King Cole, then they'd be studying only half the relevant period, if that.
Maastricht and Lisbon, and the political climate around them, as well as broken promises, have helped lead us to the current situation.
All those carping about the impossibility or immense pain of leaving might ask why that is so. Why did our political class give away so much power? Why did they integrate us so much without ever consulting the electorate?
Suppose we end up remaining on practically identical terms (the rebate is almost certainly gone, but that aside). Every time there's a decision we oppose that is imposed upon us, the hint of treachery will linger in the air. Every time we're gouged for money, there'll be the memory we voted to end this.
Any positive decision we embrace and like will get no credit from sceptics because they'll claim we could have taken that ourselves. Every negative decision that is either against our national interest or against the electorate's preference will be seen as a triumph of the political class over the people, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy over a nation state that voted to leave and yet remained.
Economically there will be far less turbulence if we leave. Politically, I expect things to be bitter, seemingly simmer down, and gradually get worse and worse.
[Well, obviously, if you read that article I wrote yesterday].
People pretending staying in resolves this division are deluding themselves. The question is not whether we want division or unity, to leave or remain. It's what flavour of polarised bitterness you prefer.
You wanted to leave. You argued for leave. You voted to leave.
This is your mess. And your fellow leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless and incompetent. Your fellow travellers are the ones who have sown dissent, who have whinged and complained for decades.
It's a bit late for you to be complaining about divisions. Or do divisions only matter when they're against what you want?
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place. Remainers berate leavers for offering no solutions, but clearly remainers don't have solutions to the problems posed by remaining, either. If we stay, every time the EU does something unpopular - which it will - it will poison the well that little bit more, generating more and more resentment as people remember they voted to leave and were told they couldn't.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
I don't think Brexit was deliverable; there were too many inconsistencies in the leave campaigns, and 'Brexit' meant too many different things to different people. And for many of those people, it was a deeply-held religion or a theology.
Leavers have to be very careful about using the line: "It'd all have been different and worked if only we'd been in charge."
Brexit would have been a whole lot easier if the government had accepted freedom of movement, for example.
But no, TMay made that a red line.
Boles gets a lot of stick about EFTA, and having had access to some people involved prior to June 2016 I can say (and did then) that there was a lot of resistance against the UK joining the EEA/EFTA. But whatever the challenges might be, Norway is not in the EU and May's no freedom of movement has made that route now impossible.
The government chose to box itself in to an undeliverable option.
King Cole, then they'd be studying only half the relevant period, if that.
Maastricht and Lisbon, and the political climate around them, as well as broken promises, have helped lead us to the current situation.
All those carping about the impossibility or immense pain of leaving might ask why that is so. Why did our political class give away so much power? Why did they integrate us so much without ever consulting the electorate?
Suppose we end up remaining on practically identical terms (the rebate is almost certainly gone, but that aside). Every time there's a decision we oppose that is imposed upon us, the hint of treachery will linger in the air. Every time we're gouged for money, there'll be the memory we voted to end this.
Any positive decision we embrace and like will get no credit from sceptics because they'll claim we could have taken that ourselves. Every negative decision that is either against our national interest or against the electorate's preference will be seen as a triumph of the political class over the people, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy over a nation state that voted to leave and yet remained.
Economically there will be far less turbulence if we leave. Politically, I expect things to be bitter, seemingly simmer down, and gradually get worse and worse.
[Well, obviously, if you read that article I wrote yesterday].
People pretending staying in resolves this division are deluding themselves. The question is not whether we want division or unity, to leave or remain. It's what flavour of polarised bitterness you prefer.
You wanted to leave. You argued for leave. You voted to leave.
This is your mess. And your fellow leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless and incompetent. Your fellow travellers are the ones who have sown dissent, who have whinged and complained for decades.
It's a bit late for you to be complaining about divisions. Or do divisions only matter when they're against what you want?
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place. Remainers berate leavers for offering no solutions, but clearly remainers don't have solutions to the problems posed by remaining, either. If we stay, every time the EU does something unpopular - which it will - it will poison the well that little bit more, generating more and more resentment as people remember they voted to leave and were told they couldn't.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
I don't think Brexit was deliverable; there were too many inconsistencies in the leave campaigns, and 'Brexit' meant too many different things to different people. And for many of those people, it was a deeply-held religion or a theology.
Leavers have to be very careful about using the line: "It'd all have been different and worked if only we'd been in charge."
Vote Leave did exactly what they had to in order to win the vote in June 2016. Problem was, there was never a majority for the reality of Brexit, and what was enough to win the war isn't anywhere near enough to win the peace.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
Say we were at an absolutely critical point (not too far from the truth). A decision is made by everyone in parliament (inc. the Lords) that they will pass anything wrt Brexit that is agreed by a small cross-party group. Their decision will be final.
May is recused.
You have: Farage Davis Boris Hoey Corbyn Starmer Adonis Cable Sturgeon
And to add a little PB sanity, William Glenn and Casino Royale.
A decision is seen as agreed if all bar one are in agreement - i.e. near unanimity.
They get locked in a little room, are allowed to ask experts in (Gove excepted) for advice or projections. They are not allowed out until an agreement is made.
I reckon they'd be unable to come to an agreement. And that's the problem: there is no agreement to be had within the UK, yet alone one that would satisfy the EU.
We're screwed.
For all his tub thumping, Casino is capable of compromise and has suggested as much. It's the Mortimer tendency you'd want to avoid in that room – extremist ideologues with a kind face.
I agree: and there are one or two others who might compromise for the greater good (cue clip). But the problem is that we need a deal that these people would agree on: one they do not - and which somehow miraculously gets through parliament - will just lead to more arguments further down the line.
Brexiteers really are the biggest shits out there. They were warned pre-referendum that what they were offering was undeliverable, and they chose victory over common sense. We're living with the consequences.
Brexit was deliverable, albeit with many challenges.
What Brexit as defined and accepted by this government is undeliverable.
Yup may’s red lines were contradictory. If you want membership of the single market you must accept free movement of labour. It’s part of the gig. If you want a free trade agreement outside the single market you can have a Canada type looser trade agreement, but that will mean services wont be as easy, trade will require customs checks.
If you want the first you need to be subject to the ECJ.
May wanted the first without subject to ecj and free movement. NI is just the hanger to put it all on. Lashings of fudge can often get around matters. But the trust has broken down. I guess they cannot trust us to stay in the single market and not try to undercut them in a way other members would not be able to.
Other businesses don’t wants a Poundland on their high street....
And May triggered A50 without understanding any of this.
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place.
Neither does leaving the EU, it just makes them worse.
King Cole, then they'd be studying only half the relevant period, if that.
Maastricht and Lisbon, and the political climate around them, as well as broken promises, have helped lead us to the current situation.
All those carping about the impossibility or immense pain of leaving might ask why that is so. Why did our political class give away so much power? Why did they integrate us so much without ever consulting the electorate?
Suppose we end up remaining on practically identical terms (the rebate is almost certainly gone, but that aside). Every time there's a decision we oppose that is imposed upon us, the hint of treachery will linger in the air. Every time we're gouged for money, there'll be the memory we voted to end this.
Any positive decision we embrace and like will get no credit from sceptics because they'll claim we could have taken that ourselves. Every negative decision that is either against our national interest or against the electorate's preference will be seen as a triumph of the political class over the people, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy over a nation state that voted to leave and yet remained.
Economically there will be far less turbulence if we leave. Politically, I expect things to be bitter, seemingly simmer down, and gradually get worse and worse.
[Well, obviously, if you read that article I wrote yesterday].
People pretending staying in resolves this division are deluding themselves. The question is not whether we want division or unity, to leave or remain. It's what flavour of polarised bitterness you prefer.
You wanted to leave. You argued for leave. You voted to leave.
This is your mess. And your fellow leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless and incompetent. Your fellow travellers are the ones who have sown dissent, who have whinged and complained for decades.
It's a bit late for you to be complaining about divisions. Or do divisions only matter when they're against what you want?
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place. Remainers berate leavers for offering no solutions, but clearly remainers don't have solutions to the problems posed by remaining, either. If we stay, every time the EU does something unpopular - which it will - it will poison the well that little bit more, generating more and more resentment as people remember they voted to leave and were told they couldn't.
The problem for Leavers is that Leave doesn't fix those problems and may well end up making them worse.
Fortunately Leavers didn't promise the electorate nowt but sunlit uplands etc.
As for your post: I didn't trigger Article 50 with no plan in place. I didn't call an unnecessary election, and screw it up in phenomenal style. I didn't appoint ambitious idiots like Johnson and Fox to significant positions. I didn't sign up to (or support) the ridiculous backstop idea. I didn't capitulate endlessly to whatever the EU demanded.
Theresa May did that.
On divisions: I'm pointing out the reality of the situation. Whatever happens, we're going to be very divided for the immediate and medium term future. That should be considered when trying to bring the country together.
Further, there was a referendum promised by all three (then) major parties on Lisbon. Labour reneged upon it. That was not the work of those sceptical of the EU, but those sceptical of the UK electorate.
The popularity of UKIP opened pandora's box, a referedum had to happen given that UKIP were winning so much, without a referendum UKIP could well be leading in the polls now.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
What if we had actually implemented the restrictions on free movement that are available right now that we aren't doing?
Indeed UKIP jumped from just 6% in the 1999 European elections to 15% in the 2004 European elections and 16% in the 2009 European elections at a time other EU nations had transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries that had begun in 2004
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place. Remainers berate leavers for offering no solutions, but clearly remainers don't have solutions to the problems posed by remaining, either. If we stay, every time the EU does something unpopular - which it will - it will poison the well that little bit more, generating more and more resentment as people remember they voted to leave and were told they couldn't.
I agree. But the problem is one of perspective: many remainers think there are few, if any, issues in remaining within the EU, so the solutions they offer are limited at best (others are more realistic IMO).
But that's exactly the same as leavers, many of whom think there are few real issues with Brexit (and campaigned as such), and so the 'solutions' they offer are limited at best (others are more realistic IMO).
Your last few lines highlight something I've said on here repeatedly: hardcore leavers will blame any ill on the EU, however falsely. There are good reasons to criticise the EU, but the sheer volume of diarrhoea emanating from the likes of Farage is not helpful towards reform, but entrenches positions.
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place. Remainers berate leavers for offering no solutions, but clearly remainers don't have solutions to the problems posed by remaining, either. If we stay, every time the EU does something unpopular - which it will - it will poison the well that little bit more, generating more and more resentment as people remember they voted to leave and were told they couldn't.
Leaving doesn't solve the problems, it just adds new ones.
The "right" way to tackle the grievances with the EU was to point out over many years that they were bogus, not pander to the lunatic fringe.
As for your post: I didn't trigger Article 50 with no plan in place. I didn't call an unnecessary election, and screw it up in phenomenal style. I didn't appoint ambitious idiots like Johnson and Fox to significant positions. I didn't sign up to (or support) the ridiculous backstop idea. I didn't capitulate endlessly to whatever the EU demanded.
Theresa May did that.
On divisions: I'm pointing out the reality of the situation. Whatever happens, we're going to be very divided for the immediate and medium term future. That should be considered when trying to bring the country together.
Further, there was a referendum promised by all three (then) major parties on Lisbon. Labour reneged upon it. That was not the work of those sceptical of the EU, but those sceptical of the UK electorate.
Sorry, you can't absolve yourself of sins in that manner. You were a cheerleader for leave, and to say it would all be different if only x,y or z is pathetic. This mess was predictable, and was indeed predicted.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
What if we had actually implemented the restrictions on free movement that are available right now that we aren't doing?
It's the interaction of incompetent beurocracy, over/misinterpretation of 'family life' by the courts, Cameron saying one thing and the Gov't doing another on immigration that probably lead to the leave vote.
Brown seems to be saying the HOC should send the government back to renegotiate a better deal or a second referendum. He does ramble on a lot and seems to think he could save the day
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
What if we had actually implemented the restrictions on free movement that are available right now that we aren't doing?
If that was implememted in 2004 then it may have made a difference, the mass immigration since 2004 caused UKIPs popularity and the Brexit vote, all other stuff is inconsequentional in comparison. Whole commujities were changed due to the immigration and people did not like it. That situation remains the same and I think if the referendum was run again Leave would still win.
Some movement today on the Brexit markets - maybe triggered by TND's thread?
(FWIW, I don't think we're going to end up with a delay simply because Parly time is tight. An agreed delay would probably imply something more fundamental i.e. a referendum or GE.)
I really thought, naive fool that I was, that those very keen on Leaving had some sort of plan
The Leavers remind me of Robert McNamara's quote "General, you don’t have a war plan! All you have is a kind of horrible spasm!"
TBF, the more fanatical did seem to have a plan. It was called "Close Dover and brick up the Chunnel". The rest had a fantasy that the world and EU would subjugate themselves to us in our reburgeoning Imperial glory.
I see no sensible way out now other than to ask the voters again whether, in light of what we now know about the real options facing us - not the fantasies presented to us two and a half years ago - whether we want to go ahead or Remain and do so before 29 March.
I will not disagree. I have been saying exactly that for the last two years and been called everything from "disgrace" or "nutjob" through to "traitor" or "quisling".
I will merrily admit the one thing I had massively wrong - I thought all the wheels would have come off the wagon around last April, I never thought we would get to Xmas before people woke up to the impending shambles.
Brown seems to be saying the HOC should send the government back to renegotiate a better deal or a second referendum. He does ramble on a lot and seems to think he could save the day
It is this nonsense talk from politicians and commentators that really gets to me. The EU will not give concessions, its simple. Any talk of getting a "better" deal is pure fantasy.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
Mr. Jessop, by that logic, if I were offered the choice of a cheese or ham sandwich, went for cheese, and May ineptly stabbed herself in the head I'd be responsible for her death.
I criticised May's idiotic choices at the time, such as the backstop. The wretchedness of the Government's performance was not inevitable, but caused by endless terrible decisions, prevarication and capitulation by May.
And if leaving the EU actually were impossible, that brings me back to my earlier point: why? Why did the political class throw to the EU powers that were temporarily entrusted to certain people at Westminster to govern Britain, without any recourse to the electorate?
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. Triangulation doesn't work in a binary choice. More broadly, politicians making people-pleasing sceptical sounds in opposition whilst integrating us ever closer in office was also never going to help the pro-EU cause.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
But the EU won't allow Customs Union without freedom of movement and the one thing I think everyone is agreed about regarding Brexit was that it was a call to reduce immigration....
As Morgan Freeman says in Se7en, this isn't going to have a happy ending. The only point of suspense is to work out exactly what grisly denouement we all have in store for us.
Mr. Jessop, by that logic, if I were offered the choice of a cheese or ham sandwich, went for cheese, and May ineptly stabbed herself in the head I'd be responsible for her death.
I criticised May's idiotic choices at the time, such as the backstop. The wretchedness of the Government's performance was not inevitable, but caused by endless terrible decisions, prevarication and capitulation by May.
And if leaving the EU actually were impossible, that brings me back to my earlier point: why? Why did the political class throw to the EU powers that were temporarily entrusted to certain people at Westminster to govern Britain, without any recourse to the electorate?
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. Triangulation doesn't work in a binary choice. More broadly, politicians making people-pleasing sceptical sounds in opposition whilst integrating us ever closer in office was also never going to help the pro-EU cause.
Leaving the EU isn't impossible, Morris, it is easy-peasy. It is leaving the EU without fucking the country for a generation that is the challenge.
The trouble with Remain, as Morris Dancer has so eloquently pointed out, is that it solves _none_ of the problems that caused people to vote to leave in the first place. Remainers berate leavers for offering no solutions, but clearly remainers don't have solutions to the problems posed by remaining, either. If we stay, every time the EU does something unpopular - which it will - it will poison the well that little bit more, generating more and more resentment as people remember they voted to leave and were told they couldn't.
I agree. But the problem is one of perspective: many remainers think there are few, if any, issues in remaining within the EU, so the solutions they offer are limited at best (others are more realistic IMO).
But that's exactly the same as leavers, many of whom think there are few real issues with Brexit (and campaigned as such), and so the 'solutions' they offer are limited at best (others are more realistic IMO).
Your last few lines highlight something I've said on here repeatedly: hardcore leavers will blame any ill on the EU, however falsely. There are good reasons to criticise the EU, but the sheer volume of diarrhoea emanating from the likes of Farage is not helpful towards reform, but entrenches positions.
That's too simplistic isn't it? Most remainers are well aware of the issues with the EU (and see most of them in our Government as well.) But Brexit seems a perfect way of storing up all our pent-up issues with the EU and taking them all out on ourselves as painfully as possible.
Were we to join another such grouping, as a day 1 deal (so no EU customs union, we're in NAFTA or whatever) then it would be possible. Indeed as a free marketeer the idea of competition forcing the EU to sort its house out, or other members will move across, sounds ideal. But there's no such idea on the table, nor the vision to sell it. So Brexit remains a road to nowhere.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
Funnily enough, as I saw Brown, Blair and Major line up together yesterday, I thought, 'I wonder if they will come out with some joint statement as ex-PMs on Brexit'?
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
But the EU won't allow Customs Union without freedom of movement and the one thing I think everyone is agreed about regarding Brexit was that it was a call to reduce immigration....
Last time I checked Turkey didn't have FoM with the EU.
Mr. HYUFD, it's ironic. The man who denied us a referendum on Lisbon, promised in the Labour Party manifesto, now wants a referendum promised in nobody's referendum.
Some movement today on the Brexit markets - maybe triggered by TND's thread?
(FWIW, I don't think we're going to end up with a delay simply because Parly time is tight. An agreed delay would probably imply something more fundamental i.e. a referendum or GE.)
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Mr. Jessop, by that logic, if I were offered the choice of a cheese or ham sandwich, went for cheese, and May ineptly stabbed herself in the head I'd be responsible for her death.
I criticised May's idiotic choices at the time, such as the backstop. The wretchedness of the Government's performance was not inevitable, but caused by endless terrible decisions, prevarication and capitulation by May.
And if leaving the EU actually were impossible, that brings me back to my earlier point: why? Why did the political class throw to the EU powers that were temporarily entrusted to certain people at Westminster to govern Britain, without any recourse to the electorate?
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. Triangulation doesn't work in a binary choice. More broadly, politicians making people-pleasing sceptical sounds in opposition whilst integrating us ever closer in office was also never going to help the pro-EU cause.
They did, things like ratification of Maastricht were in the manifestos of Labour, The Tories, Lib Dems, and others. Blair's manifesto of 1997 include plans for us to closer/deeper with the EU.
We would have signed up to the same things had we not been in the EC/EU.
Do you think we'd have no dealings with the single market and customs unions had it developed with us not being members.
Or do you think we'd have ignored the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation changes that happened in 1975, 1980, 1997, 2000, and 2006?
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Norway has a customs border with Sweden. How does this one work for Ireland ??!!
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Because if you sell people unicorns and magic beans, you'll find customers.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
It's a good example of the way that cunning plans that work in the short term will come back to bite you,
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
1910 - People's Budget is probably closest. That was certainly a constitutional and parliamentary crisis and dragged two Kings into serious waters.
But the impact on daily lives was likely to be minor compared to this enfolding disaster.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Most people don't like the EU (even some of those who voted to Remain).
Important that hype and attention to a problem does not equate with that problem being worse. Examples abound everywhere with the crime epidemic which is about what it was ten years ago when hailed to be the finest crime figures for generations.
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Norway has a customs border with Sweden. How does this one work for Ireland ??!!
I cannot answer that but it is significant the SNP back Norway
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
I'd say the period from about 1968 to about 1984, when government was in permanent crisis.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
But the EU won't allow Customs Union without freedom of movement and the one thing I think everyone is agreed about regarding Brexit was that it was a call to reduce immigration....
Last time I checked Turkey didn't have FoM with the EU.
I suggested this solution yesterday and was shooed away by the PB Experts.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Because people wanted to stick it to the man and this was their opportunity to do so.
They certainly didn't vote Leave on account of Droite de Suite.
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Norway has a customs border with Sweden. How does this one work for Ireland ??!!
Norway is in the EEA and accepts EU regulations, FoM, etc and has no say in legislation.
For the UK it means a downgrade from our current position where we at least have some say in what goes on.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
But the EU won't allow Customs Union without freedom of movement and the one thing I think everyone is agreed about regarding Brexit was that it was a call to reduce immigration....
Last time I checked Turkey didn't have FoM with the EU.
Last time I checked, Turkey was not an EU member...
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
1910 - People's Budget is probably closest. That was certainly a constitutional and parliamentary crisis and dragged two Kings into serious waters.
But the impact on daily lives was likely to be minor compared to this enfolding disaster.
I would have thought Irish Home Rule in around the same period.
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
1914 is the right example, but before World War 1, when the Conservatives were supporting extra-constitutional measures in Ireland over the Government Of Ireland Act, with the threat of civil war.
When were we last in such a snafu sort of situation in the parliamentary and constitutional sense rather than military (so discount 1940, 1914 and Napoleon). Could it be 1688 or are there more recent fubars on this scale?
1936, if the racist Nazi sympathising King hadn't abdicated.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
But the EU won't allow Customs Union without freedom of movement and the one thing I think everyone is agreed about regarding Brexit was that it was a call to reduce immigration....
Last time I checked Turkey didn't have FoM with the EU.
Last time I checked, Turkey was not an EU member...
Well neither will we be post 29th March at the moment.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Norway has a customs border with Sweden. How does this one work for Ireland ??!!
Norway is in the EEA and accepts EU regulations, FoM, etc and has no say in legislation.
For the UK it means a downgrade from our current position where we at least have some say in what goes on.
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Norway has a customs border with Sweden. How does this one work for Ireland ??!!
I cannot answer that but it is significant the SNP back Norway
OK - Interesting they back a customs border and harder Brexit than either May or Corbyn, but there we are.
The popularity of UKIP opened pandora's box, a referedum had to happen given that UKIP were winning so much, without a referendum UKIP could well be leading in the polls now.
UKIP as a party were much less successful than the Alliance in opinion polls and election results in UK elections. They did well in EU elections which were proportional lists.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
yes all the PMs who fked up and created the conditions for Brexit dont have the balls to say sorry we got it wrong
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
And how many of them accepted the original verdict? How many of them have worked tirelessly since to block it?
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Many reasons, but I think the most significant was that people were offered what they were led to believe was a consequence free opportunity to restrict immigration.
There was an article earlier today regarding Volvo that is in the same situation. Suddenly building models in a single factory (and exporting them across the world) isn't the solution it was a few months ago...
Can someone explain that as Boris puts it "Theresa May has totally surrendered to the EU", why is there not a deal in place to put before Parliament? I really am lost by that one. A deal now seems further away then ever, yet she is supposed to have given in to everything the EU wants.
Why can't we sign up to a perpetual customs union ?
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls. A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
But the EU won't allow Customs Union without freedom of movement and the one thing I think everyone is agreed about regarding Brexit was that it was a call to reduce immigration....
Last time I checked Turkey didn't have FoM with the EU.
Quite CU and SM not the same thing. SM requires free movement of labour.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Most people don't like the EU (even some of those who voted to Remain).
Most people don't like the Inland Revenue, but it would be rather hard for the state to function without it.
The notion that our Bucanneering Leavers had any coherent, workable plan to leave was tested to death during the referendum. It was absolutely clear then that they didn’t. Of course now we know some of them didn’t even realise Britain is an island close to France, so in retrospect it’s less surprising than it once was.
how did Leave win then?
Because people wanted to stick it to the man and this was their opportunity to do so.
They certainly didn't vote Leave on account of Droite de Suite.
And how do you think they will vote next time, once it is framed as "Who governs Britain - the voters or the MPs?"
Can someone explain that as Boris puts it "Theresa May has totally surrendered to the EU", why is there not a deal in place to put before Parliament? I really am lost by that one. A deal now seems further away then ever, yet she is supposed to have given in to everything the EU wants.
I know its frustrating for Labour's enemies that they are fully exploiting their current ability to remain fastidiously non-committal, but it makes zero sense to commit to anything until the right moment. That moment is a little way off yet - once May has played her final hand they will oppose it, say a good Brexit is currently impossible, and say that we need another referendum or general election. In the meantime they will continue to vote against the government on all issues including Brexit.
Can someone explain that as Boris puts it "Theresa May has totally surrendered to the EU", why is there not a deal in place to put before Parliament? I really am lost by that one. A deal now seems further away then ever, yet she is supposed to have given in to everything the EU wants.
Not totally enough, obviously...
It isn’t good enough for Brexit to fail for the EU, but it has to be shown to have failed. No capitulation is great enough if it requires compromise. Some of those things claimed on Sunday of true are shocking. Utter capitulation on everything.
Former Labour PM Gordon Brown has just said he believes a second EU referendum 'will happen' as he becomes the latest big name to back a 'People's Vote' in a speech in London
typical of the vacuous prick
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
Indeed but 3/4 living ex PMs Major, Brown and Blair know back a ' People's Vote.'
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
And how many of them accepted the original verdict? How many of them have worked tirelessly since to block it?
Listening to this mornings debates the most reasonable response came from the SNP who said they would support a Norway style deal.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
Norway has a customs border with Sweden. How does this one work for Ireland ??!!
Norway is in the EEA and accepts EU regulations, FoM, etc and has no say in legislation.
For the UK it means a downgrade from our current position where we at least have some say in what goes on.
Comments
It'll be interesting to see how the Lib Dems respond to this.
I guess NickP will say the EU always ends with a deal at the very last minute, but we are pretty close to that minute now and there is total deadlock.
But no, TMay made that a red line.
Boles gets a lot of stick about EFTA, and having had access to some people involved prior to June 2016 I can say (and did then) that there was a lot of resistance against the UK joining the EEA/EFTA. But whatever the challenges might be, Norway is not in the EU and May's no freedom of movement has made that route now impossible.
The government chose to box itself in to an undeliverable option.
Cameron opened pandora's box.
And there is no good way to close it again.
Call it Chequers 2 (Turkey ++) or some such. I know it upsets the hardcore brexiteers here - but if NI has to be in a CU permanently to avoid a hard border, and there is no Irish sea border (Which the Tories/DUP really could NEVER agree to) then it leaves a UK wide CU as the only possible outcome.
The question on the ballot was about exiting the EU and the major sentiment behind the question was about immigration controls.
A customs union (& single market "access" with the FoM control) - Corbyn's position satisfies this.
tldr - It is an Irish sea customs border we should never sign up to, not a customs union.
https://twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1060642313662353408
This is an obituary he wrote in 1998
https://twitter.com/bindelj/status/1060945932479533056
There's a few more examples of that emerging from Peter Tatchell's past.
Fortunately Leavers didn't promise the electorate nowt but sunlit uplands etc.
As for your post:
I didn't trigger Article 50 with no plan in place.
I didn't call an unnecessary election, and screw it up in phenomenal style.
I didn't appoint ambitious idiots like Johnson and Fox to significant positions.
I didn't sign up to (or support) the ridiculous backstop idea.
I didn't capitulate endlessly to whatever the EU demanded.
Theresa May did that.
On divisions: I'm pointing out the reality of the situation. Whatever happens, we're going to be very divided for the immediate and medium term future. That should be considered when trying to bring the country together.
Further, there was a referendum promised by all three (then) major parties on Lisbon. Labour reneged upon it. That was not the work of those sceptical of the EU, but those sceptical of the UK electorate.
The popularity of UKIP opened pandora's box, a referedum had to happen given that UKIP were winning so much, without a referendum UKIP could well be leading in the polls now.
Between 1990 and 2010 the average number of homicides in London each year was 167. This year there have been 119 so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London
But that's exactly the same as leavers, many of whom think there are few real issues with Brexit (and campaigned as such), and so the 'solutions' they offer are limited at best (others are more realistic IMO).
Your last few lines highlight something I've said on here repeatedly: hardcore leavers will blame any ill on the EU, however falsely. There are good reasons to criticise the EU, but the sheer volume of diarrhoea emanating from the likes of Farage is not helpful towards reform, but entrenches positions.
The "right" way to tackle the grievances with the EU was to point out over many years that they were bogus, not pander to the lunatic fringe.
Sadly, that ship has long sailed
I remember reading an article on his blog about a boy who would worked as a male prostitute from the age of 8, and apparently enjoyed the work.
You own this. Be a man and accept it.
(FWIW, I don't think we're going to end up with a delay simply because Parly time is tight. An agreed delay would probably imply something more fundamental i.e. a referendum or GE.)
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1061949639082102784
TBF, the more fanatical did seem to have a plan. It was called "Close Dover and brick up the Chunnel". The rest had a fantasy that the world and EU would subjugate themselves to us in our reburgeoning Imperial glory.
She has, IMO, proven to be a follower, not a Leader and thus lacks the skills needed to decide direction and policy.
I was wrong. I will not disagree. I have been saying exactly that for the last two years and been called everything from "disgrace" or "nutjob" through to "traitor" or "quisling".
I will merrily admit the one thing I had massively wrong - I thought all the wheels would have come off the wagon around last April, I never thought we would get to Xmas before people woke up to the impending shambles.
I criticised May's idiotic choices at the time, such as the backstop. The wretchedness of the Government's performance was not inevitable, but caused by endless terrible decisions, prevarication and capitulation by May.
And if leaving the EU actually were impossible, that brings me back to my earlier point: why? Why did the political class throw to the EU powers that were temporarily entrusted to certain people at Westminster to govern Britain, without any recourse to the electorate?
Mr. Pulpstar, indeed. Triangulation doesn't work in a binary choice. More broadly, politicians making people-pleasing sceptical sounds in opposition whilst integrating us ever closer in office was also never going to help the pro-EU cause.
now Browns wittering on about influence
Were we to join another such grouping, as a day 1 deal (so no EU customs union, we're in NAFTA or whatever) then it would be possible. Indeed as a free marketeer the idea of competition forcing the EU to sort its house out, or other members will move across, sounds ideal. But there's no such idea on the table, nor the vision to sell it. So Brexit remains a road to nowhere.
Just get on with it...
Anyway, I must be off.
In the same discussion Mark Francois for ERG again insisted on wto and openly admitted it would be disruptive and he couldn't say for how long, and confirmed jobs would be lost, but it would be worth it. He sounded completely deranged to be honest.
In fairness I have not heard anyone from ERG make a viable case and those that do try just look inept or ridiculous
We would have signed up to the same things had we not been in the EC/EU.
Do you think we'd have no dealings with the single market and customs unions had it developed with us not being members.
Or do you think we'd have ignored the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation changes that happened in 1975, 1980, 1997, 2000, and 2006?
he wouldnt hold one referendum when he was PM now he wants somebody else to give two
But the impact on daily lives was likely to be minor compared to this enfolding disaster.
They certainly didn't vote Leave on account of Droite de Suite.
For the UK it means a downgrade from our current position where we at least have some say in what goes on.
Just needs Dave for the full set (we know Osborne backs one)
Coordinated with Brown over Corbyn's head?
https://news.sky.com/story/labours-sir-keir-starmer-insists-brexit-can-be-stopped-to-contradict-jeremy-corbyn-11552239
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7715585/tory-remainers-prep-no-confidence-letters-in-the-pm-as-britain-edges-towards-a-no-deal-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Very naughty, the collapse in new car sales are no more due to trump tarrifs than they are to Brexit. It’s a world wide change.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Honda-to-shift-production-of-SUV-to-China-from-US-amid-trade-war