There you go again, using the poor as human shields. .
Absolutely Meeks.
Protect the financial interests of the poor by joining with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, multi-nationals, billionaire financiers etc in fighting Brexit.
Since this started with a link to a manufacturer closing a plant in Britain because of Brexit, truly up is down in your mind. Just another reactionary Brexiteer backfilling a rationale to indulge your prejudices.
Want to engage with the content or flail with ad-homs?
In realistic terms you're right. It suits them too. Post Brexit an offer of a good cigar and a meal will have them dropping Irish interests on a whim though.
Whilst NI and Ireland continue to be different countries the guarantee of no hard border cannot be a guarantee. It's just a stupid clause in an agreement that all sides really like as its stopped a lot of far more stupid stuff.
As Marting Selmayr has made clear several times, if the UK leaves, the EU will have its pound of flesh. And that will be Northern Ireland.
As suggested - replace NI / the backstop with a one time quantum amount in £ and a deal could pass the ERG and DUP.
That's the normal remedy for breaking a deal - damages in £.
No deal will ever pass the hard core ERG, unless it's No Deal.
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. .
Absolutely Meeks.
Protect the financial interests of the poor by joining with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, multi-nationals, billionaire financiers etc in fighting Brexit.
Since this started with a link to a manufacturer closing a plant in Britain because of Brexit, truly up is down in your mind. Just another reactionary Brexiteer backfilling a rationale to indulge your prejudices.
Want to engage with the content or flail with ad-homs?
Come on, you can do it!
I gave you one nice crunchy fact with the brick in the face. Deal with it.
In realistic terms you're right. It suits them too. Post Brexit an offer of a good cigar and a meal will have them dropping Irish interests on a whim though.
Whilst NI and Ireland continue to be different countries the guarantee of no hard border cannot be a guarantee. It's just a stupid clause in an agreement that all sides really like as its stopped a lot of far more stupid stuff.
As Marting Selmayr has made clear several times, if the UK leaves, the EU will have its pound of flesh. And that will be Northern Ireland.
They'll probably end up with Scotland and maybe, in time, Wales too, tbf.
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. .
Absolutely Meeks.
Protect the financial interests of the poor by joining with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, multi-nationals, billionaire financiers etc in fighting Brexit.
Since this started with a link to a manufacturer closing a plant in Britain because of Brexit, truly up is down in your mind. Just another reactionary Brexiteer backfilling a rationale to indulge your prejudices.
Want to engage with the content or flail with ad-homs?
Come on, you can do it!
I gave you one nice crunchy fact with the brick in the face. Deal with it.
Whitehall’s Brexit department has enforced seven “gagging orders” on outsourcing firms and suppliers working on no-deal preparations, despite Theresa May’s previous criticism of such contracts.
The disclosure comes as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), run by Michael Gove, confirmed for the first time that it had also asked suppliers to sign non-disclosure agreements [NDAs] as it geared up for the possibility of the UK crashing out of Europe.
Six government departments have now admitted using NDAs on more than 62 partners working on no-deal preparations, preventing them from revealing any information related to contingency plans.
You seem to think that Brexit will slow down rather than accelerate the process. Brexit really was turkeys voting for Christmas, finding the way of making a trend that they hated even worse.
you seem to think people in manufacturing havent been watching industrial hollowing at their expense for ages. Whether it accelerates or not remains to be seen there are arguments both ways. But if the powers that be had maybe paid more attention to keeping their voters in skilled employment we wouldnt be leaving the EU.
Problem is, Brexit is all downside. If businesses have really good reasons to be in the UK they will stay, regardless of Brexit. They may be going anyway, in which case they won't be more likely to go because of Brexit. But at the margins, which is where a lot of these decisions are made, no-one will choose Britain because of Brexit, but they are highly likely to opt for the alternative because of it.
Faith-based Brexit doesn't allow such doubts. Brexit is good and therefore it will be good. It is not Allowed to have downsides, even trivial ones, never mind major ones.
Not at all. The remain pitch was based on telling people with nothing to loset that they would lose something, Its a vote for things might get better versus the certainty that they wont.
The vote was won because the cohort of appalling golf club real interest to them.
Now youre simply showing your prejudices rather than any understanding of why people voted leave. As an observation let them eat cake tends not to end well.
The referendum was won in the Tory shires not the hard scrabble wastelands. It was the collective decision of affluent reactionaries to put prejudice ahead of pragmatism that won it.
Look around you: pb is full of them.
Now youre just off on one, Places like Stoke, Redcar, Nuneaton, the Welsh valleys are not natural golf club country. There was a surprising consensus across the social spectrum in my area on why they were voting.
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. Look at the Leave vote in the Tory shires. Their decision to put shrivelled hearts over heads was the key difference and provided what passes for the intellectual leadership of the whole campaign.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
Good grief, you know you're on the right side of the argument when the opposition is claiming WW2 was about the EU and its Freedom of Movement rules.
One of, if not the, stupidest things i've ever read on here.
Yes, you're right. I now realise what a FUCKING RETARD I've been for suggesting that the primary impetus behind european integration was healing the scars of a century of brutal war and bringing peace and prosperity to Europe.
Gosh I do wish I had your towering intellect Mr Jim, but as a mere simpleton I now realise how foolish I've been in suggesting that using institutions to bring liberty or peace were in any way at the forefront of the minds of the post-war reconstruction era politicians.
In fact, it's only now that I've realised the true depths of my awesome lack of intellect for somehow thinking that the european project, starting as it did after two of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, was in ANY WAY a response to try to prevent them from happening again.
What a truly pitiful thickie dim muddlebum I am.
Please forgive me, I feel awful for sullying your vast intellect with my wretched dumbness.
I have little doubt that one of the original aims of the Iron and Steel community was to foster working together rather than having wars. This is why I find the fact the oldies in the ref voting so strongly out. I find it illogical, they may not have been fighting in the War, but they were hiding under the stairs and then their teenage years spent with rationing and living the next 10-20 years in bombed out cities, etc.
Something to these people went very wrong, having lived through these times they should have been strong remain, just like they were in 1973.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
Something to these people went very wrong, having lived through these times they should have been strong remain, just like they were in 1973.
There is an excellent series of BBC podcasts, titled something like 'Brexit, a love story?'.
One contributor suggested that a possible reason our relationship with the EU is different to the rest of Europe is WW2.
We see WW2 as a huge source of national pride whereas every other country was either an invader, the invaded or neutral.
They see WW2 as a source of either national guilt or national shame and the EU evolved partly from these feelings but of course our motivations were/are very different.
If you have a few hours to idle away I can really recommend the series for an in-depth and even handed discussion on the subject.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
Good grief, you know you're on the right side of the argument when the opposition is claiming WW2 was about the EU and its Freedom of Movement rules.
One of, if not the, stupidest things i've ever read on here.
Yes, you're right. I now realise what a FUCKING RETARD I've been for suggesting that the primary impetus behind european integration was healing the scars of a century of brutal war and bringing peace and prosperity to Europe.
Gosh I do wish I had your towering intellect Mr Jim, but as a mere simpleton I now realise how foolish I've been in suggesting that using institutions to bring liberty or peace were in any way at the forefront of the minds of the post-war reconstruction era politicians.
In fact, it's only now that I've realised the true depths of my awesome lack of intellect for somehow thinking that the european project, starting as it did after two of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, was in ANY WAY a response to try to prevent them from happening again.
What a truly pitiful thickie dim muddlebum I am.
Please forgive me, I feel awful for sullying your vast intellect with my wretched dumbness.
Geez the remainers on here are behaving like retarded toddlers tonight.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.
A third referendum.
Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.
A third referendum.
Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
Brexit Bonus - Us Brits are so wonderful and important we get our own dedicated passport lanes. No queuing with the riff raff. Those newly obtained Irish passports will be staying in the draw.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
Goodness me, everyone's very bad-tempered tonight.
Maybe this will cheer you up:
Three surgeons are deciding who is the best kind of patient to operate on. One says he likes electricians, because everything inside is colour coded. Another disagrees, because librarians are brilliant - everything tidily placed in alphabetical order and dead silence no matter what disaster happens. The third, however, tells them not to be foolish. 'Politicians are by far the best,' she says. 'They have no brains, no hearts, no guts and no spine. Plus their heads and butts are interchangeable.'
With grateful thanks to a colleague who had that ready for me when I arrived very late due to my car door having frozen solidly and immovably shut.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
Read their manifesto
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.
A third referendum.
Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
Wrong again. Democracy is not just asking a question. It is acting on the answer.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
Read their manifesto
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.
A third referendum.
Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
Good grief, you know you're on the right side of the argument when the opposition is claiming WW2 was about the EU and its Freedom of Movement rules.
One of, if not the, stupidest things i've ever read on here.
Yes, you're right. I now realise what a FUCKING RETARD I've been for suggesting that the primary impetus behind european integration was healing the scars of a century of brutal war and bringing peace and prosperity to Europe.
Gosh I do wish I had your towering intellect Mr Jim, but as a mere simpleton I now realise how foolish I've been in suggesting that using institutions to bring liberty or peace were in any way at the forefront of the minds of the post-war reconstruction era politicians.
In fact, it's only now that I've realised the true depths of my awesome lack of intellect for somehow thinking that the european project, starting as it did after two of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, was in ANY WAY a response to try to prevent them from happening again.
What a truly pitiful thickie dim muddlebum I am.
Please forgive me, I feel awful for sullying your vast intellect with my wretched dumbness.
Geez the remainers on here are behaving like retarded toddlers tonight.
Does this mean we're heading for no deal brexit?
If Remainers acting like retarded toddlers was all it took we would have been out the day after the vote.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
Read their manifesto
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.
Nothing there that suggests Remaining.
Nothing there that suggests delivering anything either.
There is a lot of nonsense that a People’s Vote is betraying the will of the people.
The counter argument is that we are leaving it to some last minute hasty wheeling and dealing to make the decision on what Brexit means.
A People’s Vote is NOT a cancellation. It is a democratic exercise to validate whatever Parliament is able to come up with before March.
Having a second referendum before the first is implemented is not particularly democratic.
Of course it is.
Nonsense. On that basis we’d be continually having referenda and never get anything done.
The problem with your approach is that there will never be a consensus on when the 2016 referendum has been implemented.
Maybe, but we know there is concensus for leaving the EU. If people want to change the basis on which we leave after we’ve left, is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate then.
No we don't. We know only that in 2016, 52% of people who voted, voted Leave.
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t teconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
And yet, you are the one who fears what a democratic 2nd ref might deliver.
A third referendum.
Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
Wrong again. Democracy is not just asking a question. It is acting on the answer.
We acted on the result of the 2016 referendum, and we would act on the result of my proposed referendum. Arguing that we haven't acted on the 2016 referendum given the position we're in now is utterly absurd.
I always wonder with these pictures whether the third party (eg; the nurse in this example) get any say as to whether they end up on the front page of a national publication allegedly saying something they may completely disagree with. Or do they (and their opinions) just become some form of collateral damage for a 'laugh'.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
Read their manifesto
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.
Nothing there that suggests Remaining.
Nothing there that suggests delivering anything either.
TBF, that could have been the title of Labour's entire manifesto.
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.
That is what was voted for. That's democracy.
Nobody can claim they voted for no deal even if they would be happy with that outcome themselves. This is what Vote Leave proposed:
"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. Look at the Leave vote in the Tory shires. Their decision to put shrivelled hearts over heads was the key difference and provided what passes for the intellectual leadership of the whole campaign.
Take a look at Wales.
The Remainers were in the "Tory shires". Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan.
The Leavers were in places beyond your imaginings, places where the affluent never set foot.
Ebbw Vale, Aberdare, Rhondda, Pontypool.
Every Labour seat in Wales (bar Cardiff) voted Leave.
"The most pithily eloquent responses come from a man waiting for his wife outside a shop, who declined to give his name but answered a series of quickfire questions.
Theresa May? “She’ll never win anything again.” Jeremy Corbyn? “He’s an arsehole.” Would there be another referendum? “No.” How was it all going to end? “A mess.”.....
Good job their MP isn't playing games but is getting on with delivering -
Those who say it betrays Leave voters. You do realise they get to vote again, right?
Those who say May's deal can't be on the ballot after Parliament rejected it. That's the whole fucking point. Parliament can't get their shit together. That's why it goes back to the people. What the Parliamentarians thought at that point is completely irrelevant.
We could have the WA tomorrow, apart from the very minor fact that Parliament voted against it by a majority of 230.
Grieve is right about a Norway-type deal. There is very little point leaving the EU, then following all the rules of the EU without any input into them. You have all the downsides of being in the EU without any of the upsides. The closer the relationship the less control you have. The less close the relationship the more theoretical control you have but also much more friction and cost and loss of trade.
Brexiteers refuse to come to terms with this and refuse to be honest with voters about this, preferring to blame the EU for not giving Britain everything it wants.
I would be pedantic and point out that: - Norway-type deal only follows a small fraction of the rules of the EU, rather than "all" of them (no CAP, no CFP, no justice rules, no foreign policy rules, no defence pillar, etc, etc) - Norway and others do, in fact, have an input into the fraction of the acquis that applies to them.
It also comes with no Eurozone requirement, no Schengen requirement, significantly reduced contributions (even from our rebated level), no ever-closer union, etc. There are negatives, but not those.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
Good grief, you know you're on the right side of the argument when the opposition is claiming WW2 was about the EU and its Freedom of Movement rules.
One of, if not the, stupidest things i've ever read on here.
Yes, you're right. I now realise what a FUCKING RETARD I've been for suggesting that the primary impetus behind european integration was healing the scars of a century of brutal war and bringing peace and prosperity to Europe.
Gosh I do wish I had your towering intellect Mr Jim, but as a mere simpleton I now realise how foolish I've been in suggesting that using institutions to bring liberty or peace were in any way at the forefront of the minds of the post-war reconstruction era politicians.
In fact, it's only now that I've realised the true depths of my awesome lack of intellect for somehow thinking that the european project, starting as it did after two of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, was in ANY WAY a response to try to prevent them from happening again.
What a truly pitiful thickie dim muddlebum I am.
Please forgive me, I feel awful for sullying your vast intellect with my wretched dumbness.
Geez the remainers on here are behaving like retarded toddlers tonight.
Does this mean we're heading for no deal brexit?
If Remainers acting like retarded toddlers was all it took we would have been out the day after the vote.
Well that's true, although I can't help but notice the last time I was on here the remainers were insufferably smug, but now they are back to throwing the ridiculous tantrums that they are famous for again. It must mean that their dreams of staying in the EU are fading away.
I particularly enjoyed the furious claim that the EU is the only thing that prevents us all from killing each other (watch out for the Belgians) or that the 17.4 million people that voted to leave are all disgusting old male rich golfing bores. Exactly how many of those in Stoke and Sunderland that voted to leave fall into that category I'm not quite sure. Maybe we should invest in golf clubs.
Still you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.
That is what was voted for. That's democracy.
Nobody can claim they voted for no deal even if they would be happy with that outcome themselves. This is what Vote Leave proposed:
"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A 12 month extension would mean we'd have to re-elect MEPs - totally insane.
Not to mention the fact that it would increase our net contribution in the period given that our total time to exit would be 1 year plus two years in transition.
I always wonder with these pictures whether the third party (eg; the nurse in this example) get any say as to whether they end up on the front page of a national publication allegedly saying something they may completely disagree with. Or do they (and their opinions) just become some form of collateral damage for a 'laugh'.
"Of course you are dear ..."
One of my favourites is the story of the poet David Gascoyne.
He was famous very young in the 1930s, fell out of favour, and became depressed & suffered a mental breakdown.
He ended up in Whitecroft Hospital, Isle of Wight. There was a therapist who used poetry to help the patients at the Hospital.
One of therapist's favourite poems was called September Sun. She read it one afternoon and one of the patients came up to her afterwards and said "I wrote that."
She put her hand on his shoulder and said "Of course you did, dear."
We know that and we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election. You just want asking the question until you get the answer that suits you because you can’t reconcile yourself to the fact that democracy doesn’t always give the answer you want.
Theresa May called that election saying: "In recent weeks Labour have threatened to vote against the final agreement we reach with the European Union, the Liberal Democrats have said they want to grind the business of government to a standstill, the SNP say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain’s membership of the European Union, and unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way. Our opponents believe because the government's majority is so small, that our resolve will weaken and they can force us to change course. They are wrong.”
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
"The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism. We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners." - Labour Party manifesto for GE 2017, p.24
The Labour manifesto said that Brexit would be delivered. Was this a unicorn Brexit? Possibly. Was it BINO? Certainly. But was it staying in the EU? No.
Whatever else may be disputed, the statement "...we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election," and the contents of the Labour and Conservative Party manifestos, are factually consistent with one another.
FWIW, I maintain that if, having given such reassurances, most MPs from pro-Brexit parties now believe that they have behaved really, really stupidly, and that the consequences of any form of Brexit are too disastrous to contemplate, then they have a duty to revoke A50 - not to throw the decision back to the electorate. Then there should be a dissolution, and all the MPs who stood on pro-Brexit manifestos and then changed their minds (i.e. the bulk of them) can be held accountable for their self-confessed total lack of judgement at a General Election.
From the Green Party report back it sounds like May is still resisting any compromise to her plan, except showing a little bit of interest in a citizens assembly.
Snap! Already posted - and already being criticised by the usual suspects on here!
Ah, if people disagree with you its them being the usual suspects, implicitly doing so in reactionary fashion and thus easily dismissable. How could one disagree with you about its excellence without merely being 'the usual suspects'?
I've not read it so I don't agree or disagree with it, and it'd be good to know how I might be permitted to disagree before I even attempt it.
The Remainers were in the "Tory shires". Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan.
The Leavers were in places beyond your imaginings, places where the affluent never set foot.
Ebbw Vale, Aberdare, Rhondda, Pontypool.
Every Labour seat in Wales (bar Cardiff) voted Leave.
Remaining is actually a far better outcome for the wealthier end of society.
A couple of examples...
If you a fixed-income pensioner or you have accumulated assets then inflation is generally your enemy.
FoM introduced an unlimited supply of labour in to the UK which helped suppress wage inflation and consequently wider inflation to the benefit of the wealthy.
This is one reason why Eddie George lobbied Blair so hard not to take advantage of the FoM directive.
Similarly, Stuart Rose as head of the Remain campaign said wages would rise in the event of Brexit as cheap labour was choked off.
The poorest definitely haven't benefited from membership of the EU in any meaningful sense.
If we have a second referendum with a choice between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking notification, "respect" won't come into it. The action will follow automatically from the referendum. If we revoke and there's subsequently a renewed desire to leave the EU, so be it. That's democracy.
The action should follow automatically from the first referendum. We leave with a deal, or we leave without.
That is what was voted for. That's democracy.
Nobody can claim they voted for no deal even if they would be happy with that outcome themselves. This is what Vote Leave proposed:
"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
There were two options on the ballot paper.
Remain a member of the European Union.
Leave the European Union.
Leave won.
Leave won a vote but mistook that for winning the argument when the argument was only beginning.
Snap! Already posted - and already being criticised by the usual suspects on here!
Ah, if people disagree with you its them being the usual suspects, implicitly doing so in reactionary fashion and thus easily dismissable. How could one disagree with you about its excellence without merely being 'the usual suspects'?
I've not read it so I don't agree or disagree with it, and it'd be good to know how I might be permitted to disagree before I even attempt it.
I demand we take the right to disagree with each other off the table before we negotiate!
You seem to think that Brexit will slow down rather than accelerate the process. Brexit really was turkeys voting for Christmas, finding the way of making a trend that they hated even worse.
you seem to think people in manufacturing havent been watching industrial hollowing at their expense for ages. Whether it accelerates or not remains to be seen there are arguments both ways. But if the powers that be had maybe paid more attention to keeping their voters in skilled employment we wouldnt be leaving the EU.
Problem is, Brexit is all downside. If businesses have really good reasons to be in the UK they will stay, regardless of Brexit. They may be going anyway, in which case they won't be more likely to go because of Brexit. But at the margins, which is where a lot of these decisions are made, no-one will choose Britain because of Brexit, but they are highly likely to opt for the alternative because of it.
Faith-based Brexit doesn't allow such doubts. Brexit is good and therefore it will be good. It is not Allowed to have downsides, even trivial ones, never mind major ones.
Not at all. The remain pitch was based on telling people with nothing to loset that they would lose something, Its a vote for things might get better versus the certainty that they wont.
The vote was won because the cohort of appalling golf club real interest to them.
Now youre simply showing your prejudices rather than any understanding of why people voted leave. As an observation let them eat cake tends not to end well.
The referendum was won in the Tory shires not the hard scrabble wastelands. It was the collective decision of affluent reactionaries to put prejudice ahead of pragmatism that won it.
Look around you: pb is full of them.
Now youre just off on one, Places like Stoke, Redcar, Nuneaton, the Welsh valleys are not natural golf club country. There was a surprising consensus across the social spectrum in my area on why they were voting.
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. Look at the Leave vote in the Tory shires. Their decision to put shrivelled hearts over heads was the key difference and provided what passes for the intellectual leadership of the whole campaign.
Provincial England and Wales, whether Tory Shire or Labour heartland, mostly voted Leave. Centres of government, academia, and finance voted Remain.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
The world is wonderful. The political edifice called the EU is shit. Backward looking, shrinking and doomed to irrelevance. It is your vision that is the gloomy one.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
You, a brexiteer intellectual optimist: "EVERYTHING IN EUROPE IS SHIT AND DOOMED"
Excellent news for once - the public is finally seeing through Magic Grandpa, and Vince Cable has made an intervention that has real political significance. Now Corbyn has to either stick to his position (in which case he can never get an early election) or do a 180 to campaign for a second referendum and Remain (in which case he can never win one, as his Old Labour base stays home).
Given this, why not call a GE? Now that the public is seeing through Corbyn, we can be confident he’ll be destroyed, surely....
As for Corbyn’s Brexit position I think he’ll find various ways to keep being ambiguous on the issue. He’s gone with this no deal line knowing that not only will many of the moderates will back it, but that May will never rule out no deal. In order to do that, May would have to commit to revoking article 50 if it came down to it, and she won’t do that knowing that her coalition of voters will not be happy with this at all.
The world is wonderful. The political edifice called the EU is shit. Backward looking, shrinking and doomed to irrelevance. It is your vision that is the gloomy one.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
You, a brexiteer intellectual optimist: "EVERYTHING IN EUROPE IS SHIT AND DOOMED"
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
I guess the argument is that our MPs are too preoccupied with personal career and party political advantage to be able to address the issues dispassionately.
The Remainers were in the "Tory shires". Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan.
The Leavers were in places beyond your imaginings, places where the affluent never set foot.
Ebbw Vale, Aberdare, Rhondda, Pontypool.
Every Labour seat in Wales (bar Cardiff) voted Leave.
Remaining is actually a far better outcome for the wealthier end of society.
A couple of examples...
If you a fixed-income pensioner or you have accumulated assets then inflation is generally your enemy.
FoM introduced an unlimited supply of labour in to the UK which helped suppress wage inflation and consequently wider inflation to the benefit of the wealthy.
This is one reason why Eddie George lobbied Blair so hard not to take advantage of the FoM directive.
Similarly, Stuart Rose as head of the Remain campaign said wages would rise in the event of Brexit as cheap labour was choked off.
The poorest definitely haven't benefited from membership of the EU in any meaningful sense.
You mean apart from full employment which has depended at least partly on a single market, various social rights, unfettered travel through Europe, regional development funding etc.
Just listened to classic fm 4.00pm news that confirmed meetings were continuing with leaders and mps. Tom Brake confirmed he had had a meeting and had said that no deal has to come off the table and a referendum considered. He said further meetings will take place
Then Corbyn banning all his mps from the meetings was confirmed and it was immediately followed by confirmation that Benn and Cooper had been at a meeting, breaking his embargo
Any one listening could only come go the conclusion that Corbyn does not know what he is doing and is scoring an own goal
I hear everyone saying nothing has changed with these meetings but it is a process and until a path through has a common denominator and the amendments on the 29th have been voted on TM is unlikely to pivot away from her position
I do expect no deal will be taken out of the equation at sometime in the next few weeks
I thought it was significant that JRM has said the ERG will support the government in any vonc even if there are problems with their form of brexit
The only way to take No Deal out of the equation is to Extend or Revoke A50. So effectively to cancel the result of the referendum. Under those circumstances I don't see JRM or any other committed leaver continuing to support May.
In order to do that. she to break completely with her party, taking a few dozen of her MPs into a Coalition with the other parties.
Odds on that, maybe 1000-1
No, more than that. She's made it clear that for her it's Party first, country second. She bangs on about her 'precious union' but it's evident that for her it's party first.
Politics is the art of the possible. Everyone dreams of an opposing party leader who will tell their supporters where to go, ignoring the fact that those supporters would promptly tell that leader where to go.
Well, moderates on both sides dream of that instead of asking why they are out of fashion on both the right and the left.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?
Good question. Is it just another Parliament of Saints? Problem with giving a political question over to non politicians is it turns them into politicians, so what's the point?
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
I think a citizen's assembly is a grand idea. Split the country up into, oh, about 650 small areas, each roughly the same size, and get each of these areas to elect a representative, that can argue for that area in this assembly. Great idea.
In realistic terms you're right. It suits them too. Post Brexit an offer of a good cigar and a meal will have them dropping Irish interests on a whim though.
Whilst NI and Ireland continue to be different countries the guarantee of no hard border cannot be a guarantee. It's just a stupid clause in an agreement that all sides really like as its stopped a lot of far more stupid stuff.
As Marting Selmayr has made clear several times, if the UK leaves, the EU will have its pound of flesh. And that will be Northern Ireland.
They'll probably end up with Scotland and maybe, in time, Wales too, tbf.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
What if Brown was suggesting a PB Assembly?
Even worse idea...we would get far too bogged down in if Die Hard is a Christmas movie, how bad radiohead live really is and can boxed wine ever be ok...
We could have the WA tomorrow, apart from the very minor fact that Parliament voted against it by a majority of 230.
Grieve is right about a Norway-type deal. There is very little point leaving the EU, then following all the rules of the EU without any input into them. You have all the downsides of being in the EU without any of the upsides. The closer the relationship the less control you have. The less close the relationship the more theoretical control you have but also much more friction and cost and loss of trade.
Brexiteers refuse to come to terms with this and refuse to be honest with voters about this, preferring to blame the EU for not giving Britain everything it wants.
I would be pedantic and point out that: - Norway-type deal only follows a small fraction of the rules of the EU, rather than "all" of them (no CAP, no CFP, no justice rules, no foreign policy rules, no defence pillar, etc, etc) - Norway and others do, in fact, have an input into the fraction of the acquis that applies to them.
It also comes with no Eurozone requirement, no Schengen requirement, significantly reduced contributions (even from our rebated level), no ever-closer union, etc. There are negatives, but not those.
Norway (as opposed to the more restrictive Norway plus) was always an underappreciated option but it is disliked by both ERG types and the Corbyn faction who want to leave the single market so they can pursue their nationalisation agenda.
The world is wonderful. The political edifice called the EU is shit. Backward looking, shrinking and doomed to irrelevance. It is your vision that is the gloomy one.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
You, a brexiteer intellectual optimist: "EVERYTHING IN EUROPE IS SHIT AND DOOMED"
It was a bit silly of you to vote Leave, then
With Tim, the clue is in his new username.
I may flatter myself that I have a decent eye for writing styles, but GC really isn't Tim.
From the Green Party report back it sounds like May is still resisting any compromise to her plan, except showing a little bit of interest in a citizens assembly.
So no compromise except on the silliest suggestion yet. What a leader.
May clearly has to compromise. But most peoples' demands seems to be that she must do exactly as they want without compromise on their side, so this does all feel like a waste of time.
Not too keen on the citizens assembly idea, but I think it’s either no deal or revoking article 50 and then potentially a second ref. We can’t have second ref campaign between now and March with article 50 not revoked. And if Remainers chose people like Tony Blair to front the campaign, don’t be surprised when Leave wins again.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
Good grief, you know you're on the right side of the argument when the opposition is claiming WW2 was about the EU and its Freedom of Movement rules.
One of, if not the, stupidest things i've ever read on here.
Yes, you're right. I now realise what a FUCKING RETARD I've been for suggesting that the primary impetus behind european integration was healing the scars of a century of brutal war and bringing peace and prosperity to Europe.
Gosh I do wish I had your towering intellect Mr Jim, but as a mere simpleton I now realise how foolish I've been in suggesting that using institutions to bring liberty or peace were in any way at the forefront of the minds of the post-war reconstruction era politicians.
In fact, it's only now that I've realised the true depths of my awesome lack of intellect for somehow thinking that the european project, starting as it did after two of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, was in ANY WAY a response to try to prevent them from happening again.
What a truly pitiful thickie dim muddlebum I am.
Please forgive me, I feel awful for sullying your vast intellect with my wretched dumbness.
I have little doubt that one of the original aims of the Iron and Steel community was to foster working together rather than having wars. This is why I find the fact the oldies in the ref voting so strongly out. I find it illogical, they may not have been fighting in the War, but they were hiding under the stairs and then their teenage years spent with rationing and living the next 10-20 years in bombed out cities, etc.
Something to these people went very wrong, having lived through these times they should have been strong remain, just like they were in 1973.
Yes - they were on the winning side and were fed endless propaganda about our natural superiority.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?
Good question. Is it just another Parliament of Saints? Problem with giving a political question over to non politicians is it turns them into politicians, so what's the point?
No, because they don't have members, and party executives, and career prospects, and elections to worry about
From the Green Party report back it sounds like May is still resisting any compromise to her plan, except showing a little bit of interest in a citizens assembly.
So no compromise except on the silliest suggestion yet. What a leader.
May clearly has to compromise. But most peoples' demands seems to be that she must do exactly as they want without compromise on their side, so this does all feel like a waste of time.
What if May is deliberately trying to get the worst, most half-arsed compromise possible because she wants to lose the plan B vote and have Parliament seize control of the process?
She's not an idiot, she must be able to see that Corbyn and the ERG and the DUP are trying to duct tape her hands to the wheel as we drive towards the cliff edge?
Excellent news for once - the public is finally seeing through Magic Grandpa, and Vince Cable has made an intervention that has real political significance. Now Corbyn has to either stick to his position (in which case he can never get an early election) or do a 180 to campaign for a second referendum and Remain (in which case he can never win one, as his Old Labour base stays home).
Given this, why not call a GE? Now that the public is seeing through Corbyn, we can be confident he’ll be destroyed, surely....
As for Corbyn’s Brexit position I think he’ll find various ways to keep being ambiguous on the issue. He’s gone with this no deal line knowing that not only will many of the moderates will back it, but that May will never rule out no deal. In order to do that, May would have to commit to revoking article 50 if it came down to it, and she won’t do that knowing that her coalition of voters will not be happy with this at all.
Why not call a GE? Because an electorate that could breezily cripple the country by first voting for Brexit and then depriving the party enacting it of a working majority needs a long spell away from the voting booth, that's why!
The world is wonderful. The political edifice called the EU is shit. Backward looking, shrinking and doomed to irrelevance. It is your vision that is the gloomy one.
Me, a gloomy dimwit pessimist: "The EU is imperfect but the freedom to live, work and love anywhere in a united and peaceful Europe is a dream that millions fought for."
You, a brexiteer intellectual optimist: "EVERYTHING IN EUROPE IS SHIT AND DOOMED"
It was a bit silly of you to vote Leave, then
With Tim, the clue is in his new username.
I may flatter myself that I have a decent eye for writing styles, but GC really isn't Tim.
Tim and I used to argue ferociously all the time (I used to post under my real name back then, before my John Prescott incident). I could never begin to achieve his levels of masterful irritancy. He soared like an eagle.
Excellent news for once - the public is finally seeing through Magic Grandpa, and Vince Cable has made an intervention that has real political significance. Now Corbyn has to either stick to his position (in which case he can never get an early election) or do a 180 to campaign for a second referendum and Remain (in which case he can never win one, as his Old Labour base stays home).
Given this, why not call a GE? Now that the public is seeing through Corbyn, we can be confident he’ll be destroyed, surely....
As for Corbyn’s Brexit position I think he’ll find various ways to keep being ambiguous on the issue. He’s gone with this no deal line knowing that not only will many of the moderates will back it, but that May will never rule out no deal. In order to do that, May would have to commit to revoking article 50 if it came down to it, and she won’t do that knowing that her coalition of voters will not be happy with this at all.
Why not call a GE? Because an electorate that could breezily cripple the country by first voting for Brexit and then depriving the party enacting it of a working majority needs a long spell away from the voting booth, that's why!
So you believe the public are seeing through Corbyn but aren’t willingly to test that theory by having a GE?
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
What if Brown was suggesting a PB Assembly?
I would not let PB's commenters run a dog pound, never mind set the country's political direction.
Comments
Come on, you can do it!
For Corbyn: 306
A "people's" vote to turn us into a People's "Democratic" Republic.
The disclosure comes as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), run by Michael Gove, confirmed for the first time that it had also asked suppliers to sign non-disclosure agreements [NDAs] as it geared up for the possibility of the UK crashing out of Europe.
Six government departments have now admitted using NDAs on more than 62 partners working on no-deal preparations, preventing them from revealing any information related to contingency plans.
Absolute crank.
This is why I find the fact the oldies in the ref voting so strongly out. I find it illogical, they may not have been fighting in the War, but they were hiding under the stairs and then their teenage years spent with rationing and living the next 10-20 years in bombed out cities, etc.
Something to these people went very wrong, having lived through these times they should have been strong remain, just like they were in 1973.
One contributor suggested that a possible reason our relationship with the EU is different to the rest of Europe is WW2.
We see WW2 as a huge source of national pride whereas every other country was either an invader, the invaded or neutral.
They see WW2 as a source of either national guilt or national shame and the EU evolved partly from these feelings but of course our motivations were/are very different.
If you have a few hours to idle away I can really recommend the series for an in-depth and even handed discussion on the subject.
Does this mean we're heading for no deal brexit?
Because if the result of the first one isn't respected, why respect the result of a second?
A vote for Labour in 2017 was not an endorsement of Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/just-stop-messing-about-hastings-aghast-at-brexit-impasse
Brexit Bonus - Us Brits are so wonderful and important we get our own dedicated passport lanes. No queuing with the riff raff. Those newly obtained Irish passports will be staying in the draw.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue
Maybe this will cheer you up:
Three surgeons are deciding who is the best kind of patient to operate on. One says he likes electricians, because everything inside is colour coded. Another disagrees, because librarians are brilliant - everything tidily placed in alphabetical order and dead silence no matter what disaster happens. The third, however, tells them not to be foolish. 'Politicians are by far the best,' she says. 'They have no brains, no hearts, no guts and no spine. Plus their heads and butts are interchangeable.'
With grateful thanks to a colleague who had that ready for me when I arrived very late due to my car door having frozen solidly and immovably shut.
Dream on.
Immigration and freedom of movement
Labour’s 2017 manifesto stated that “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.
Single market membership
Immediately after the election, John McDonnell said “I think people will interpret membership of the single market as not respecting that referendum.”
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a 'Cliff-edge’ for the economy.
That is what was voted for. That's democracy.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."
The Remainers were in the "Tory shires". Monmouthshire, Vale of Glamorgan.
The Leavers were in places beyond your imaginings, places where the affluent never set foot.
Ebbw Vale, Aberdare, Rhondda, Pontypool.
Every Labour seat in Wales (bar Cardiff) voted Leave.
Theresa May? “She’ll never win anything again.” Jeremy Corbyn? “He’s an arsehole.” Would there be another referendum? “No.” How was it all going to end? “A mess.”.....
Good job their MP isn't playing games but is getting on with delivering -
Oh.
Turn Hastings From Amber To Red!
Those who say it betrays Leave voters. You do realise they get to vote again, right?
Those who say May's deal can't be on the ballot after Parliament rejected it. That's the whole fucking point. Parliament can't get their shit together. That's why it goes back to the people. What the Parliamentarians thought at that point is completely irrelevant.
- Norway-type deal only follows a small fraction of the rules of the EU, rather than "all" of them (no CAP, no CFP, no justice rules, no foreign policy rules, no defence pillar, etc, etc)
- Norway and others do, in fact, have an input into the fraction of the acquis that applies to them.
It also comes with no Eurozone requirement, no Schengen requirement, significantly reduced contributions (even from our rebated level), no ever-closer union, etc.
There are negatives, but not those.
I particularly enjoyed the furious claim that the EU is the only thing that prevents us all from killing each other (watch out for the Belgians) or that the 17.4 million people that voted to leave are all disgusting old male rich golfing bores. Exactly how many of those in Stoke and Sunderland that voted to leave fall into that category I'm not quite sure. Maybe we should invest in golf clubs.
Still you'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
Remain a member of the European Union.
Leave the European Union.
Leave won.
Not to mention the fact that it would increase our net contribution in the period given that our total time to exit would be 1 year plus two years in transition.
One of my favourites is the story of the poet David Gascoyne.
He was famous very young in the 1930s, fell out of favour, and became depressed & suffered a mental breakdown.
He ended up in Whitecroft Hospital, Isle of Wight. There was a therapist who used poetry to help the patients at the Hospital.
One of therapist's favourite poems was called September Sun. She read it one afternoon and one of the patients came up to her afterwards and said "I wrote that."
She put her hand on his shoulder and said "Of course you did, dear."
And he had.
The Labour manifesto said that Brexit would be delivered. Was this a unicorn Brexit? Possibly. Was it BINO? Certainly. But was it staying in the EU? No.
Whatever else may be disputed, the statement "...we know that the electorate overwhelmingly supported political parties committed to implement that 2016 result in the 2017 election," and the contents of the Labour and Conservative Party manifestos, are factually consistent with one another.
FWIW, I maintain that if, having given such reassurances, most MPs from pro-Brexit parties now believe that they have behaved really, really stupidly, and that the consequences of any form of Brexit are too disastrous to contemplate, then they have a duty to revoke A50 - not to throw the decision back to the electorate. Then there should be a dissolution, and all the MPs who stood on pro-Brexit manifestos and then changed their minds (i.e. the bulk of them) can be held accountable for their self-confessed total lack of judgement at a General Election.
I've not read it so I don't agree or disagree with it, and it'd be good to know how I might be permitted to disagree before I even attempt it.
A couple of examples...
If you a fixed-income pensioner or you have accumulated assets then inflation is generally your enemy.
FoM introduced an unlimited supply of labour in to the UK which helped suppress wage inflation and consequently wider inflation to the benefit of the wealthy.
This is one reason why Eddie George lobbied Blair so hard not to take advantage of the FoM directive.
Similarly, Stuart Rose as head of the Remain campaign said wages would rise in the event of Brexit as cheap labour was choked off.
The poorest definitely haven't benefited from membership of the EU in any meaningful sense.
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
As for Corbyn’s Brexit position I think he’ll find various ways to keep being ambiguous on the issue. He’s gone with this no deal line knowing that not only will many of the moderates will back it, but that May will never rule out no deal. In order to do that, May would have to commit to revoking article 50 if it came down to it, and she won’t do that knowing that her coalition of voters will not be happy with this at all.
On VC - Stephen Bush has an interesting peace on that today: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/how-liberal-democrats-coalition-past-endangers-their-anti-brexit-future
You don’t have a Danny La Rue.
May clearly has to compromise. But most peoples' demands seems to be that she must do exactly as they want without compromise on their side, so this does all feel like a waste of time.
https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/1085795949727883265?s=21
Has anything happened to justify that?
She's not an idiot, she must be able to see that Corbyn and the ERG and the DUP are trying to duct tape her hands to the wheel as we drive towards the cliff edge?