If we remain, we remain. Had we voted for Remain, I would have accepted the result. But now we voted for Leave, we must do so.
As wasn't said in "The Godfather" Tell Juncker and Barnier it's personal now, it's no longer business.
The process was wrong from the start and Cameron has to shoulder the blame for that.
Leaving the EU is a momentous decision. A simple majority referendum that committed us to a course of action before we knew what that course of action actually was is looking increasingly foolish in hindsight.
The process has resulted us in having to leave to honour the vote whilst neither method of actually leaving is likely to carry majority support. There should always have been a second vote to ratify the deal built into the process.
As it is we are going to take a giant step with the majority of the country opposed to it on the day it happens.
I don't think the size of the vote to Leave is the problem. The problem is that there is a majority in the Commons who oppose Brexit, while the minority who support it are divided among themselves.
I don't think Brexit will happen unless/until a government wins an election that actually favours it and has a plan to go about it.
We don't know for certain but it doesn't seem to be that majority opposition to either Brexit option is restricted to parliament. Remain may be ahead in it's won right according to most polls and if you the add the leavers who prefer remain to No deal or May's deal (whichever it turns out to be) I think either leave option would be lagging behind.
In the referendum you had the luxury of getting votes from all types of leavers, now it comes to the crunch that no longer applies.
On the topic of the Conservative Party leadership, here's a blast from the past from 1990 after the first round results have been declared in the Thatcher v Heseltine contest.
Interestingly the presenter announces that John Major is already going to be a contender for the 2nd ballot and this is before Mrs Thatcher had withdrawn from the contest and was still in Paris. I wasn't aware of this, and it's striking to think a chancellor would stand against a Prime Minister!
Raab's comment tells us the likely options in the coming referendum, namely Remain and the current draft agreement, assuming it gets signed off. Those who think the choice will be Yes or No to the agreement, with Parliament left to sort out what happens if it's No, are kidding themselves.
Whether May can stay PM for a referendum I doubt. It will look bad if the Leave option continues to be called "May's Deal" after she resigns. We might as well call it "Loser Theresa's Offering".
In its own interests the ERG had better take the initiative PDQ. Hard Leave hasn't got a credible leader, at least not until JRM rides in on a jousting horse, which doesn't seem on the cards now that he's wittering on about the queen being descended from the Prophet Mohammed through Elizabeth of Bohemia. Johnson is a complete joke: a quick look through "War Book 2" is sufficient to show he will never be PM. Among other things he was sacked for dishonesty, which he admitted. That's a blight on any career.
Some in the ERG may want a Corbyn government, leaving them space to turn into a different kind of project, more comparable to ones in certain other countries, no longer a party wearing the cloak of a party faction.
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
Would Merkel have allowed that defence force to be used by, say, Hungary to erect and enforce borders? I'm thinking not....
But as the EU becomes a superstate Remaining wasn't a status quo, cake and eat it option either.
And of course if there is another referendum all of this will be aired again - Including the toxic idea of an EU army which isn't just an abstract concept like in 2016 but is now happening...
So instead of a mandate for opting out of ever closer union if Remain had won in 2016, we’ll end up with a mandate for closer union.
People didn't think Cameron's "opt out" for ever close union was worth the paper it was written on (after 40 years of betrayal from the political class, who can blame them?) So they seized their chance to get out while they could.
I doubt the situation will have massively changed should there be another referendum on the issue especially if you are right and we will now have to sign up for "ever closer union" including the EU army.
I don't think people will be keen to see their kids and grand kids going off to spill their blood on the Europe/Russian border on the orders of some failed political from Luxembourg (even though OGH was telling us yesterday that Juncker is apparently widely popular with the British people )
If, following a Remain vote, the Remain we got was substantively different from the Remain that was campaigned upon and promised, there would have certainly been a very good democratic case for a further referendum, don't you think?
If we remain, we remain. Had we voted for Remain, I would have accepted the result. But now we voted for Leave, we must do so.
As wasn't said in "The Godfather" Tell Juncker and Barnier it's personal now, it's no longer business.
The process was wrong from the start and Cameron has to shoulder the blame for that.
Leaving the EU is a momentous decision. A simple majority referendum that committed us to a course of action before we knew what that course of action actually was is looking increasingly foolish in hindsight.
The process has resulted us in having to leave to honour the vote whilst neither method of actually leaving is likely to carry majority support. There should always have been a second vote to ratify the deal built into the process.
As it is we are going to take a giant step with the majority of the country opposed to it on the day it happens.
I don't think the size of the vote to Leave is the problem. The problem is that there is a majority in the Commons who oppose Brexit, while the minority who support it are divided among themselves.
I don't think Brexit will happen unless/until a government wins an election that actually favours it and has a plan to go about it.
We don't know for certain but it doesn't seem to be that majority opposition to either Brexit option is restricted to parliament. Remain may be ahead in it's won right according to most polls and if you the add the leavers who prefer remain to No deal or May's deal (whichever it turns out to be) I think either leave option would be lagging behind.
In the referendum you had the luxury of getting votes from all types of leavers, now it comes to the crunch that no longer applies.
All three weekend polls had more people favouring some form of Brexit over Remain, but more people favour Remain than any particular variety of Brexit.
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
I thought it was a complete mystery that he wasn't given the Brexit Secy's job when Raab went off in the huff.
Perhaps because he is well stuck into his prisons job, with plenty to take on. He did say he would resign if something hadn't been achieved by next year. Can't recall what. Being moved before then may be needed!
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Which is where the so-called Brexit Dividend has already come from, anyway.
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
I'm changing my view somewhat. I'm beginning to think Brexit is actually unworkable, and not just full of contradictions and very crap.
It's certainly workable, if Brexiteers want it to work. The workable version is what Theresa May is proposing. Of course in economic terms is not as good as remaining in the EU with Cameron't renegotiation package would have been, but we all knew that Brexit was going to be a net economic disbenefit, so that's not news. Against the economic disadvantages, the May deal version of Brexit offers most of the advantages the Leave campaign promised: an end to free movement, taking back control of our domestic laws to a considerable extent, an end to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
If we remain, we remain. Had we voted for Remain, I would have accepted the result. But now we voted for Leave, we must do so.
As wasn't said in "The Godfather" Tell Juncker and Barnier it's personal now, it's no longer business.
The process was wrong from the start and Cameron has to shoulder the blame for that.
Leaving the EU is a momentous decision. A simple majority referendum that committed us to a course of action before we knew what that course of action actually was is looking increasingly foolish in hindsight.
The process has resulted us in having to leave to honour the vote whilst neither method of actually leaving is likely to carry majority support. There should always have been a second vote to ratify the deal built into the process.
As it is we are going to take a giant step with the majority of the country opposed to it on the day it happens.
I don't think the size of the vote to Leave is the problem. The problem is that there is a majority in the Commons who oppose Brexit, while the minority who support it are divided among themselves.
I don't think Brexit will happen unless/until a government wins an election that actually favours it and has a plan to go about it.
We don't know for certain but it doesn't seem to be that majority opposition to either Brexit option is restricted to parliament. Remain may be ahead in it's won right according to most polls and if you the add the leavers who prefer remain to No deal or May's deal (whichever it turns out to be) I think either leave option would be lagging behind.
In the referendum you had the luxury of getting votes from all types of leavers, now it comes to the crunch that no longer applies.
All three weekend polls had more people favouring some form of Brexit over Remain, but more people favour Remain than any particular variety of Brexit.
All of those favouring one flavour of Brexit over another are still going to think the Bastard Establishment never had any intention of allowing Brexit. Going to go meekly with the remaining minority? Like hell they are.....
If we remain, we remain. Had we voted for Remain, I would have accepted the result. But now we voted for Leave, we must do so.
As wasn't said in "The Godfather" Tell Juncker and Barnier it's personal now, it's no longer business.
The process was wrong from the start and Cameron has to shoulder the blame for that.
Leaving the EU is a momentous decision. A simple majority referendum that committed us to a course of action before we knew what that course of action actually was is looking increasingly foolish in hindsight.
The process has resulted us in having to leave to honour the vote whilst neither method of actually leaving is likely to carry majority support. There should always have been a second vote to ratify the deal built into the process.
As it is we are going to take a giant step with the majority of the country opposed to it on the day it happens.
I don't think the size of the vote to Leave is the problem. The problem is that there is a majority in the Commons who oppose Brexit, while the minority who support it are divided among themselves.
I don't think Brexit will happen unless/until a government wins an election that actually favours it and has a plan to go about it.
We don't know for certain but it doesn't seem to be that majority opposition to either Brexit option is restricted to parliament. Remain may be ahead in it's won right according to most polls and if you the add the leavers who prefer remain to No deal or May's deal (whichever it turns out to be) I think either leave option would be lagging behind.
In the referendum you had the luxury of getting votes from all types of leavers, now it comes to the crunch that no longer applies.
All three weekend polls had more people favouring some form of Brexit over Remain, but more people favour Remain than any particular variety of Brexit.
All of those favouring one flavour of Brexit over enough are still going to think the Bastard Establishment never had any i tention of allowing Brexit. Going to go meekly with the remaining minority? Like hell they are.....
People will probably use EU elections as a free hit to elect anti-EU MEPs. Other than that, I expect the response to be sullen resignation.
The terms of that poll are pretty disingenuous. On the one hand, it treats a vote for May's agreement as allowing things to be settled so that we can "move on" while comparing that with the uncertainty of outcome from rejection.
In practice, moving on would also be in a climate of uncertainty. Very little has been settled for the longer term by May's agreement, the only certainty being that the UK has ceded further ground to weaken its position in the next round of negotiations. So we would have withdrawn the leverage by the threat of withholding most of the £39bn payment. We would also have withdrawn the leverage of putting any barriers in the way of allowing the EU to maintain their £95bn trade surplus in goods with the UK, while accepting the EU's right to unilaterally put barriers in the way of future UK access to financial services market that will undermine a continuation of the UK's trade surplus in services. Utterly feeble. Having had our negotiating position undermined by the earlier mad concession on the Irish backstop, we are just throwing away more and more cards before nailing things down.
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
I'm changing my view somewhat. I'm beginning to think Brexit is actually unworkable, and not just full of contradictions and very crap.
It's certainly workable, if Brexiteers want it to work. The workable version is what Theresa May is proposing. Of course in economic terms is not as good as remaining in the EU with Cameron't renegotiation package would have been, but we all knew that Brexit was going to be a net economic disbenefit, so that's not news. Against the economic disadvantages, the May deal version of Brexit offers most of the advantages the Leave campaign promised: an end to free movement, taking back control of our domestic laws to a considerable extent, an end to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
It's nihilistic year zero thinking - aided by the fact that they are financially insulated from the economic consequences of their position.
More charitably, it's force of habit. After decades of not compromising with the EU it is hard to start now.
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
what happens when the authorities wish to use the army against their own people ?
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
what happens when the authorities wish to use the army against their own people ?
What happens when Bananaman comes and wants to drink your soul?
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
So the 14 days after which it's too late to hold another confidence motion are solar ones not working ones Never mind Christmas. Working days are only used under the FTPA when calculating how long before the election parliament must dissolve.
Meanwhile what on earth has Vernon Bogdanor been consuming that makes him favour two more referendums held a couple of weeks apart?
Anyways, I think that we're all looking in the wrong place for next leader. There's only one man of rock hard rectitude and adamantium spine for the job.
This is the Brexiteers counter strike. The last few day's has seen No 10 move to nuke No Deal first. The counter strike is Brexiteers delegitimising the Deal in the most profound way possible - saying Remaining would be better. Some #FBPE fools think this means they now favour Remaining.
I genuinely think now there is a very real possibility of Farage and Boris coming out for a Second Referendum on No Deal Vs Remain. And we never did discover what they were discussing at that Restaurant did we ?
).
That said I cannot envisage May calling a referendum without her deal being on the ballot paper - the struggle will be what is up against it.
Nope, virtually no chance No Deal beats Remain as about 10% to 20% of the Leave vote was soft Brexiteers who would switch to Remain over the economic damage of No Deal.
Remember Leave only scraped 52% with single market backers, 'easiest deal in history' believers and immigration haters and Singapore lovers all in its tent
10-20% of the Remain vote I'm sure would be susceptible to the "who governs Britain" argument.
If they voted Remain last time no Remainers are switching
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
In practice, I think we can rule out any prospect of the Commons offering No Deal as an option.
If it's a choice between May's deal and Remain, I'll take May's deal. If it's simply May's deal Yes/No, then I'll vote Yes.
If we are discussing potential leaders, I have to say though that as someone from the other side of the political spectrum I have been impressed with Raab in much the same terms - i.e. calm and effective handling of questioning, and an interesting back story in a real job that dates back to involvement in the Oslo Peace accords. He also seems to have handled himself well since his resignation, being effective in making the case against May's deal.
It is a shame that Rees-Mogg chose to explicitly back Johnson, who doesn't have those qualities.
Oh dear , Raab who just realised Britain is an island and an unknown pygmy, what talent the Tories have.
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
I'm changing my view somewhat. I'm beginning to think Brexit is actually unworkable, and not just full of contradictions and very crap.
It's certainly workable, if Brexiteers want it to work. The workable version is what Theresa May is proposing. Of course in economic terms is not as good as remaining in the EU with Cameron't renegotiation package would have been, but we all knew that Brexit was going to be a net economic disbenefit, so that's not news. Against the economic disadvantages, the May deal version of Brexit offers most of the advantages the Leave campaign promised: an end to free movement, taking back control of our domestic laws to a considerable extent, an end to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
It's nihilistic year zero thinking - aided by the fact that they are financially insulated from the economic consequences of their position.
More charitably, it's force of habit. After decades of not compromising with the EU it is hard to start now.
"Compromise" with the EU has never previously required us to hand over part of our country....
This is the Brexiteers counter strike. The last few day's has seen No 10 move to nuke No Deal first. The counter strike is Brexiteers delegitimising the Deal in the most profound way possible - saying Remaining would be better. Some #FBPE fools think this means they now favour Remaining.
I genuinely think now there is a very real possibility of Farage and Boris coming out for a Second Referendum on No Deal Vs Remain. And we never did discover what they were discussing at that Restaurant did we ?
).
That said I cannot envisage May calling a referendum without her deal being on the ballot paper - the struggle will be what is up against it.
Nope, virtually no chance No Deal beats Remain as about 10% to 20% of the Leave vote was soft Brexiteers who would switch to Remain over the economic damage of No Deal.
Remember Leave only scraped 52% with single market backers, 'easiest deal in history' believers and immigration haters and Singapore lovers all in its tent
10-20% of the Remain vote I'm sure would be susceptible to the "who governs Britain" argument.
If they voted Remain last time no Remainers are switching
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
In practice, I think we can rule out any prospect of the Commons offering No Deal as an option.
If it's a choice between May's deal and Remain, I'll take May's deal. If it's simply May's deal Yes/No, then I'll vote Yes.
Arguing over the question should get us to the 29th March.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
That's because it's an utterly false and illogical assertion as you well know. You can make the claim that remaining is better than leaving without the asset of the EU, which is arguable. But all we are getting at the moment is the crappy version of BINO with vassalage and payments that we are being offered up by closet Remainers who would be quite happy if we ended up with Remain anyway.
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
what happens when the authorities wish to use the army against their own people ?
What happens when Bananaman comes and wants to drink your soul?
its a serious question
history has consistently thrown up issues where the authorities have used an army and deployed it against their own citizens. When you were sat in sheughs in Fermanagh you were arguably doing it yourself.
So when the internal security role pops up again as it will at sometime - Balkans, Catalonia, Ireland - how are troops deployed and who gets the say.
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Which is where the so-called Brexit Dividend has already come from, anyway.
We could tax people who live on the interest on the interest a bit more highly.
I'm amazed that Labour hasn't criticised the almost-flat tax situation we've now reached. The very well-off pay about the same marginal tax rate as their cleaners. A bit more if they're on PAYE, but less than the poor/modestly-off if they're mucking about with personal service companies et al.
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
Agreed but Dura Ace was specifically referencing an EU Army as a replacement for NATO in the comment you answered.
I thought it was a complete mystery that he wasn't given the Brexit Secy's job when Raab went off in the huff.
No mystery David, he is a useless pipsqueak, no principles or his own man, just weaselly words to defend the party line. Hopefully he never gets anywhere near the levers of power.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
This is the Brexiteers counter strike. The last few day's has seen No 10 move to nuke No Deal first. The counter strike is Brexiteers delegitimising the Deal in the most profound way possible - saying Remaining would be better. Some #FBPE fools think this means they now favour Remaining.
I genuinely think now there is a very real possibility of Farage and Boris coming out for a Second Referendum on No Deal Vs Remain. And we never did discover what they were discussing at that Restaurant did we ?
).
That said I cannot envisage May calling a referendum without her deal being on the ballot paper - the struggle will be what is up against it.
Nope, virtually no chance No Deal beats Remain as about 10% to 20% of the Leave vote was soft Brexiteers who would switch to Remain over the economic damage of No Deal.
Remember Leave only scraped 52% with single market backers, 'easiest deal in history' believers and immigration haters and Singapore lovers all in its tent
10-20% of the Remain vote I'm sure would be susceptible to the "who governs Britain" argument.
If they voted Remain last time no Remainers are switching
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
In practice, I think we can rule out any prospect of the Commons offering No Deal as an option.
If it's a choice between May's deal and Remain, I'll take May's deal. If it's simply May's deal Yes/No, then I'll vote Yes.
What happened to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Mcdonnel has already committed to not borrow for day to day expenditure.
Pension confiscation, anyone?
you may be right!!
the corbynista lady on this week last night (who is to be the new statesmen's economics writer) when challenged by Andrew Neil that most companies aren't owned by a rich few as she had just claimed when justifying wholesale nationalisation and state control but by pension funds etc, she then responded yes but that pension wealth is very concentrated unfairly too, most workers don't have such pension savings...
suggests the corbynista view really is that private pension savings aren't fair either...
This is the Brexiteers counter strike. The last few day's has seen No 10 move to nuke No Deal first. The counter strike is Brexiteers delegitimising the Deal in the most profound way possible - saying Remaining would be better. Some #FBPE fools think this means they now favour Remaining.
I genuinely think now there is a very real possibility of Farage and Boris coming out for a Second Referendum on No Deal Vs Remain. And we never did discover what they were discussing at that Restaurant did we ?
).
That said I cannot envisage May calling a referendum without her deal being on the ballot paper - the struggle will be what is up against it.
Nope, virtually no chance No Deal beats Remain as about 10% to 20% of the Leave vote was soft Brexiteers who would switch to Remain over the economic damage of No Deal.
Remember Leave only scraped 52% with single market backers, 'easiest deal in history' believers and immigration haters and Singapore lovers all in its tent
10-20% of the Remain vote I'm sure would be susceptible to the "who governs Britain" argument.
If they voted Remain last time no Remainers are switching
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
In practice, I think we can rule out any prospect of the Commons offering No Deal as an option.
If it's a choice between May's deal and Remain, I'll take May's deal. If it's simply May's deal Yes/No, then I'll vote Yes.
What happened to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.
This is the Brexiteers counter strike. The last few day's has seen No 10 move to nuke No Deal first. The counter strike is Brexiteers delegitimising the Deal in the most profound way possible - saying Remaining would be better. Some #FBPE fools think this means they now favour Remaining.
I genuinely think now there is a very real possibility of Farage and Boris coming out for a Second Referendum on No Deal Vs Remain. And we never did discover what they were discussing at that Restaurant did we ?
).
That said I cannot envisage May calling a referendum without her deal being on the ballot paper - the struggle will be what is up against it.
Nope, virtually no chance No Deal beats Remain as about 10% to 20% of the Leave vote was soft Brexiteers who would switch to Remain over the economic damage of No Deal.
Remember Leave only scraped 52% with single market backers, 'easiest deal in history' believers and immigration haters and Singapore lovers all in its tent
10-20% of the Remain vote I'm sure would be susceptible to the "who governs Britain" argument.
If they voted Remain last time no Remainers are switching
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
In practice, I think we can rule out any prospect of the Commons offering No Deal as an option.
If it's a choice between May's deal and Remain, I'll take May's deal. If it's simply May's deal Yes/No, then I'll vote Yes.
What happened to No Deal is better than a Bad Deal.
I'm certainly no expect in negotiations but presumably you had to present that as a position entering in to discussions rather than saying any deal is better than a no deal.... but perhaps I'm being obtuse.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Which is where the so-called Brexit Dividend has already come from, anyway.
We could tax people who live on the interest on the interest a bit more highly.
I'm amazed that Labour hasn't criticised the almost-flat tax situation we've now reached. The very well-off pay about the same marginal tax rate as their cleaners. A bit more if they're on PAYE, but less than the poor/modestly-off if they're mucking about with personal service companies et al.
Please explain the % rates you are using to justify that claim?
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
I'm changing my view somewhat. I'm beginning to think Brexit is actually unworkable, and not just full of contradictions and very crap.
It's certainly workable, if Brexiteers want it to work. The workable version is what Theresa May is proposing. Of course in economic terms is not as good as remaining in the EU with Cameron't renegotiation package would have been, but we all knew that Brexit was going to be a net economic disbenefit, so that's not news. Against the economic disadvantages, the May deal version of Brexit offers most of the advantages the Leave campaign promised: an end to free movement, taking back control of our domestic laws to a considerable extent, an end to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
Frankly I am ready to be persuaded about this, but what do you say about Raab's comments which imply that the May deal could tie the UK to the EU in perpetuity without any say over matters that affect it?
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global Britain, and why wouldn't you be, you should be pushing hard for an EU army.
Also, the UK is going to participate in it whether we are in the EU or not. The savings in defence expenditure that would come with collaboration are just too tempting for tories.
And presumably as the US is to NATO, the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spend the sorts of amounts that would anywhere near compensate for US military support within NATO. Given that the British and the French are the only countries paying even lip service to defence spending how on earth is an EU army going to be anything other than a local defence force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
what happens when the authorities wish to use the army against their own people ?
What happens when Bananaman comes and wants to drink your soul?
its a serious question
history has consistently thrown up issues where the authorities have used an army and deployed it against their own citizens. When you were sat in sheughs in Fermanagh you were arguably doing it yourself.
So when the internal security role pops up again as it will at sometime - Balkans, Catalonia, Ireland - how are troops deployed and who gets the say.
Well it is of course very much in my mind that this has precedent, as you say.
And hence my response was not wholly unserious - we deal with it in the way that democracies have tried to deal with it throughout history. Imperfectly but practically.
As to who gets the say I'm not sure that, similarly to NATO, there would be the abolition of the National armies and a rebadging to EUAF. I'm pretty sure that it would be an association called together in times of international crisis. I am struggling to think any internal crisis in any constituent state would require a foreign presence.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
Remain, now. Had you asked me that question three weeks ago I would have said Leave. The difference is caused by the extraordinarily irresponsible reaction of the Brexiteers to the sensible implementation which Theresa May has managed to negotiate. If they won't take 'Yes' for an answer, there's no point saying Yes.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
May's Deal wins, hands down, as Remainers can't take the risk of sitting it out. It's why the smart thing would be to do it. "We have decided to Leave. Now you get a say in HOW we Leave...."
But the muppet PM is on record as saying that she won't be PM if there is a second referendum.....
Anyways, I think that we're all looking in the wrong place for next leader. There's only one man of rock hard rectitude and adamantium spine for the job.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
yeah not sure about my answer there. I am wary, though of having too many options on the ballot but yes I suppose it would have to be Remain vs some flavour of leave so perhaps Remain vs No Deal?
Can I just say, completely off topic, that what UKIP is doing teaming up with Tommy Robinson is an utter disgrace. I hope UKIP disappear.
But to give airtime to that man - a convicted fraudster, a man who doesn't give a toss about poor girls being raped except insofar as it allows him to pose as some sort of a "defender of his people" and get gullible Americans and others to give him money so that he can live in a luxurious house in a gated community - shows that UKIP have lost what little moral compass they may ever have had.
God knows we do need to address the very real issues associated with integration of some Muslim communities and the attitude of some Muslim men to women and, indeed, the desirability of continued immigration into this country from parts of the Muslim world.
But this is absolutely not the way to do it. The disappearance of the BNP and the NF and similar groupuscules has been a good thing. We do not need their like resurrected now.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
yeah not sure about my answer there. I am wary, though of having too many options on the ballot but yes I suppose it would have to be Remain vs some flavour of leave so perhaps Remain vs No Deal?
Gah!
Sounds like this referendum should be held under AV.
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Mcdonnel has already committed to not borrow for day to day expenditure.
Pension confiscation, anyone?
you may be right!!
the corbynista lady on this week last night (who is to be the new statesmen's economics writer) when challenged by Andrew Neil that most companies aren't owned by a rich few as she had just claimed when justifying wholesale nationalisation and state control but by pension funds etc, she then responded yes but that pension wealth is very concentrated unfairly too, most workers don't have such pension savings...
suggests the corbynista view really is that private pension savings aren't fair either...
Jeremy Corbyn couldn't even bring himself to mention the right to private property when asked to name one good thing about capitalism. I am not surprised that some of his more ignorant supporters believe that all property is theft or similar. It has been only relatively recently that we have heard people talk about land nationalisation and renationalising all ex-council houses and the like. What do people expect when the opposition has been taken over by the Far Left?
Can I just say, completely off topic, that what UKIP is doing teaming up with Tommy Robinson is an utter disgrace. I hope UKIP disappear.
But to give airtime to that man - a convicted fraudster, a man who doesn't give a toss about poor girls being raped except insofar as it allows him to pose as some sort of a "defender of his people" and get gullible Americans and others to give him money so that he can live in a luxurious house in a gated community - shows that UKIP have lost what little moral compass they may ever have had.
God knows we do need to address the very real issues associated with integration of some Muslim communities and the attitude of some Muslim men to women and, indeed, the desirability of continued immigration into this country from parts of the Muslim world.
But this is absolutely not the way to do it. The disappearance of the BNP and the NF and similar groupuscules has been a good thing. We do not need their like resurrected now.
UKIP have always been like this, once you removed the facade UKIP have always been the BNP in blazers.
I did warn Kippers but they laughed it off.
UKIP might end up being a proscribed organisation like Combat 18 given the nasty side of the EDL.
Frankly I am ready to be persuaded about this, but what do you say about Raab's comments which imply that the May deal could tie the UK to the EU in perpetuity without any say over matters that affect it?
That's not a realistic risk, the EU is not going to give us full access to the Single Market for an extended period without freedom of movement and without paying the fees.
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
I'm changing my view somewhat. I'm beginning to think Brexit is actually unworkable, and not just full of contradictions and very crap.
It's certainly workable, if Brexiteers want it to work. The workable version is what Theresa May is proposing. Of course in economic terms is not as good as remaining in the EU with Cameron't renegotiation package would have been, but we all knew that Brexit was going to be a net economic disbenefit, so that's not news. Against the economic disadvantages, the May deal version of Brexit offers most of the advantages the Leave campaign promised: an end to free movement, taking back control of our domestic laws to a considerable extent, an end to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
Frankly I am ready to be persuaded about this, but what do you say about Raab's comments which imply that the May deal could tie the UK to the EU in perpetuity without any say over matters that affect it?
You can take Raab's comments a number of ways.
But I think the central point is this: the EU will continue to require that goods and services either meet EU standards before UK exporters will be allowed to take them into the EU. In other words, a UK exporter will have to comply with both UK and EU regulations (and it has no formal say in the latter).
Since compliance with two completely different regimes is much more difficult than compliance with one, and the UK government cares about UK exporters, there will be a lot of pressure on the UK not to diverge from the EU regime.
One way out of that is to Remain, so we get a seat at the table. Another is to not give a damn about exporters to the EU (or indeed importers from the EU to whom the problem applies in reverse) and have the UK do its own thing (this used to be the policy position of the Green Party (E&W) for example).
The only other option is to value the ability to diverge, and in practice deploy it only sparingly.
How you rank those options is a reasonable starting point for how you should feel about the deal.
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Mcdonnel has already committed to not borrow for day to day expenditure.
Pension confiscation, anyone?
you may be right!!
the corbynista lady on this week last night (who is to be the new statesmen's economics writer) when challenged by Andrew Neil that most companies aren't owned by a rich few as she had just claimed when justifying wholesale nationalisation and state control but by pension funds etc, she then responded yes but that pension wealth is very concentrated unfairly too, most workers don't have such pension savings...
suggests the corbynista view really is that private pension savings aren't fair either...
Jeremy Corbyn couldn't even bring himself to mention the right to private property when asked to name one good thing about capitalism. I am not surprised that some of his more ignorant supporters believe that all property is theft or similar. It has been only relatively recently that we have heard people talk about land nationalisation and renationalising all ex-council houses and the like. What do people expect when the opposition has been taken over by the Far Left?
Whilst I disagree that all property is theft, some of the landed gentry probably appropriated more than they should with the Inclosure act of 1773 ^_~
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
yeah not sure about my answer there. I am wary, though of having too many options on the ballot but yes I suppose it would have to be Remain vs some flavour of leave so perhaps Remain vs No Deal?
Gah!
Sounds like this referendum should be held under AV.
Not 100% sure how it actually works, though - is it possible to have a thread explaining it all?
Miss Cyclefree, the reluctance of almost all mainstream politicians (Champion seems to be a sadly rare exception) to face reality on such matters has left a lot of space for someone like Robinson to address those who have genuine and legitimate concerns but who aren't heard or taken into account because it's politically inconvenient.
The last six men or so sent down for Rotherham abuse got about 20-30s on the news.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
yeah not sure about my answer there. I am wary, though of having too many options on the ballot but yes I suppose it would have to be Remain vs some flavour of leave so perhaps Remain vs No Deal?
Gah!
With Remain on the ballot it risks getting a massive boycott - and no legitimacy. A decade of horrors in UK politics, with the EU blamed for everything that goes wrong if Remain wins. And UKIP back on the rise (until and Anti-Establishment/Vioters Party gets its act together at least).
Plus then May's deal loses - so she won't sanction it.
I'm not overly keen on NATO personally but the the situation is somewhat different as it's an already established body that has been with us since 1949 - That's a very different scenario to the EU setting up a new army...
British interests would be far better served in an EU structure than NATO because a) it wouldn't be absolutely dominated US interests and b) it wouldn't be geographically hobbled by NATO Article 6.
If you're a fan of Global , the UK would be to an EU military association of whatever formality, should it transpire.
Except of course the EU are never going to spe force at best?
I didn't say EU army. I said association. If there were to be one, we would be the big swinging dick therein, everything else held equal.
what happens when the authorities wish to use the army against their own people ?
What happens when Bananaman comes and wants to drink your soul?
its a serious question
history has consistently thrown up i and who gets the say.
Well it is of course very much in my mind that this has precedent, as you say.
And hence my response was not wholly unserious - we deal with it in the way that democracies have tried to deal with it throughout history. Imperfectly but practically.
As to who gets the say I'm not sure that, similarly to NATO, there would be the abolition of the National armies and a rebadging to EUAF. I'm pretty sure that it would be an association called together in times of international crisis. I am struggling to think any internal crisis in any constituent state would require a foreign presence.
Except of course under the integrated army scenario we get exactly the same issues as the integrated economy, Pooled sovereignty wont allow a state to pursue its own interests if the collective seeks the opposite. Likewise if the core memders seek to steer foreign policy in a direction a member state doesnt agree with it is caught up in the mesh of its commitments,
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
yeah not sure about my answer there. I am wary, though of having too many options on the ballot but yes I suppose it would have to be Remain vs some flavour of leave so perhaps Remain vs No Deal?
Gah!
Sounds like this referendum should be held under AV.
Not 100% sure how it actually works, though - is it possible to have a thread explaining it all?
I'm busy this weekend so no threads from me, but maybe next weekend I'll do a thread on another referendum conducted under AV.
I'm surprised at the proportions but not the general trend, Though i have a suspicion that people might say ok despite uncertain outcomes because actually they are pretty sure their preferred outcome will occur.
I'm surprised at the proportions but not the general trend, Though i have a suspicion that people might say ok despite uncertain outcomes because actually they are pretty sure their preferred outcome will occur.
That 46 is split between hard remain and hard leave.
Can I just say, completely off topic, that what UKIP is doing teaming up with Tommy Robinson is an utter disgrace. I hope UKIP disappear.
But to give airtime to that man - a convicted fraudster, a man who doesn't give a toss about poor girls being raped except insofar as it allows him to pose as some sort of a "defender of his people" and get gullible Americans and others to give him money so that he can live in a luxurious house in a gated community - shows that UKIP have lost what little moral compass they may ever have had.
God knows we do need to address the very real issues associated with integration of some Muslim communities and the attitude of some Muslim men to women and, indeed, the desirability of continued immigration into this country from parts of the Muslim world.
But this is absolutely not the way to do it. The disappearance of the BNP and the NF and similar groupuscules has been a good thing. We do not need their like resurrected now.
UKIP have always been like this, once you removed the facade UKIP have always been the BNP in blazers.
I did warn Kippers but they laughed it off.
UKIP might end up being a proscribed organisation like Combat 18 given the nasty side of the EDL.
Brexit has emboldened further.
It's not just the EDL side which I find repellent. Nor the fact that people like him care nothing about the girls; they are just a convenient peg on which to hang their dislike of "Pakis" (to use a phrase that used to be common amongst BNP types). These two factors alone should be enough.
But Robinson is so obviously a crook and a fraudster.
How can people be so taken in?
I know the answer: if over 100 MPs can sign a petition to let that self-pitying fraudster, Adoboli, stay in the country (now rightly deported) then what hope is there for a moron like Batten to have some common and moral sense.
Why can't people see what is in front of their nose???
To be honest it is time for someone from ERG to explain exactly how they organise a no deal brexit. They need to put forward a credible plan addressing how they would get EU agreement, how their deal effects the 100 or more existing trade deals, how they source the billions bearing in mind it is not 39 billion that is available,10 billion being nearer the answer and an actual workable plan on WTO rules. Also how would they safeguard UK citizens abroad. They need a forensic cross examination by someone who knows the subject (TM would be excellent but unlikely) and then they need to sell the plan
All I have heard so far from ERG we will leave on WTO rules and keep 39 billion. That does not cut it as these decisions could cost tens of thousands of jobs
Although i would give the balance of probabilties to Remain in a 2nd Ref, i don't think it's a slam dunk.
If the leavers can make it about things like the Euro, and EU Army, not to mention Schengen and migration, or things like a future US of E, then that might not be attractive to re-sign up to.
Plus, we have an NHS dividend already awarded from Brexit. "Which hospital wards are you going to close, Remain?"
None, we'll just borrow the money for them. Nobody gives a fuck where money comes from.
Which is where the so-called Brexit Dividend has already come from, anyway.
We could tax people who live on the interest on the interest a bit more highly.
I'm amazed that Labour hasn't criticised the almost-flat tax situation we've now reached. The very well-off pay about the same marginal tax rate as their cleaners. A bit more if they're on PAYE, but less than the poor/modestly-off if they're mucking about with personal service companies et al.
Please explain the % rates you are using to justify that claim?
Long-term returns for people with cash, shares, bonds, et al.
Apparently dividends are taxed less than earned income. Life's nice for people with private means.
It's a very basic request, that we revert to taxing unearned income and capital gains more highly than earned income and that those who are very rich should pay >32% on their income. 32% is the marginal rate for a normal couple on about £28,000/yr.
I thought it was a complete mystery that he wasn't given the Brexit Secy's job when Raab went off in the huff.
No mystery David, he is a useless pipsqueak, no principles or his own man, just weaselly words to defend the party line. Hopefully he never gets anywhere near the levers of power.
Agreed Rory S is a bluffer.......spends about 3.5 months on an Army gap year commission (no real training at Sandhurst, more like a work placement), does a couple of jobs at FCO and then goes on to claim he commanded Maysan province (which is bollox) in Iraq....he was/is a functionary with a good PR - the guy tells a good story and not much else. mind you look at Boris J - never afraid of a bit of bluff and he did well with the Tory faithful......
To be honest it is time for someone from ERG to explain exactly how they organise a no deal brexit. They need to put forward a credible plan addressing how they would get EU agreement, how their deal effects the 100 or more existing trade deals, how they source the billions bearing in mind it is not 39 billion that is available,10 billion being nearer the answer and an actual workable plan on WTO rules. Also how would they safeguard UK citizens abroad. They need a forensic cross examination by someone who knows the subject (TM would be excellent but unlikely) and then they need to sell the plan
All I have heard so far from ERG we will leave on WTO rules and keep 39 billion. That does not cut it as these decisions could cost tens of thousands of jobs
Come on ERG, front up and explain
Seeing as primary legislation is needed for a second ref, don't they just run the clock down to the 29th March ?
Can I just say, completely off topic, that what UKIP is doing teaming up with Tommy Robinson is an utter disgrace. I hope UKIP disappear.
But to give airtime to that man - a convicted fraudster, a man who doesn't give a toss about poor girls being raped except insofar as it allows him to pose as some sort of a "defender of his people" and get gullible Americans and others to give him money so that he can live in a luxurious house in a gated community - shows that UKIP have lost what little moral compass they may ever have had.
God knows we do need to address the very real issues associated with integration of some Muslim communities and the attitude of some Muslim men to women and, indeed, the desirability of continued immigration into this country from parts of the Muslim world.
But this is absolutely not the way to do it. The disappearance of the BNP and the NF and similar groupuscules has been a good thing. We do not need their like resurrected now.
UKIP have always been like this, once you removed the facade UKIP have always been the BNP in blazers.
I did warn Kippers but they laughed it off.
UKIP might end up being a proscribed organisation like Combat 18 given the nasty side of the EDL.
Brexit has emboldened further.
It's not just the EDL side which I find repellent. Nor the fact that people like him care nothing about the girls; they are just a convenient peg on which to hang their dislike of "Pakis" (to use a phrase that used to be common amongst BNP types). These two factors alone should be enough.
But Robinson is so obviously a crook and a fraudster.
How can people be so taken in?
I know the answer: if over 100 MPs can sign a petition to let that self-pitying fraudster, Adoboli, stay in the country (now rightly deported) then what hope is there for a moron like Batten to have some common and moral sense.
Why can't people see what is in front of their nose???
Too many people will excuse anything that members of their own side do.
Miss Cyclefree, the reluctance of almost all mainstream politicians (Champion seems to be a sadly rare exception) to face reality on such matters has left a lot of space for someone like Robinson to address those who have genuine and legitimate concerns but who aren't heard or taken into account because it's politically inconvenient.
The last six men or so sent down for Rotherham abuse got about 20-30s on the news.
But Robinson isn't addressing anything. This is just a pretext to him. All he is using it for is to enrich himself.
But no-one is going to touch such issues if the EDL make them their own. Such groups are not about trying to make things better but about hating others, using violence and creating problems rather than seeking solutions.
Bold statement. Already we have our own @Richard_Nabavi voting Leave next time if there were to be a second referendum.
Not if Leave means no deal, and also not if the Brexiteers are not wholeheartedly going to accept that the current deal implements Brexit. If they are not prepared to accept a very reasonable compromise and accept that it implements the referendum result, then there would be no point in accepting the disadvantages of leaving on the basis that it is necessary to do so since it implements the referendum result.
Details, details. However we got there, there is a second referendum a week next Thursday.
How would you vote?
What are the options?
May's Deal vs No Deal
A contest between the second and third most popular options in the polls would be an odd way to seek legitimacy.
yeah not sure about my answer there. I am wary, though of having too many options on the ballot but yes I suppose it would have to be Remain vs some flavour of leave so perhaps Remain vs No Deal?
Gah!
Sounds like this referendum should be held under AV.
Not 100% sure how it actually works, though - is it possible to have a thread explaining it all?
I'm busy this weekend so no threads from me, but maybe next weekend I'll do a thread on another referendum conducted under AV.
Rory Stewart has done nothing as an MP and is defending the indefensible with May’s deal. Whatever his other qualities and successes, it tough to see his appeal now in a profession that depends upon patronage rather than ability.
But I suspect Batten is the true colours of UKIP and Farage the exception.
True. He was pretty clear on this on R4 this morning. But Farage emboldened people like Batten with his posters during the EU campaign. So he might want to examine the beams in his own eyes first.
TheWhiteRabbit - the issue that concerns me is not exporters and standards but the "backstop's" implication that the UK could remain forever a satellite of the EU if the EU prevaricates over the FTA which would make a backstop unnecessary. On this I am somewhat relieved by Richard Nabavi's answer that it is not in their interest to do so.
Can I just say, completely off topic, that what UKIP is doing teaming up with Tommy Robinson is an utter disgrace. I hope UKIP disappear.
But to give airtime to that man - a convicted fraudster, a man who doesn't give a toss about poor girls being raped except insofar as it allows him to pose as some sort of a "defender of his people" and get gullible Americans and others to give him money so that he can live in a luxurious house in a gated community - shows that UKIP have lost what little moral compass they may ever have had.
God knows we do need to address the very real issues associated with integration of some Muslim communities and the attitude of some Muslim men to women and, indeed, the desirability of continued immigration into this country from parts of the Muslim world.
But this is absolutely not the way to do it. The disappearance of the BNP and the NF and similar groupuscules has been a good thing. We do not need their like resurrected now.
UKIP have always been like this, once you removed the facade UKIP have always been the BNP in blazers.
I did warn Kippers but they laughed it off.
UKIP might end up being a proscribed organisation like Combat 18 given the nasty side of the EDL.
Brexit has emboldened further.
It's not just the EDL side which I find repellent. Nor the fact that people like him care nothing about the girls; they are just a convenient peg on which to hang their dislike of "Pakis" (to use a phrase that used to be common amongst BNP types). These two factors alone should be enough.
But Robinson is so obviously a crook and a fraudster.
How can people be so taken in?
I know the answer: if over 100 MPs can sign a petition to let that self-pitying fraudster, Adoboli, stay in the country (now rightly deported) then what hope is there for a moron like Batten to have some common and moral sense.
Why can't people see what is in front of their nose???
Too many people will excuse anything that members of their own side do.
True.
It doesn't explain those daft MPs, though. Too many people are too willing to believe bullshit.
Hardly any Leave voters make the logical connection that if the deal's worse than remaining it's because staying in the EU is better than leaving.
I'm changing my view somewhat. I'm beginning to think Brexit is actually unworkable, and not just full of contradictions and very crap.
It's certainly workable, if Brexiteers want it to work. The workable version is what Theresa May is proposing. Of course in economic terms is not as good as remaining in the EU with Cameron't renegotiation package would have been, but we all knew that Brexit was going to be a net economic disbenefit, so that's not news. Against the economic disadvantages, the May deal version of Brexit offers most of the advantages the Leave campaign promised: an end to free movement, taking back control of our domestic laws to a considerable extent, an end to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
I think that is a very cogent summary of the position. We voted narrowly to leave, and the deal/future agreement is leaving narrowly.
The other advantage you've left out of the deal, which many are forgetting in focussing purely on the economics, is that we are out of the political project and ever closer union.
Any form of Remain sees us tied in to that explicitly or implicitly. We will forever be able to choose the level of co-operation the UK has with a single EU armed force, single tax area, single currency, single national anthem, etc etc.
This is a precious freedom for many of us who voted Leave fearful of the end destination.
Surely if the DUP back it all those Tory MPs who said they weren't happy with the Northern Ireland aspect will fall in line?
I suppose so, to some extent. The deal-trashing seems have gathered its own momentum, though.
Certainly, when you get "Brexiters" claiming that joining the Euro, breaking up the UK, giving Gibraltar to Spain, absolutely anything, is better than May's deal. I wonder if some of them just intended to sabotage Brexit from the outset.
nd to the CFP and CAP. Personally I don't think those are worth the economic hit, but that's what people voted for.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
Frankly I am ready to be persuaded about this, but what do you say about Raab's comments which imply that the May deal could tie the UK to the EU in perpetuity without any say over matters that affect it?
You can take Raab's comments a number of ways.
rmal say in the latter).
One way out of that is to Remain, so we get a seat at the table. Another is to not give a damn about exporters to the EU (or indeed importers from the EU to whom the problem applies in reverse) and have the UK do its own thing (this used to be the policy position of the Green Party (E&W) for example).
The only other option is to value the ability to diverge, and in practice deploy it only sparingly.
How you rank those options is a reasonable starting point for how you should feel about the deal.
You need to differentiate between the various areas that the EU regulates. Product rules, environmental rules, social/workplace rules etc. To sell goods into the EU or more technically to have goods imported into the EU single market, you just need to comply with the product rules. A car needs EU type approval, a machine tool needs to comply with the machine tools directive. The majority of product rules nowadays are made by international bodies, the EU just packages them up. The rules that the EU does make are usually "green" ecodesign, workplace and health and safety. Members of the EU get the ability to regulate at the factory, in return for complying with all these rules, hence the ability to sell and ship all over the single market (as opposed to having to use an importer. So a UK goods manufacturer would have no problem complying with EU goods rules (they are basically international) and if the UK set up its own rules they would be the same. The question is why should we agree to all the other EU rules i.e the level playing field the EU are so keen for us to enjoy when we will not be getting the benefits of regulation at the factory? Mays number one goal in Chequers was goods in the single market i.e regulation at the factory and frictionless trade with respect to regulations.
Comments
In the referendum you had the luxury of getting votes from all types of leavers, now it comes to the crunch that no longer applies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8syLKZ5bMLI
Interestingly the presenter announces that John Major is already going to be a contender for the 2nd ballot and this is before Mrs Thatcher had withdrawn from the contest and was still in Paris. I wasn't aware of this, and it's striking to think a chancellor would stand against a Prime Minister!
Whether May can stay PM for a referendum I doubt. It will look bad if the Leave option continues to be called "May's Deal" after she resigns. We might as well call it "Loser Theresa's Offering".
In its own interests the ERG had better take the initiative PDQ. Hard Leave hasn't got a credible leader, at least not until JRM rides in on a jousting horse, which doesn't seem on the cards now that he's wittering on about the queen being descended from the Prophet Mohammed through Elizabeth of Bohemia. Johnson is a complete joke: a quick look through "War Book 2" is sufficient to show he will never be PM. Among other things he was sacked for dishonesty, which he admitted. That's a blight on any career.
Some in the ERG may want a Corbyn government, leaving them space to turn into a different kind of project, more comparable to ones in certain other countries, no longer a party wearing the cloak of a party faction.
In other words, with May's deal Brexit would be a mistake, but not a disaster. The new line of the Brexiteers is that want to ensure it really is a disaster. It's a curious position for them to take.
In practice, moving on would also be in a climate of uncertainty. Very little has been settled for the longer term by May's agreement, the only certainty being that the UK has ceded further ground to weaken its position in the next round of negotiations. So we would have withdrawn the leverage by the threat of withholding most of the £39bn payment. We would also have withdrawn the leverage of putting any barriers in the way of allowing the EU to maintain their £95bn trade surplus in goods with the UK, while accepting the EU's right to unilaterally put barriers in the way of future UK access to financial services market that will undermine a continuation of the UK's trade surplus in services. Utterly feeble. Having had our negotiating position undermined by the earlier mad concession on the Irish backstop, we are just throwing away more and more cards before nailing things down.
More charitably, it's force of habit. After decades of not compromising with the EU it is hard to start now.
Meanwhile what on earth has Vernon Bogdanor been consuming that makes him favour two more referendums held a couple of weeks apart?
Fog comes before persian currency (8)
How would you vote?
TMay: As we appear to be stuck I would like to call an election
Corbyn: Works for me
Nearly all Conservative MPs: No
history has consistently thrown up issues where the authorities have used an army and deployed it against their own citizens. When you were sat in sheughs in Fermanagh you were arguably doing it yourself.
So when the internal security role pops up again as it will at sometime - Balkans, Catalonia,
Ireland - how are troops deployed and who gets the say.
I'm amazed that Labour hasn't criticised the almost-flat tax situation we've now reached. The very well-off pay about the same marginal tax rate as their cleaners. A bit more if they're on PAYE, but less than the poor/modestly-off if they're mucking about with personal service companies et al.
the corbynista lady on this week last night (who is to be the new statesmen's economics writer) when challenged by Andrew Neil that most companies aren't owned by a rich few as she had just claimed when justifying wholesale nationalisation and state control but by pension funds etc, she then responded yes but that pension wealth is very concentrated unfairly too, most workers don't have such pension savings...
suggests the corbynista view really is that private pension savings aren't fair either...
And hence my response was not wholly unserious - we deal with it in the way that democracies have tried to deal with it throughout history. Imperfectly but practically.
As to who gets the say I'm not sure that, similarly to NATO, there would be the abolition of the National armies and a rebadging to EUAF. I'm pretty sure that it would be an association called together in times of international crisis. I am struggling to think any internal crisis in any constituent state would require a foreign presence.
But the muppet PM is on record as saying that she won't be PM if there is a second referendum.....
Gah!
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1065921520839655424
But to give airtime to that man - a convicted fraudster, a man who doesn't give a toss about poor girls being raped except insofar as it allows him to pose as some sort of a "defender of his people" and get gullible Americans and others to give him money so that he can live in a luxurious house in a gated community - shows that UKIP have lost what little moral compass they may ever have had.
God knows we do need to address the very real issues associated with integration of some Muslim communities and the attitude of some Muslim men to women and, indeed, the desirability of continued immigration into this country from parts of the Muslim world.
But this is absolutely not the way to do it. The disappearance of the BNP and the NF and similar groupuscules has been a good thing. We do not need their like resurrected now.
I did warn Kippers but they laughed it off.
UKIP might end up being a proscribed organisation like Combat 18 given the nasty side of the EDL.
Brexit has emboldened further.
But I think the central point is this: the EU will continue to require that goods and services either meet EU standards before UK exporters will be allowed to take them into the EU. In other words, a UK exporter will have to comply with both UK and EU regulations (and it has no formal say in the latter).
Since compliance with two completely different regimes is much more difficult than compliance with one, and the UK government cares about UK exporters, there will be a lot of pressure on the UK not to diverge from the EU regime.
One way out of that is to Remain, so we get a seat at the table. Another is to not give a damn about exporters to the EU (or indeed importers from the EU to whom the problem applies in reverse) and have the UK do its own thing (this used to be the policy position of the Green Party (E&W) for example).
The only other option is to value the ability to diverge, and in practice deploy it only sparingly.
How you rank those options is a reasonable starting point for how you should feel about the deal.
The last six men or so sent down for Rotherham abuse got about 20-30s on the news.
Plus then May's deal loses - so she won't sanction it.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1065825614781927424
But Robinson is so obviously a crook and a fraudster.
How can people be so taken in?
I know the answer: if over 100 MPs can sign a petition to let that self-pitying fraudster, Adoboli, stay in the country (now rightly deported) then what hope is there for a moron like Batten to have some common and moral sense.
Why can't people see what is in front of their nose???
https://twitter.com/duncanrobinson/status/1065912444126662656
Rory not on the list, but Boris isn't going to be happy.
Nigel Farage bids to topple UKIP leader Gerard Batten over Tommy Robinson role
https://news.sky.com/story/tommy-robinson-becomes-adviser-to-ukip-leader-gerard-batten-11560682
But I suspect Batten is the true colours of UKIP and Farage the exception.
All I have heard so far from ERG we will leave on WTO rules and keep 39 billion. That does not cut it as these decisions could cost tens of thousands of jobs
Come on ERG, front up and explain
Apparently dividends are taxed less than earned income. Life's nice for people with private means.
It's a very basic request, that we revert to taxing unearned income and capital gains more highly than earned income and that those who are very rich should pay >32% on their income. 32% is the marginal rate for a normal couple on about £28,000/yr.
With DUP votes, May needs significant Labour support (~30)
There are plenty of people who have tried thoughtfully - if too late - to address these questions (Trevor Phillips, for instance). There is a way of addressing the issues arising from having people from a very different culture here (see this, for instance - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/29/angels-and-fools-cyclefree-on-trumps-latest-executive-order/).
But no-one is going to touch such issues if the EDL make them their own. Such groups are not about trying to make things better but about hating others, using violence and creating problems rather than seeking solutions.
But otherwise "special status for NI" is still an issue.
TheWhiteRabbit - the issue that concerns me is not exporters and standards but the "backstop's" implication that the UK could remain forever a satellite of the EU if the EU prevaricates over the FTA which would make a backstop unnecessary. On this I am somewhat relieved by Richard Nabavi's answer that it is not in their interest to do so.
It doesn't explain those daft MPs, though. Too many people are too willing to believe bullshit.
The other advantage you've left out of the deal, which many are forgetting in focussing purely on the economics, is that we are out of the political project and ever closer union.
Any form of Remain sees us tied in to that explicitly or implicitly. We will forever be able to choose the level of co-operation the UK has with a single EU armed force, single tax area, single currency, single national anthem, etc etc.
This is a precious freedom for many of us who voted Leave fearful of the end destination.
2 x Mi-8MTV5. I am not a spotter. Don't lock me up.
The rules that the EU does make are usually "green" ecodesign, workplace and health and safety. Members of the EU get the ability to regulate at the factory, in return for complying with all these rules, hence the ability to sell and ship all over the single market (as opposed to having to use an importer.
So a UK goods manufacturer would have no problem complying with EU goods rules (they are basically international) and if the UK set up its own rules they would be the same.
The question is why should we agree to all the other EU rules i.e the level playing field the EU are so keen for us to enjoy when we will not be getting the benefits of regulation at the factory? Mays number one goal in Chequers was goods in the single market i.e regulation at the factory and frictionless trade with respect to regulations.