The irony is, that had we voted differently in 2016, we’d probably now be viewed as a beacon of sanity amongst chaos of the Big European countries. France looks like it could be on the brink of a revolution, Germany has entered some sort of twilight zone where they have pretty much given up on democracy, stuck in a permanent coalition of the traditional governing parties, to keep the extremists out, Italy (well...). Europe could well be putty in our hands.
The irony is, that had we voted differently in 2016, we’d probably now be viewed as a beacon of sanity amongst chaos of the Big European countries. France looks like it could be on the brink of a revolution, Germany has entered some sort of twilight zone where they have pretty much given up on democracy, stuck in a permanent coalition of the traditional governing parties, to keep the extremists out, Italy (well...). Europe could well be putty in our hands.
Yes. And think what we could have done to block some of its more damaging decisions as a result. Right now, Martin Selmayr might be managing the sanitary facilities in Bruges rather than strutting around as a self-important yet ignorant wazzock with the stated aim of causing war in Northern Ireland.
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these - it might have been.
The irony is, that had we voted differently in 2016, we’d probably now be viewed as a beacon of sanity amongst chaos of the Big European countries. France looks like it could be on the brink of a revolution, Germany has entered some sort of twilight zone where they have pretty much given up on democracy, stuck in a permanent coalition of the traditional governing parties, to keep the extremists out, Italy (well...). Europe could well be putty in our hands.
Yes. And think what we could have done to block some of its more damaging decisions as a result. Right now, Martin Selmayr might be managing the sanitary facilities in Bruges rather than strutting around as a self-important yet ignorant wazzock with the stated aim of causing war in Northern Ireland.
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these - it might have been.
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Rather, they are dividing the world economy into opposing camps. The days that the US could dictate technology (other than to their allies) are gone.
We know a lot more about what's possible now - Government, MPs and the wider electorate. I don't think there is anything inherently undemocratic about saying, "You voted in general terms for X, but in the light of the current information, the actual options are Y and Z, which do you prefer?" Nor is there any shame in an MP saying I previously thought that, but now I think this.
I think Remain would win a Remain vs Fairly Hard Brexit (we just aren't going to get the extreme scenario where food runs out), partly because of the "Bored of Brexit" voters, but if hard Brexit won, I think we should accept that it's a democratic choice - people are now fairly well-briefed on what that means, which two years ago they weren't. I really doubt if Norway is an option - it unites Remainers in opposition with anti-immigration Leavers.
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Rather, they are dividing the world economy into opposing camps. The days that the US could dictate technology (other than to their allies) are gone.
Really, Nigel, do I have to be as unsubtle as TSE about my puns?
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Talking of which, it’s interesting how the sovereignty absolutists have absolutely nothing to say about the way unilateral US sanctions on (for example) China or Iran have consequences for UK businesses at least as significant as any EU regulation.
Part of my pro EU feeling has always been related to which way Britain is drawn with Europe being my preferred choice and America being the other option. I don't know to what extent it is true but I always felt part of the pull away from the EU was one trying to push us towards America.
So for some I imagine us taking part in European decisions that affect us is more of a problem than Americans making decisions which affect us without our say.
Not only does staying within the EU lessen other countries ability to influence us but increases our ability to shape the things as we want them.
Yes, indeed the reason Trump hates May's Deal is that it prevents us being bullied bt the US into a trade deal designed for the predators of the US economy.
There is the political side of it but I almost wonder if that would be a bigger concern of people around Trump.
Trump linked himself to Brexit, I think one of the (many) things he said was he was going to deliver Brexit +++ or something along those lines. I wonder if his ego is attached to the idea of brave Britain back out in the world global trading etc.
It doesn't have to actually be successful for us just seem exciting in the short term whereas it seems like a bit of a disappointment currently. Even most of those backing the deal and who still want Brexit have some complaints and the rest are even more unhappy. Trump wants to say words like great, big and beautiful, no can do at the moment.
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Rather, they are dividing the world economy into opposing camps. The days that the US could dictate technology (other than to their allies) are gone.
Really, Nigel, do I have to be as unsubtle as TSE about my puns?
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Have a good day.
I have a bad head cold and no sense of humour today. Apologies.
With Remain and Deal tied on 50% each and Remain only leading No Deal 52% to 48% with YouGov today we are no closer to achieving a clear result than we were in 2016.
The only way to do so may be Deal v No Deal where Deal led 62% to 38%
We won't get that though. It would not pass Parliament, and anyway, would simply not fly if the most popular first preference isn't on the paper. It does, however, present the only conceivable way this Deal comes about, barring an emergency vote in March in the absence of owt else turning up meantime.
Remain had its chance in 2016, Remain lost. We should only be having a second referendum to decide how we Leave after Leave beat Remain in the first referendum
Leavers have their chance next Tuesday. At the moment it looks near-certain that they will decide to reject the deal which would implement Brexit. Once they have done that, any implicit commitment by those who previously supported Remain to implement the referendum result falls away; after all, if Leavers don't want it, why should those who never wanted it but thought the referendum should be respected continue to support it?
That doesn’t follow at all.
In your opinion. In mine, it does.
Leavers bang on constantly about how they are prepared to accept whatever Brexit costs, and then when it comes down to it, are unwilling to accept particular costs. There is a deal on the table, flawed, but nonetheless, Brexit - which the electorate prefer by some margin to no deal.
Again,leavers bang o constantly about retainers being bad losers. Perhaps true, but rather less damaging than being bad winners.
Indeed. Because the "pure" Brexiters, to use their own term, have a vision of a neoliberal ultra freemarket Britain unconstrained by all the controls and 'soclialism' of the EU(SSR), which hardly anyone wants. They also persuaded themselves that the rest of Europe was itching to junk the EU and that Brexit would lead to its breakup. So, as needs must, they sold Brexit to voters on the basis that would control immigration and improve state-funded healthcare.
The irony is, that had we voted differently in 2016, we’d probably now be viewed as a beacon of sanity amongst chaos of the Big European countries. France looks like it could be on the brink of a revolution, Germany has entered some sort of twilight zone where they have pretty much given up on democracy, stuck in a permanent coalition of the traditional governing parties, to keep the extremists out, Italy (well...). Europe could well be putty in our hands.
Doubtless Cammo had something along those lines in mind when he launched this whole charade.
Instead, the only way of killing the virus of rabid anti-Europeanism now is probably to let them have their cliffedge Brexit, after the chaos of which they and probably the whole Tory party would be discredited for a generation.
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Rather, they are dividing the world economy into opposing camps. The days that the US could dictate technology (other than to their allies) are gone.
Really, Nigel, do I have to be as unsubtle as TSE about my puns?
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Have a good day.
I have a bad head cold and no sense of humour today. Apologies.
Another day is the dystopian psycho drama called Brexit. A plot so convoluted and murky Channel 5 rejected it.
The pound shop Orwell script writers bash out a plot where votes are anti-democratic and the only bulletproof definition of Brexit is that Brexit means Brexit. Villains like Grieve and Clarke become allies, whereas heroes like Raab, Davis and Johnson become villains, united only by the daily hate of so called terrorist lovers.
It can’t be real, can it?
Britain is in mid-Ratners moment, whatever the outcome the brand is trashed.
Do you really think we looking towards the end of this? I fear things are still going to get worse before they get better. Or before we arrive at some state of stability, however bad that is.
You think there’s an eventual prospect of things getting better? I admire your optimism or the length of your long term view.
Another day is the dystopian psycho drama called Brexit. A plot so convoluted and murky Channel 5 rejected it.
The pound shop Orwell script writers bash out a plot where votes are anti-democratic and the only bulletproof definition of Brexit is that Brexit means Brexit. Villains like Grieve and Clarke become allies, whereas heroes like Raab, Davis and Johnson become villains, united only by the daily hate of so called terrorist lovers.
It can’t be real, can it?
Britain is in mid-Ratners moment, whatever the outcome the brand is trashed.
Do you really think we looking towards the end of this? I fear things are still going to get worse before they get better. Or before we arrive at some state of stability, however bad that is.
You think there’s an eventual prospect of things getting better? I admire your optimism or the length of your long term view.
Actuarily, of course, my personal 'long view' can't be very long! Although, while I've had some personal dark times things have got better, although not always in the way I expected! Or planned!
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
What are the chances of the new Tory leader that emerges from your scenario being more disposed to go down the route of your first paragraph than is May?
I remember going to bed at about 11pm, just as the "Remain has won" line was beginning to be challenged. Still, I didn't have a financial dog in the fight, so it wasn't as daft as when I refused to hedge (to be nicely green either way) my Con seats bet in 2017.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
I fail to see how that isn't "keep voting until you get the correct result". It's the elite/establishment going "we think you made the wrong choice, we're going to give you a chance to change your mind and stay in the EU..."
All leave has to do is paint a second referendum as a chance to stick it to the tin-eared establishment, again. Which is probably what they'll do. It's why a second referendum is a bad idea.
It is the perception of the parties Brexit position that is more important if Brexit is the consideration. At least I would have assumed so on the basis of low information. Didn't someone working for/with RCS vote for Kate Hoey in Vauxhall to fight Brexit?
It did show a small percentage change so if you are in a marginal seat it could make the difference. If you are in a safe seat you don't have to worry.
I fail to see how that isn't "keep voting until you get the correct result". It's the elite/establishment going "we think you made the wrong choice, we're going to give you a chance to change your mind and stay in the EU..."
All leave has to do is paint a second referendum as a chance to stick it to the tin-eared establishment, again. Which is probably what they'll do. It's why a second referendum is a bad idea.
Actually from the Brexiteers point of view it should be a great idea.
"We beat the establishment last time. They didn't listen. Let's give them another kicking!!"
They should be falling over themselves demanding another vote.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
Is the referendum going to be
“Do you want to remain or.... do you want to remain”?
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
Yes. If only we had a single market with our major trading partner...
Wow , that’s a really good idea. Do you think it could happen?
It’s be great if we could have it without all the other bullshit
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
Actually many of them voted thinking there would be no damage. I still have Brexiteers arguing on Twitter that leaving with no deal will have no impact on trade or food supplies.
I fail to see how that isn't "keep voting until you get the correct result". It's the elite/establishment going "we think you made the wrong choice, we're going to give you a chance to change your mind and stay in the EU..."
All leave has to do is paint a second referendum as a chance to stick it to the tin-eared establishment, again. Which is probably what they'll do. It's why a second referendum is a bad idea.
Actually from the Brexiteers point of view it should be a great idea.
"We beat the establishment last time. They didn't listen. Let's give them another kicking!!"
They should be falling over themselves demanding another vote.
Yet for some reason they seem reluctant?
Well obviously. If it’s going to happen then it’s in their interests to appear reluctant - makes the campaign slogan stronger.
Do you want to Remain in the EU It was a yes or no answer, and it was criticised by Remainers for being too binary. But then they are really criticising the answer. Yes would have been the correct result.
Parliament voted to enact the result. A government led by a Remain voter comes up with a deal that offers basically BINO. Yes, we can leave, but only with the EU's permission. That's fine if you trust the EU. Do you? Mrs May might do, but that's probably why she voted Remain.
The Labour party never had any intention of backing any deal that enacted the decision. Nor did the SNP, or LDs. They are so single-minded abut this they don't even realise that Mrs May is offering a potential BINO.
The result is going to be a chaotic no-deal, fertile ground for a GE. And chaos is the hard left's friend. Trotsky would be rubbing his hands, so on that basis, all is going to plan.
With Remain and Deal tied on 50% each and Remain only leading No Deal 52% to 48% with YouGov today we are no closer to achieving a clear result than we were in 2016.
The only way to do so may be Deal v No Deal where Deal led 62% to 38%
We won't get that though. It would not pass Parliament, and anyway, would simply not fly if the most popular first preference isn't on the paper. It does, however, present the only conceivable way this Deal comes about, barring an emergency vote in March in the absence of owt else turning up meantime.
Remain had its chance in 2016, Remain lost. We should only be having a second referendum to decide how we Leave after Leave beat Remain in the first referendum
Leavers have their chance next Tuesday. At the moment it looks near-certain that they will decide to reject the deal which would implement Brexit. Once they have done that, any implicit commitment by those who previously supported Remain to implement the referendum result falls away; after all, if Leavers don't want it, why should those who never wanted it but thought the referendum should be respected continue to support it?
That doesn’t follow at all.
In your opinion. In mine, it does.
Leavers bang on constantly about how they are prepared to accept whatever Brexit costs, and then when it comes down to it, are unwilling to accept particular costs. There is a deal on the table, flawed, but nonetheless, Brexit - which the electorate prefer by some margin to no deal.
Again,leavers bang o constantly about retainers being bad losers. Perhaps true, but rather less damaging than being bad winners.
I can quite believe it will be used as an excuse
But a bunch of pears in parliament has nothing to do with whether or not a democratic referendum has legitimacy or not
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual. Nothing has yet been tried because we haven't left yet. All sorts of predictions of catastrophe were made about just voting to Leave without even actually ding it and they didn't come to pass. And now you expect us to just roll over on more claims of disaster when your first lot turned out to be so much rubbish.
If you really hate democracy that much just be honest about it.
We know a lot more about what's possible now - Government, MPs and the wider electorate. I don't think there is anything inherently undemocratic about saying, "You voted in general terms for X, but in the light of the current information, the actual options are Y and Z, which do you prefer?" Nor is there any shame in an MP saying I previously thought that, but now I think this.
I think Remain would win a Remain vs Fairly Hard Brexit (we just aren't going to get the extreme scenario where food runs out), partly because of the "Bored of Brexit" voters, but if hard Brexit won, I think we should accept that it's a democratic choice - people are now fairly well-briefed on what that means, which two years ago they weren't. I really doubt if Norway is an option - it unites Remainers in opposition with anti-immigration Leavers.
Ok so we’ve been been briefed on the consequences. Although you personally think the briefings have been a bit overblown...
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
Yes. If only we had a single market with our major trading partner...
Wow , that’s a really good idea. Do you think it could happen?
It’s be great if we could have it without all the other bullshit
We've just spent two years proving that not possible.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
Project Fear was indeed pathetic - Osborne (who?) coming out whining on about his plans for an emergency Budget to deal with the fire and brimstone falling from the skies on the event of Leave winning. It was pathetic because it was weasel words from a soon to be former politician.
The massive damage now isn't the words of politicians. Its a detailed factual analysis from industry. From the hauliers and logistics firms. From the ports. From HMRC tasked with policing the new arrangement. From food importers and manufacturers and wholesalers and retailers. From specialist industries such as pharma and finance and petrochemicals.
Either these people's detailed factual analysis is right. Or todays weasel whining from soon to be ex politicians like Boris Johnson based on bluster are right.
It's irrelevant anyway. Our MPs faced with the facts are unwilling to let the UK crash out with no deal no matter how much people who chose to believe something other than the facts shout "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"
Incredible given how that night went down that Remainders are so confident about round two.
They know best you know
Leavers are as thick as planks and xenophobic too - they keep telling us this.
While that is true* of many Leavers, it is not universally so.
Nonetheless a #Peoplesvote does at least give the opportunity for sanity to win. While some will be intransigent, a fair number of Leavers can switch to Remain.
*as reproducibly found in polling.
If you believe it is a choice between sanity and insanity you would not want a vote which would, once again, risk insanity. You should want parliament to do it, otherwise it would be taking a huge gamble for the sake of a mandate which is not needed, if the choice is between sanity and insanity as you suggest. Why would you possibly endorse the possibility of insanity winning? How incredibly reckless.
Insanity is the default. A 50% chance of recovery is better than none.
You've totally ignored my point. If you believe it's insanity you would want parliament to just revoke without a people's vote. Then there's 0% chance of insanity. Sure people would be mad but it's better than risking insanity.
Unless of course it's not really insanity, just a bad idea, and your tactic to win is to tell people they are crazy.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual. Nothing has yet been tried because we haven't left yet. All sorts of predictions of catastrophe were made about just voting to Leave without even actually ding it and they didn't come to pass. And now you expect us to just roll over on more claims of disaster when your first lot turned out to be so much rubbish.
If you really hate democracy that much just be honest about it.
Although you are in favour of the deal because you think no deal will be economically disastrous?
With Remain and Deal tied on 50% each and Remain only leading No Deal 52% to 48% with YouGov today we are no closer to achieving a clear result than we were in 2016.
The only way to do so may be Deal v No Deal where Deal led 62% to 38%
We won't get that though. It would not pass Parliament, and anyway, would simply not fly if the most popular first preference isn't on the paper. It does, however, present the only conceivable way this Deal comes about, barring an emergency vote in March in the absence of owt else turning up meantime.
Remain had its chance in 2016, Remain lost. We should only be having a second referendum to decide how we Leave after Leave beat Remain in the first referendum
Leavers have their chance next Tuesday. At the moment it looks near-certain that they will decide to reject the deal which would implement Brexit. Once they have done that, any implicit commitment by those who previously supported Remain to implement the referendum result falls away; after all, if Leavers don't want it, why should those who never wanted it but thought the referendum should be respected continue to support it?
That doesn’t follow at all.
In your opinion. In mine, it does.
Leavers bang on constantly about how they are prepared to accept whatever Brexit costs, and then when it comes down to it, are unwilling to accept particular costs. There is a deal on the table, flawed, but nonetheless, Brexit - which the electorate prefer by some margin to no deal.
Again,leavers bang o constantly about retainers being bad losers. Perhaps true, but rather less damaging than being bad winners.
I can quite believe it will be used as an excuse
But a bunch of pears in parliament has nothing to do with whether or not a democratic referendum has legitimacy or not
Bananas come in bunches, not pears. And that would be a more accurate description of the ERG.
That we import so much food seems to be the big fact that a lot of people chose to remain ignorant over, as if their "belief" trumps reality. A friend of mine said "we dug for victory in World War II, we'll be fine". When I pointed out that we nearly starved and would have done were it not for the Atlantic Convoys she insisted that I was wrong...
The massive damage now isn't the words of politicians. Its a detailed factual analysis from industry. From the hauliers and logistics firms. From the ports. From HMRC tasked with policing the new arrangement. From food importers and manufacturers and wholesalers and retailers. From specialist industries such as pharma and finance and petrochemicals.
Another day is the dystopian psycho drama called Brexit. A plot so convoluted and murky Channel 5 rejected it.
The pound shop Orwell script writers bash out a plot where votes are anti-democratic and the only bulletproof definition of Brexit is that Brexit means Brexit. Villains like Grieve and Clarke become allies, whereas heroes like Raab, Davis and Johnson become villains, united only by the daily hate of so called terrorist lovers.
It can’t be real, can it?
Britain is in mid-Ratners moment, whatever the outcome the brand is trashed.
I'm depressed by all this but you seriously need to get a grip.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual....
In your opinion. We have our own opinion about your efforts.
We had a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. It is reluctant to do so and wants to ask again. And again, and again. When does it stop? When we agree to do their bidding. Why should we encourage them?
With Remain and Deal tied on 50% each and Remain only leading No Deal 52% to 48% with YouGov today we are no closer to achieving a clear result than we were in 2016.
The only way to do so may be Deal v No Deal where Deal led 62% to 38%
We won't get that though. It would not pass Parliament, and anyway, would simply not fly if the most popular first preference isn't on the paper. It does, however, present the only conceivable way this Deal comes about, barring an emergency vote in March in the absence of owt else turning up meantime.
Remain had its chance in 2016, Remain lost. We should only be having a second referendum to decide how we Leave after Leave beat Remain in the first referendum
Leavers have their chance next Tuesday. At the moment it looks near-certain that ort it?
An interesting argument.
Its a ridiculous argument. Just because a few Leave MPs decide not to support a particular form of Brexit dos not excuse the rest of Parliament from abiding by the result of the referendum. They are not answerable to the ERG but to the 17.4 million people who voted to Leave.
There really are some desperate arguments coming out of the Remainers to justify their turning their backs on democracy.
We're at am impasse and you don't want to let the people vote to decide the way forwards. Who's turning their back on democracy?
The only reason there is an impasse is that Remain Labour MPs refuse to back any Brexit deal.
They should be ashamed of themselves and hounded out of office.
They aren't in Office .God forbid the opposition should oppose .
For oppositions sake?
Well indeed. There are good reasons to oppose but this default people use that oppositions oppose is pathetic and childish. No MP worth respecting automatically opposes anything from the other side. Cross party support is a thing, rebellions large and small occur and actually they can agree on a lot. Oppositions oppose by itself is a weak weak argument, the last resort, one that logically means no opposition mp should ever vote with the government even if on a matter no one disagrees on.
There are reasons to oppose, some good and some bad. There's no need to behave like a baby and defend opposition on the basis it's a required duty no matter the issue. There's almost always better reasons to oppose than that, so falling back on it is incredibly revealing.
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
Yes. If only we had a single market with our major trading partner...
Wow , that’s a really good idea. Do you think it could happen?
It’s be great if we could have it without all the other bullshit
How about "EU+"? Membership of the EU, but with a reduced financial contribution and opt-outs from the bits we don't like? If only someone could produce something like that.
That we import so much food seems to be the big fact that a lot of people chose to remain ignorant over, as if their "belief" trumps reality. A friend of mine said "we dug for victory in World War II, we'll be fine". When I pointed out that we nearly starved and would have done were it not for the Atlantic Convoys she insisted that I was wrong...
Well No Dealers could always ask Trump for special convoys of chlorinated chickens!
And once again a vote supporter gives the game away. A vote is about remaining to most of them, about the people getting it right, it is not about confirming what direction to take whatever that may be.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual. Nothing has yet been tried because we haven't left yet. All sorts of predictions of catastrophe were made about just voting to Leave without even actually ding it and they didn't come to pass. And now you expect us to just roll over on more claims of disaster when your first lot turned out to be so much rubbish.
If you really hate democracy that much just be honest about it.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Supporting a plebiscite is hating democracy.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual....
In your opinion. We have our own opinion about your efforts.
If remainers believe that remains is now the will of the British people, why do they need a referendum to bring it about? It’s not as if opponents will accept the outcome either way. At least not having a referendum is a guaranteed way of producing the desired outcome.
He's not one to be trusted, he's opposed to any deal yet stayed in government while one was negotiated. Not after the same goal as his brother but still not trustworthy.
From the man who had a manifesto commitment to a referendum on a major piece of European constitutional architecture, won a big majority, and then reneged on it.
The world must have run out of brass, because it’s all in his neck.
If remainers believe that remains is now the will of the British people, why do they need a referendum to bring it about? It’s not as if opponents will accept the outcome either way. At least not having a referendum is a guaranteed way of producing the desired outcome.
This was the article posted yesterday.
If there really was an "anti-Brexit elite", Brexit would already be cancelled.
Under the ERG view simply agreeing a trade deal is an end in itself (except with the EU with which trade is unimportant). Doesn’t matter if it’s in the interests of the U.K., they can easily pivot their finances to be favoured by the opposite.
If remainers believe that remains is now the will of the British people, why do they need a referendum to bring it about? It’s not as if opponents will accept the outcome either way. At least not having a referendum is a guaranteed way of producing the desired outcome.
democratic cover is needed to justify it. Polls are just polls after all. But if leaving cannot be done sensibly and is an inevitable disaster as they claim They are irresponsible for risking it in a vote, so you're right - if they are right there won't be a big backlash.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
The cynic in me reads that as: "The Guardian wants us to believe that Norway's not an option. They've therefore found a politician in Norway who says what they want us to hear (please ignore the discrepancy between "Norway has no power and is simply a rule taker" versus "Norway doesn't want to share its power over veto with us"). Forget the discrepancy between what Norway's leaders have said and what this politician has said and we hope you don't stop to consider how easy it is to find a politician here in the UK to say whatever you want to hear in this debate, ranging from Lord Adonis to Jacob Rees-Mogg"
Although you are in favour of the deal because you think no deal will be economically disastrous?
Nope I am in favour of Deal because I am a realist and don't think No Deal will win. Pursuing No Deal risks losing everything. I am also in favour of Deal because it matches more closely my long stated preferred option of EFTA membership. Finally I am in favour of Deal because, although I don't think No Deal will be disastrous, I accept there will be some short term disruption and think there is no point pursuing it when an alternative that still means leaving is available.
But in a choice between No Deal and Remain I would chose No Deal like a shot.
Brexit could have worked had a single politician suggested it would be a multi-year process of gradual uncoupling.
However, May - bullied by the loons (and cheered on by many on here) was happy to lie about it from day 1, put a irrevocable timetable in motion, and set red lines which would inevitably lead us to this present chaos.
I have some sympathy with “purist” Brexiters, but only a little because the Brexit leadership to a man (and woman) appears to be intellectually dishonest if not downright crooked. That’s before we get into the flirtation with nationalist tropes.
As it is, Brexiters have destroyed Brexit. The only thing left for the country is to figure out how to Remain with democratic legitimacy.
Anyone who taunts leavers about being afraid of a second vote is on very shaky ground. It totally justifies the argument to have reruns off any vote- aftersll are you afraid second vote winner of what the third to vote would do?
2 are standard practice already (dose limits and pharmacy subsubstitution). Therapeutic equivalence is mandated by NHS Trusts and/or NICE. Alternative dosage is often done as well by pharmacists
If we end up remaining, I wonder if, alongside the noise, we'll get a new brand of scepticism that wants to remain but with powers taken back gradually.
Also, just seen news on The Outer Worlds (new Obsidian sci-fi RPG). Looks interesting. And like stumbling Bethesda just took a punch to the gut.
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
Yes. If only we had a single market with our major trading partner...
Wow , that’s a really good idea. Do you think it could happen?
It’s be great if we could have it without all the other bullshit
We've just spent two years proving that not possible.
It is. It’s just the EU politicians don’t want it because it’s in their interests to aggrandise themselves
It's probably barking mad, but I'm getting more attached to the idea of a post-Brexit referendum rather than another pre-Brexit one.
Given that the Deal and Withdrawal Agreement are a road to make transition to a destination easier, and not a destination, then get it through by attaching to the Deal vote that there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary) - CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary. - No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals (which also has the backstop issue, but could also give us up to four more years to work out a technological or political solution - or accept it, as the DUP might not have anywhere near as much power after the next GE - we could even make acceptance subject to a further referendum in NI) - Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare. So we vote then, and Brexit has been enacted, and we have a brief period to catch our breath and decide where we go next. Including back in (and yes, we'd probably lose opt-outs, but that's the way of things. We'd almost certainly be able to easily rejoin from the transition situation if that's what's chosen).
Hard Remainers, WTO Brexiters, EEA-ers, everyone has a chance still to get what they want.
It's not ideal - the backstop might still be necessary, for example, but it completes the Brexit decision and gives clarity.
And it's almost certainly barking mad for one reason or another (one question would be how to hold a four - way referendum)
With Remain and Deal tied on 50% each and Remain only leading No Deal 52% to 48% with YouGov today we are no closer to achieving a clear result than we were in 2016.
The only way to do so may be Deal v No Deal where Deal led 62% to 38%
We won't get that though. It would not pass Parliament, and anyway, would simply not fly if the most popular first preference isn't on the paper. It does, however, present the only conceivable way this Deal comes about, barring an emergency vote in March in the absence of owt else turning up meantime.
Remain had its chance in 2016, Remain lost. We should only be having a second referendum to decide how we Leave after Leave beat Remain in the first referendum
Leavers have their chance next Tuesday. At the moment it looks near-certain that they will decide to reject the deal which would implement Brexit. Once they have done that, any implicit commitment by those who previously supported Remain to implement the referendum result falls away; after all, if Leavers don't want it, why should those who never wanted it but thought the referendum should be respected continue to support it?
That doesn’t follow at all.
In your opinion. In mine, it does.
Leavers bang on constantly about how they are prepared to accept whatever Brexit costs, and then when it comes down to it, are unwilling to accept particular costs. There is a deal on the table, flawed, but nonetheless, Brexit - which the electorate prefer by some margin to no deal.
Again,leavers bang o constantly about retainers being bad losers. Perhaps true, but rather less damaging than being bad winners.
I can quite believe it will be used as an excuse
But a bunch of pears in parliament has nothing to do with whether or not a democratic referendum has legitimacy or not
Bananas come in bunches, not pears. And that would be a more accurate description of the ERG.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual....
In your opinion. We have our own opinion about your efforts.
Of course you do. And they are garbage as well.
Face it. You just don't like democracy.
I just don't like your entirely self serving take on it.
I've repeatedly said I would, however grudgingly, accept May's imperfect deal. What I won't accept is a parliamentary minority filibustering their way to a no deal Brexit which is supported by maybe a third of the electorate at best.
You are among the sorest of sore winners. And rude to boot.
Anyone who taunts leavers about being afraid of a second vote is on very shaky ground. It totally justifies the argument to have reruns off any vote- aftersll are you afraid second vote winner of what the third to vote would do?
Britain urgently needs some ground rules on when a referendum is appropriate. In an unstructured way, that's something I've been trying to explore in a few of my more recent thread headers.
With Remain and Deal tied on 50% each and Remain only leading No Deal 52% to 48% with YouGov today we are no closer to achieving a clear result than we were in 2016.
The only way to do so may be Deal v No Deal where Deal led 62% to 38%
We won't get that though. It would not pass Parliament, and anyway, would simply not fly if the most popular first preference isn't on the paper. It does, however, present the only conceivable way this Deal comes about, barring an emergency vote in March in the absence of owt else turning up meantime.
Remain had its chance in 2016, Remain lost. We should only be having a second referendum to decide how we Leave after Leave beat Remain in the first referendum
Leavers have their chance next Tuesday. At the moment it looks near-certain that they will decide to reject the deal which would implement Brexit. Once they have done that, any implicit commitment by those who previously supported Remain to implement the referendum result falls away; after all, if Leavers don't want it, why should those who never wanted it but thought the referendum should be respected continue to support it?
That doesn’t follow at all.
In your opinion. In mine, it does.
Leavers bang on constantly about how they are prepared to accept whatever Brexit costs, and then when it comes down to it, are unwilling to accept particular costs. There is a deal on the table, flawed, but nonetheless, Brexit - which the electorate prefer by some margin to no deal.
Again,leavers bang o constantly about retainers being bad losers. Perhaps true, but rather less damaging than being bad winners.
I can quite believe it will be used as an excuse
But a bunch of pears in parliament has nothing to do with whether or not a democratic referendum has legitimacy or not
Bananas come in bunches, not pears. And that would be a more accurate description of the ERG.
I’ve just come off a transatlantic flight!
(But I think I meant “bunch of prats”)
Happy to accept that - it's not as though I'm not prone to typos myself.
If we end up remaining, I wonder if, alongside the noise, we'll get a new brand of scepticism that wants to remain but with powers taken back gradually.
Also, just seen news on The Outer Worlds (new Obsidian sci-fi RPG). Looks interesting. And like stumbling Bethesda just took a punch to the gut.
Obsidian do good work, sounds promising . I actually really liked Tyranny - for once an rpg with 'evil' options had a variety if them and made those choices seem plausible given the context of the game .
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
Yes. If only we had a single market with our major trading partner...
Wow , that’s a really good idea. Do you think it could happen?
It’s be great if we could have it without all the other bullshit
How about "EU+"? Membership of the EU, but with a reduced financial contribution and opt-outs from the bits we don't like? If only someone could produce something like that.
Yep. Junk QMV and freedom of movement (as defined by the treaties) and i’d be fine with that
Mr. Meeks, aye. I'd suggest something like voting reform and significant (obviously requires a proper definition) constitutional change.
Mr. kle4, aye, and single player rather than jumping on a multiplayer bandwagon. Not into multiplayer myself, and Fallout 76 appears to have been an object lesson in how not to do it, leaving a large number of disgruntled sci-fi fans who may well be very pleased to see how The Outer Worlds turns out.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual....
In your opinion. We have our own opinion about your efforts.
Of course you do. And they are garbage as well.
Face it. You just don't like democracy.
I just don't like your entirely self serving take on it.
I've repeatedly said I would, however grudgingly, accept May's imperfect deal. What I won't accept is a parliamentary minority filibustering their way to a no deal Brexit which is supported by maybe a third of the electorate at best.
You are among the sorest of sore winners. And rude to boot.
Tyndall is an extremist. He believes so much in his Brexit the world should burn and all sinners must perish.
Mr. Meeks, aye. I'd suggest something like voting reform and significant (obviously requires a proper definition) constitutional change.
Mr. kle4, aye, and single player rather than jumping on a multiplayer bandwagon. Not into multiplayer myself, and Fallout 76 appears to have been an object lesson in how not to do it, leaving a large number of disgruntled sci-fi fans who may well be very pleased to see how The Outer Worlds turns out.
Bethesda still make great single player games but they do seem to struggle with the online stuff. Yes it can be a great money maker but stick to what you're good at.
Comments
Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these - it might have been.
Have a good morning.
I think Remain would win a Remain vs Fairly Hard Brexit (we just aren't going to get the extreme scenario where food runs out), partly because of the "Bored of Brexit" voters, but if hard Brexit won, I think we should accept that it's a democratic choice - people are now fairly well-briefed on what that means, which two years ago they weren't. I really doubt if Norway is an option - it unites Remainers in opposition with anti-immigration Leavers.
They're yanking Chinese tech out of the world economy.
Have a good day.
https://youtu.be/MpGcxgnQfkI
Trump linked himself to Brexit, I think one of the (many) things he said was he was going to deliver Brexit +++ or something along those lines. I wonder if his ego is attached to the idea of brave Britain back out in the world global trading etc.
It doesn't have to actually be successful for us just seem exciting in the short term whereas it seems like a bit of a disappointment currently. Even most of those backing the deal and who still want Brexit have some complaints and the rest are even more unhappy. Trump wants to say words like great, big and beautiful, no can do at the moment.
Apologies.
Instead, the only way of killing the virus of rabid anti-Europeanism now is probably to let them have their cliffedge Brexit, after the chaos of which they and probably the whole Tory party would be discredited for a generation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/06/hawaiian-monk-seal-eel-stuck-up-nose-why
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
I remember going to bed at about 11pm, just as the "Remain has won" line was beginning to be challenged. Still, I didn't have a financial dog in the fight, so it wasn't as daft as when I refused to hedge (to be nicely green either way) my Con seats bet in 2017.
1. Macron panders to the rich.
2. Ordinary French people are hit, rise up and complain.
3. Liberals talk of the dark forces of extremism
(Natalie Nougayrède's Guardian article a few days ago is a classic)
https://twitter.com/chrishanretty/status/1070952629994487809
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1070950708269252608
All leave has to do is paint a second referendum as a chance to stick it to the tin-eared establishment, again. Which is probably what they'll do. It's why a second referendum is a bad idea.
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1070949092078039041
It did show a small percentage change so if you are in a marginal seat it could make the difference. If you are in a safe seat you don't have to worry.
"We beat the establishment last time. They didn't listen. Let's give them another kicking!!"
They should be falling over themselves demanding another vote.
Yet for some reason they seem reluctant?
“Do you want to remain or.... do you want to remain”?
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
https://twitter.com/Cooganlab/status/1070945468216172544
You can't reason with faith...
"A vague question was asked previously."
Do you want to Remain in the EU It was a yes or no answer, and it was criticised by Remainers for being too binary. But then they are really criticising the answer. Yes would have been the correct result.
Parliament voted to enact the result. A government led by a Remain voter comes up with a deal that offers basically BINO. Yes, we can leave, but only with the EU's permission. That's fine if you trust the EU. Do you? Mrs May might do, but that's probably why she voted Remain.
The Labour party never had any intention of backing any deal that enacted the decision. Nor did the SNP, or LDs. They are so single-minded abut this they don't even realise that Mrs May is offering a potential BINO.
The result is going to be a chaotic no-deal, fertile ground for a GE. And chaos is the hard left's friend. Trotsky would be rubbing his hands, so on that basis, all is going to plan.
But a bunch of pears in parliament has nothing to do with whether or not a democratic referendum has legitimacy or not
If you really hate democracy that much just be honest about it.
The massive damage now isn't the words of politicians. Its a detailed factual analysis from industry. From the hauliers and logistics firms. From the ports. From HMRC tasked with policing the new arrangement. From food importers and manufacturers and wholesalers and retailers. From specialist industries such as pharma and finance and petrochemicals.
Either these people's detailed factual analysis is right. Or todays weasel whining from soon to be ex politicians like Boris Johnson based on bluster are right.
It's irrelevant anyway. Our MPs faced with the facts are unwilling to let the UK crash out with no deal no matter how much people who chose to believe something other than the facts shout "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"
Unless of course it's not really insanity, just a bad idea, and your tactic to win is to tell people they are crazy.
And that would be a more accurate description of the ERG.
We have our own opinion about your efforts.
We had a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. It is reluctant to do so and wants to ask again. And again, and again. When does it stop? When we agree to do their bidding. Why should we encourage them?
Parliament has voted for Brexit at EVERY opportunity so far. It has never failed to implement the result.
There are reasons to oppose, some good and some bad. There's no need to behave like a baby and defend opposition on the basis it's a required duty no matter the issue. There's almost always better reasons to oppose than that, so falling back on it is incredibly revealing.
And they try to claim they are not dishonest.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Supporting a plebiscite is hating democracy.
Face it. You just don't like democracy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1070961622569627649
The world must have run out of brass, because it’s all in his neck.
If there really was an "anti-Brexit elite", Brexit would already be cancelled.
"The Guardian wants us to believe that Norway's not an option. They've therefore found a politician in Norway who says what they want us to hear (please ignore the discrepancy between "Norway has no power and is simply a rule taker" versus "Norway doesn't want to share its power over veto with us"). Forget the discrepancy between what Norway's leaders have said and what this politician has said and we hope you don't stop to consider how easy it is to find a politician here in the UK to say whatever you want to hear in this debate, ranging from Lord Adonis to Jacob Rees-Mogg"
I am also in favour of Deal because it matches more closely my long stated preferred option of EFTA membership.
Finally I am in favour of Deal because, although I don't think No Deal will be disastrous, I accept there will be some short term disruption and think there is no point pursuing it when an alternative that still means leaving is available.
But in a choice between No Deal and Remain I would chose No Deal like a shot.
However, May - bullied by the loons (and cheered on by many on here) was happy to lie about it from day 1, put a irrevocable timetable in motion, and set red lines which would inevitably lead us to this present chaos.
I have some sympathy with “purist” Brexiters, but only a little because the Brexit leadership to a man (and woman) appears to be intellectually dishonest if not downright crooked. That’s before we get into the flirtation with nationalist tropes.
As it is, Brexiters have destroyed Brexit.
The only thing left for the country is to figure out how to Remain with democratic legitimacy.
Also, just seen news on The Outer Worlds (new Obsidian sci-fi RPG). Looks interesting. And like stumbling Bethesda just took a punch to the gut.
Given that the Deal and Withdrawal Agreement are a road to make transition to a destination easier, and not a destination, then get it through by attaching to the Deal vote that there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period.
We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary)
- CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary.
- No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals (which also has the backstop issue, but could also give us up to four more years to work out a technological or political solution - or accept it, as the DUP might not have anywhere near as much power after the next GE - we could even make acceptance subject to a further referendum in NI)
- Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare. So we vote then, and Brexit has been enacted, and we have a brief period to catch our breath and decide where we go next. Including back in (and yes, we'd probably lose opt-outs, but that's the way of things. We'd almost certainly be able to easily rejoin from the transition situation if that's what's chosen).
Hard Remainers, WTO Brexiters, EEA-ers, everyone has a chance still to get what they want.
It's not ideal - the backstop might still be necessary, for example, but it completes the Brexit decision and gives clarity.
And it's almost certainly barking mad for one reason or another (one question would be how to hold a four - way referendum)
(But I think I meant “bunch of prats”)
I've repeatedly said I would, however grudgingly, accept May's imperfect deal.
What I won't accept is a parliamentary minority filibustering their way to a no deal Brexit which is supported by maybe a third of the electorate at best.
You are among the sorest of sore winners.
And rude to boot.
Mr. kle4, aye, and single player rather than jumping on a multiplayer bandwagon. Not into multiplayer myself, and Fallout 76 appears to have been an object lesson in how not to do it, leaving a large number of disgruntled sci-fi fans who may well be very pleased to see how The Outer Worlds turns out.
He believes so much in his Brexit the world should burn and all sinners must perish.
It is a deeply scary psychology.