of its proximity to a previous vote.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
He's going to be a disaster... Luckily it'll be a relatively short reign so the monarchy should manage to survive whatever damage he does to it.
Hi Beverly_C ... "otherwise we are heading for the WTO cliff or EU vassalage". Which of those would you choose?
Vasslage. The economic effects should be less bad than falling off the WTO cliff. I have no desire to see the UK driven into the brick wall of Leave's fantasy, although, in the aftermath, watching them deny it is their fault would be highly entertaining.
Thank you. Very telling.
Telling? That I am prepared to chose the lesser of two evils?
More like common sense....
You are looking at things factually. Brexit is not about facts, it is about emotion. Emotion on both sides of the argument.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
He's going to be a disaster... Luckily it'll be a relatively short reign so the monarchy should manage to survive whatever damage he does to it.
Okay, Brexit can't be delivered in less than 10 years and possibly not in less than 20- by which time public opinion will have swung against it and one or probably both of the main parties will be committed to remaining/rejoining. So there is at best a very narrow window whereby we could just about slip out if a set of unlikely but not impossible circumstances arise. Common sense cries out to stop it now.
I think Corbyn would be a disaster. What he wants wouldn’t work in my view in ten or twenty years, by which time anyway, I’ve little doubt opinion will have changed and we will have royally booted him out big time. However, if he wins 330 seats next time he can form a narrow majority govt and have a go. What wouldn’t be right is preventing him from forming a govt for nearly three years whilst we all moan about the impact his policies would have, and hankering for a rerun of the GE before he’s even sat down in Downing St because “ we think know more now about his policies than we did”.
Do we live in a free country with a responsive democracy or not? If not, I fear the consequences for our society, because the ballot box will demonstrably have been shown not to count.
The better analogy would be that Corbyn ran on a manifesto that had no detail at all, and having won only then started working on how he was going put the programme into practice - only to discover that his programme didn't command a majority in the House of Commons. In that case demonstrations calling for his resignation and a fresh election would be perfectly reasonable.
And even then, we'd get the chance to vote him out in 5 years if the Labour Party itself hadn't already done so.
The ballot box would still count.
Getting back to the real world, if the government chose to cancel Brexit tomorrow - which let's face it is not impossible - there is nothing stopping voters switching to UKIP or insisting that their MP supports Brexit in the future. The Lib Dem MP in Eastbourne has made just such a commitment to his electors.
Abandoning Brexit now does not threaten democracy and if people want the country out we will leave - but we can't do so without putting in the hard work of arranging how we are going to unpick the jumper we've knitted first.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
... set against the benefits of leaving. These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
Two points:
1. The international situation (both EU and rest-of-world) means that there will be constraints on how "... we run our economy to suit ourselves". The world of today is very different from 50 or 100 years ago.
2. "The short run" may be decades long. It took the Irish about 70 years to get over their split. It certainly will not be measured in weeks or months.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
Monarchy is not about ability or suitability. It is about institutionalising inheiritance.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
Monarchy is not about ability or suitability. It is about institutionalising inheiritance.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
Hi Beverly_C ... "otherwise we are heading for the WTO cliff or EU vassalage". Which of those would you choose?
Vasslage. The economic effects should be less bad than falling off the WTO cliff. I have no desire to see the UK driven into the brick wall of Leave's fantasy, although, in the aftermath, watching them deny it is their fault would be highly entertaining.
Thank you. Very telling.
Telling? That I am prepared to chose the lesser of two evils?
More like common sense....
You are looking at things factually. Brexit is not about facts, it is about emotion. Emotion on both sides of the argument.
You are probably right.
Well, let the Leavers get on with it. It is their project, good luck to them.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
... set against the benefits of leaving. These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
Two points:
1. The international situation (both EU and rest-of-world) means that there will be constraints on how "... we run our economy to suit ourselves". The world of today is very different from 50 or 100 years ago.
2. "The short run" may be decades long. It took the Irish about 70 years to get over their split. It certainly will not be measured in weeks or months.
1: we can sign up or not to many of those constraints - our decision. 2: around 2 to 4 years imo.
I don't subscribe to any papers or magazines, and its an insult to suggest I am misinformed by some journo because I do not.
The journos are probably more misinformed than the rest of us, they just pick up fag ends to make a story.
aaah I see he writes for the New Statesman, . The title of the rag is misinformation in itself. Its a left wing rag innit>?? It calls itself liberal and independent.. LOL
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
Monarchy is not about ability or suitability. It is about institutionalising inheiritance.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
... set against the benefits of leaving. These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
Two points:
1. The international situation (both EU and rest-of-world) means that there will be constraints on how "... we run our economy to suit ourselves". The world of today is very different from 50 or 100 years ago.
2. "The short run" may be decades long. It took the Irish about 70 years to get over their split. It certainly will not be measured in weeks or months.
Yes Ireland voted to leave the U.K. despite the economics of the time. I think the Irish Free State is a good analogy for us. Get out, and the gradual salami slicing will work to separate us over time.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
He's going to be a disaster... Luckily it'll be a relatively short reign so the monarchy should manage to survive whatever damage he does to it.
Relative to his mother maybe - but he has very, very long lived genes. He could still reign for 30 years!
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
Monarchy is not about ability or suitability. It is about institutionalising inheiritance.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
It’s perfectly possible to support the institution whilst criticising the behaviour of the individual within it. I would have used even stronger language about Edward VIII.
There are rules about being a leading member of the royal family, and the heir, but Charles seems to think the rules don’t really apply to him, or can be bent.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
He's going to be a disaster... Luckily it'll be a relatively short reign so the monarchy should manage to survive whatever damage he does to it.
Relative to his mother maybe - but he has very, very long lived genes. He could still reign for 30 years!
Another cheap shot.. by gin 1138 He has no idea how Charles will behave as PM, just like no one knew how the current Queen was going to reign. If Twitter had been about in 1952 one could imagine the bile chucked at her because of her youth.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
It does show we’ve grown to be overly reliant on the port of Dover, at the expense of many of our other ports.
As someone who voted Remain, and who continues to think we'll be fortunate if Brexit can be contained to be merely a mistake rather than a disaster, I have to say that the only significant new piece of information since the referendum is that the economic damage from Brexit uncertainty, so far at least, is less than anyone expected. It's hard to see how that justifies a rerun of the People's Vote. That's the plain truth of the matter; sorry guys'n'gals.
Fine. If I am wrong about effects of Brexit then the UK will be fine and I will have egg on my face. I can live with that.
If you are wrong, the UK will be screwed up. I hope you can live with that.
Why should I have trouble living with being shown to be right? If voters want to ignore warnings from people like me and David Cameron, more fool them, but as a democrat I'd say that's better than the alternative.
David Cameron said leaving would not be a disaster.
Was he lying?
David Cameron put a vote to the Country on an issue we are now being told equates to economic suicide.
Doesn't really encourage me to trust a Conservative party if they were that reckless.
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
... set against the benefits of leaving. These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
Two points:
1. The international situation (both EU and rest-of-world) means that there will be constraints on how "... we run our economy to suit ourselves". The world of today is very different from 50 or 100 years ago.
2. "The short run" may be decades long. It took the Irish about 70 years to get over their split. It certainly will not be measured in weeks or months.
Yes Ireland voted to leave the U.K. despite the economics of the time. I think the Irish Free State is a good analogy for us. Get out, and the gradual salami slicing will work to separate us over time.
The early days of the IFS then ROI are not exactly glorious, poor and a land people departed from, with a declining population. As late as 1970, 90% of Irish exports were to the UK. Of course things transformed and it prospered after joining the EU.
If we are to follow the same trajectory, why not skip the 50 years of dependence and go straight to the EU membership?
Yet another thread where the more intense Leavers work backwards from their hatred of the EU to deduce that everything is going to be ok (to a given value of ok).
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
No, I am confirming that Brexit as sold at the referendum was a fantasy.
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Even David Cameron said more than once that "if we want to leave we can leave" - Now your saying we can't?
No. We CAN leave. The question is, how much economic damage are we prepared to tolerate.
... set against the benefits of leaving. These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
Two points:
1. The international situation (both EU and rest-of-world) means that there will be constraints on how "... we run our economy to suit ourselves". The world of today is very different from 50 or 100 years ago.
2. "The short run" may be decades long. It took the Irish about 70 years to get over their split. It certainly will not be measured in weeks or months.
Yes Ireland voted to leave the U.K. despite the economics of the time. I think the Irish Free State is a good analogy for us. Get out, and the gradual salami slicing will work to separate us over time.
The early days of the IFS then ROI are not exactly glorious, poor and a land people departed from, with a declining population. As late as 1970, 90% of Irish exports were to the UK. Of course things transformed and it prospered after joining the EU.
If we are to follow the same trajectory, why not skip the 50 years of dependence and go straight to the EU membership?
The analogy l use is not 100% of course. We are in a far better position than the IFS was at the outset.
IF the EU agrees to this, it has moved hugely. Remember it is still an organisation that thinks that membership of the CU and membership of the single market rise and fall together.
David Cameron said leaving would not be a disaster.
Was he lying?
David Cameron put a vote to the Country on an issue we are now being told equates to economic suicide.
Doesn't really encourage me to trust a Conservative party if they were that reckless.
One of my absolute pet hates is accusations of lying when a politician expresses an opinion or prediction about what might happen. Do you not know the difference between a lie and a prediction which turns out to be wrong?
As for whether leaving will be a disaster or not, that depends on what deal we get with our EU friends, and most of all on the vote in parliament on the deal. If parliament rejects a deal, yes, there is a risk it will be a disaster. I've planned my affairs to take account of that, I suggest others do the same, as far as they can.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
Actually our company does sell more to Inner (not Outer admittedly!) Mongolia than Ireland. Really!
What do you sell, tent pegs for yurts?
Funnily enough I had an enquiry from Mongolia a couple of months back. I did a quick reci and it looks a lot more prosperous than I had imagined. Could well be a growth market.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
It does show we’ve grown to be overly reliant on the port of Dover, at the expense of many of our other ports.
Really, are you serious? You’ll be saying we’ve grown too reliant on the sun for daylight next and should give the moon a fair chance.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
Monarchy is not about ability or suitability. It is about institutionalising inheiritance.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
Monarchy = Socialism!
From the programme I learned that the three negotiators at the armistice agreement were Foch(French - OK), Wemyss (British - who?) and Germany (Erzburger - double who). Foch became a national hero, Wemyss a one generation member of the House of Lords, and Erzburger was assassinated by right wingers.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
It does show we’ve grown to be overly reliant on the port of Dover, at the expense of many of our other ports.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
Actually our company does sell more to Inner (not Outer admittedly!) Mongolia than Ireland. Really!
What do you sell, tent pegs for yurts?
Funnily enough I had an enquiry from Mongolia a couple of months back. I did a quick reci and it looks a lot more prosperous than I had imagined. Could well be a growth market.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
He's going to be a disaster... Luckily it'll be a relatively short reign so the monarchy should manage to survive whatever damage he does to it.
Relative to his mother maybe - but he has very, very long lived genes. He could still reign for 30 years!
Another cheap shot.. by gin 1138 He has no idea how Charles will behave as PM, just like no one knew how the current Queen was going to reign. If Twitter had been about in 1952 one could imagine the bile chucked at her because of her youth.
Edward VII was expected to be a disaster, but actually turned out to be pretty good.
Edward VIII on the other hand looked every inch a king (at least as far as the public was concerned) and look how that turned out.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
Actually our company does sell more to Inner (not Outer admittedly!) Mongolia than Ireland. Really!
What do you sell, tent pegs for yurts?
Funnily enough I had an enquiry from Mongolia a couple of months back. I did a quick reci and it looks a lot more prosperous than I had imagined. Could well be a growth market.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
Actually our company does sell more to Inner (not Outer admittedly!) Mongolia than Ireland. Really!
What do you sell, tent pegs for yurts?
Funnily enough I had an enquiry from Mongolia a couple of months back. I did a quick reci and it looks a lot more prosperous than I had imagined. Could well be a growth market.
Mongolia is a member of the next group of countries to succeed the BRICS.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
Actually our company does sell more to Inner (not Outer admittedly!) Mongolia than Ireland. Really!
What do you sell, tent pegs for yurts?
Funnily enough I had an enquiry from Mongolia a couple of months back. I did a quick reci and it looks a lot more prosperous than I had imagined. Could well be a growth market.
I've just watched the BBC's documentary on Charles at 70.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
Monarchy is not about ability or suitability. It is about institutionalising inheiritance.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
Monarchy = Socialism!
From the programme I learned that the three negotiators at the armistice agreement were Foch(French - OK), Wemyss (British - who?) and Germany (Erzburger - double who). Foch became a national hero, Wemyss a one generation member of the House of Lords, and Erzburger was assassinated by right wingers.
Wemyss was First Sea Lord at the time. He is little known as the Navy saw little action after Jutland.
The Brexiteers have found an alternative to Dover and the channel tunnel that provides access to a unique, hitherto untapped market.
In April 2019, David Davis will unveil a new tunnel crossing. With our entrance in Yorkshire, the new tunnel provides a direct multidimensional link to 1950s Britain enabling us to trade with the best possible partner, ourselves.
The Brexiteers have found an alternative to Dover and the channel tunnel that provides access to a unique, hitherto untapped market.
In April 2019, David Davis will unveil a new tunnel crossing. With our entrance in Yorkshire, the new tunnel provides a direct multidimensional link to 1950s Britain enabling us to trade with the best possible partner, ourselves.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
It does show we’ve grown to be overly reliant on the port of Dover, at the expense of many of our other ports.
So why did we have a referendum asking if we wanted to remain or leave?
To appease the headbangers
Sounds far fetched to me...
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
As this lamentable Government confirmed in the Brexit White Paper, we were always sovereign, it just didn’t feel like it.
Do you disagree?
(Post script. Much as most of our trade _is_ via Dover, it just didn’t feel like it. To the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that is.)
Our trade is 55% to 60% RoW and 45% to 40% EU. So how can most of our trade come via Dover?
Through Dover to Calais and then to Rotterdam to the rest of the world.
The Brexiteers have found an alternative to Dover and the channel tunnel that provides access to a unique, hitherto untapped market.
In April 2019, David Davis will unveil a new tunnel crossing. With our entrance in Yorkshire, the new tunnel provides a direct multidimensional link to 1950s Britain enabling us to trade with the best possible partner, ourselves.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
It does show we’ve grown to be overly reliant on the port of Dover, at the expense of many of our other ports.
Really, are you serious? You’ll be saying we’ve grown too reliant on the sun for daylight next and should give the moon a fair chance.
Yes, I’m serious.
Felixstowe, Harwich, Hull and Southampton are under-utilised ports for European trade, and the ABP have said so. It’s not dissimilar to how recent travails with NAFTA have led Canada to realise it’s overly reliant on trade with the US and needs to develop and diversify its markets.
But, from reading your posts today, you are in ultra partisan mode today. You at your worst.
David Cameron said leaving would not be a disaster.
Was he lying?
David Cameron put a vote to the Country on an issue we are now being told equates to economic suicide.
Doesn't really encourage me to trust a Conservative party if they were that reckless.
One of my absolute pet hates is accusations of lying when a politician expresses an opinion or prediction about what might happen. Do you not know the difference between a lie and a prediction which turns out to be wrong?
As for whether leaving will be a disaster or not, that depends on what deal we get with our EU friends, and most of all on the vote in parliament on the deal. If parliament rejects a deal, yes, there is a risk it will be a disaster. I've planned my affairs to take account of that, I suggest others do the same, as far as they can.
How does anyone “plan their affairs” to take account of anything? What are your suggestions?
Most of us have very large mortgages, and little savings, with what’s left locked into a big-name managed stakeholder pension.
Perhaps, now that the current Brexit Sec.y is having to deal with hard facts, he is having to prepare his excuse so he can resign and then return to the comparative calm of the backbenches where he can look forward to someone else sorting out those tricky Brexit issues.....
Desperate rear guard, dead cat stunt, to cover for the news that he wasn't aware that we transport a lot of goods between France and UK via Calais and Dover.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
To be fair to Raab, the strategic significance of the Dover Calais Link is a highly specialised topic, quite opaque without years of experience or technical qualifications such as GCSE geography.
It does show we’ve grown to be overly reliant on the port of Dover, at the expense of many of our other ports.
Really, are you serious? You’ll be saying we’ve grown too reliant on the sun for daylight next and should give the moon a fair chance.
Yes, I’m serious.
Felixstowe, Harwich, Hull and Southampton are under-utilised ports for European trade, and the ABP have said so. It’s not dissimilar to how recent travails with NAFTA have led Canada to realise it’s overly reliant on trade with the US and needs to develop and diversify its markets.
But, from reading your posts today, you are in ultra partisan mode today. You at your worst.
I have no confidence in this government. That is not partisan.
Comments
But lets assume for a moment Brexit really can't be delivered, that means your admitting the UK is NOT "sovereign" (even though you always claimed we were) as in your own words it's "impossible" to enact the sovereign will of the people...
If you voted for it, you were mugged
Very telling.
The world is more interconnected than at any previous time in history. There are more limits on "sovereign will" than ever before. It is called progress.
https://youtu.be/yCm9Ng0bbEQ
More like common sense....
Do we live in a free country with a responsive democracy or not? If not, I fear the consequences for our society, because the ballot box will demonstrably have been shown not to count.
Do you disagree?
We can't deliver Brexit as sold during the referendum. It is a fantasy.
He is not the only gung-ho Eurosceptic to meet a steep learning curve in government. His successor, Dominic Raab, is at a different stage on the journey, but the trajectory looks familiar. His speech to Tory conference this year had the swagger of the Brexit buccaneer who has yet to experience the pitch and roll of open water. “If the EU want a deal, they need to get serious,” he said. He did not specify what aspect of the continental position was, in his eminent opinion, unserious.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/08/dominic-raab-britain-island-ignorance-brexit-secretary
The issue is whether it is a good idea or not.
I’m not a fan of a second referendum unless it looks likely to produce a decisive result either way. At present it doesn’t. As a result Britain is entering a long term tailspin.
I think it was supposed to provide us with reassurance that he gets the difference between being heir and sovereign, and to show him as a reasoned human being.
I'm afraid I wasn't convinced.
What makes it disastrous is the near total incompetence of the Tory government to prepare for it.
We have spent the last 12 months trying to break our word that we agreed last December in the WA. The Tories have sown the wind, they will reap the whirlwind.
These are obviously judgements. I think what economic damage might occur will be in the short run because of the disruption. In the longer run it will be pure benefit as we run our economy to suit ourselves.
In which case we're fucked
And even then, we'd get the chance to vote him out in 5 years if the Labour Party itself hadn't already done so.
The ballot box would still count.
Getting back to the real world, if the government chose to cancel Brexit tomorrow - which let's face it is not impossible - there is nothing stopping voters switching to UKIP or insisting that their MP supports Brexit in the future. The Lib Dem MP in Eastbourne has made just such a commitment to his electors.
https://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/eastbourne-mp-explains-why-he-did-not-vote-on-brexit-bill-1-8541529
Abandoning Brexit now does not threaten democracy and if people want the country out we will leave - but we can't do so without putting in the hard work of arranging how we are going to unpick the jumper we've knitted first.
Pathetic.
Raab has been busted as not up to the higher rank of politics.
1. The international situation (both EU and rest-of-world) means that there will be constraints on how "... we run our economy to suit ourselves". The world of today is very different from 50 or 100 years ago.
2. "The short run" may be decades long. It took the Irish about 70 years to get over their split. It certainly will not be measured in weeks or months.
I think Charles is fine, but even if he is crap, he is still king. If we want to assess and select a candidate on merit rather than genetic lottery then we should have an elected head of state.
The programme on BBC2 on "WW1: The Final Hours" was compelling history though, well worth watching.
The journos are probably more misinformed than the rest of us, they just pick up fag ends to make a story.
John Yoo thinks the sitting president is a god emporer so for him to say its an illegal action is pretty profound.
Then perhaps your reading habits are less relevant...
Well, let the Leavers get on with it. It is their project, good luck to them.
Good night
2: around 2 to 4 years imo.
Some of the shit being thrown at politicians is thrown by morons, whether they be MP's or Journos..
There are rules about being a leading member of the royal family, and the heir, but Charles seems to think the rules don’t really apply to him, or can be bent.
Was he lying?
David Cameron put a vote to the Country on an issue we are now being told equates to economic suicide.
Doesn't really encourage me to trust a Conservative party if they were that reckless.
If we are to follow the same trajectory, why not skip the 50 years of dependence and go straight to the EU membership?
Apparently the grand Brexit plan is to export the industrial amounts of stupid they have been generating for 2 years
Was unaware they manufacture beer
As for whether leaving will be a disaster or not, that depends on what deal we get with our EU friends, and most of all on the vote in parliament on the deal. If parliament rejects a deal, yes, there is a risk it will be a disaster. I've planned my affairs to take account of that, I suggest others do the same, as far as they can.
Funnily enough I had an enquiry from Mongolia a couple of months back. I did a quick reci and it looks a lot more prosperous than I had imagined. Could well be a growth market.
Edward VIII on the other hand looked every inch a king (at least as far as the public was concerned) and look how that turned out.
In April 2019, David Davis will unveil a new tunnel crossing. With our entrance in Yorkshire, the new tunnel provides a direct multidimensional link to 1950s Britain enabling us to trade with the best possible partner, ourselves.
https://theloadstar.co.uk/new-po-terminal-elevate-tilbury-post-brexit-rival-port-dover/
Felixstowe, Harwich, Hull and Southampton are under-utilised ports for European trade, and the ABP have said so. It’s not dissimilar to how recent travails with NAFTA have led Canada to realise it’s overly reliant on trade with the US and needs to develop and diversify its markets.
But, from reading your posts today, you are in ultra partisan mode today. You at your worst.
Most of us have very large mortgages, and little savings, with what’s left locked into a big-name managed stakeholder pension.
We can’t really do anything about anything.