Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.
snip.
No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
Economic damage will cause political damage. If people don't feel secure - about jobs, about food, about medicines, about law 'n' order - they won't give a shit about democracy, about their referendum vote. Order and security first - then democracy. That has been true in this country, if you look at our history.
Surprisingly totalitarian from you.
It's not totalitarian. It's an observation from history. And from current events. See Iraq, for instance. It was actually derived something said by Paddy Ashdown, following his stint as supremo in Bosnia, following the civil war there.
See this from an interview in 2002:
"My main slogan in the first address I gave, the one I adhere to is: first justice, then jobs through reform. The reason is very simple; the creation of peace does not rest on democracy in the first place, as we thought, but rather on justice. Until you create the rule of law, you cannot create the security of the people, security of democracy and the economy, security of investments and all that follows that. We first made that mistake here, and then once again in Kosovo, because we did not establish the rule of law immediately."
If a chaotic Brexit threatens security, the economy, people's jobs etc then those people will not thank politicians for telling them that they did it because of their votes. That's my point.
Order and security is not necessarily the natural bedfellow of the rule of law. See Iraq, DPRK, China, Eritrea, KSA, USSR, Ceasuescu's Romania (cont. with Godwin p.94).
You're usually such a thoughtful poster and whenever I saw a massive post I couldn't be bothered to read I'd make myself read it if it was one of yours and I was never disappointed; it was always as coherent as it was persuasive.
But in this thread you've backed, even in jest, withdrawing medicine and food from the populace on the grounds of the way they voted, suggested an immediate revocation you must know is both unlawful (as per the AG and the ECJ in Wightman) and a catastrophic departure from the basic principles of democracy, and suggested in the face of all the evidence that order and security is the progenitor of democracy and a reflection of the rule of law.
Not necessarily - there's quite a few Labour MPs (Caroline Flint being one) who have said they won't be voting for it, and all the Tory MPs who spent weeks talking about how they were committed to avoiding No Deal are (predictably) bottling out of actually following through when it matters.
problems with Coopers amendment.
1) There is some truth the cliff edge facing both parties and the ticking clock could lead to a climb down, and a better deal, but if commons supports Coopers amendment Britain stops waving it’s guns, instantly our negotiating strength is neutralised. It doesn’t stop no deal brexit, just kicks it down the road, it’s not a solution taking us closer to resolution, it’s can kicking leaving us nowhere.
2) Coopers amendment cannot deliver on its promise. It’s not in the power of UK either government or parliament to create an extension, merely ask the EU to grant one with a case we are actually doing something constructive with the time. Which is What?
3). If a lot of Labour MPs see it like this and rebel a whip (if indeed Labour leadership are whipping support for it, hard to believe they are that dumb to invite the two strong attacks 1 & 2 above from government party against them) then it dangerously fragments a previously solid PLP weakening the party whip.
In my view the Benn amendment, which allows Parliament to vote on No Deal, May's Deal, renegotiating May's Deal and EUref2 and the Grieve amendment, enabling Parliament to propose Brexit options are more significant than the Cooper amendment as they allow Parliament to take control, extending Article 50 is merely can kicking though provides more time for alternatives to be fobsidered
Fobsidered? Are you in dictionary corner?
Whipless Tuesday would have been nice. Free votes on across the board positions, everything, no deals, revokes, refs, norway minus Canada plus. But nah! It’s going to be tribal party politics food fight, and result in the worst kind of impression to the electorate and watching world.
By handing Cooper the whip Corbyn had blown Tuesday already, the Tory side will rip her wrong headed amendment to pieces.
It only needs a handful of Tory Remainers voting for it for Cooper's amendment to pass
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
If the incentive involves Jacob Rees-Mogg being thrashed with an olive branch I'll vote for it.
"Our Plan B is a triple safety net around exiting without a withdrawal agreement: we will continue to offer plan A, including bilateral cooperation on security"
Assuming Plan B is only applied without a withdrawal agreement, then "continu[ing] to offer plan A" is pointless as it's already been rejected...
"Alongside we would agree the negotiated Implementation Period"
..so we're going to be negotiating the Implementation Period after crashing out with No Deal..
"Hi, guys! You know we've just asked you for a deal, you offered us one and told you to fuck off? Well, we'd like to negotiate another deal. Sound good?"
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
The EU insisted on WA before trade negotiations. This makes no sense and for those of us who are sick of this and all the whining from both sides, the prospect of a further phase is terrible.
So brexit now sorted. Next impossible issue .. Who to open for England?
Easy.
The Chairman of Selectors nominates two players. The other selectors and captain disagree. No decision is made until the match starts. The opposing team is asked to delay the start of the match pending agreement amongst the selectors as to who shall open. A period of delay is agreed, the sides toss up and the match starts. At this point the other selectors cave in and the Chairman's choices make their way out to the middle.
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
The EU insisted on WA before trade negotiations. This makes no sense and for those of us who are sick of this and all the whining from both sides, the prospect of a further phase is terrible.
If we had had a free trade arrangement at the same time as the Withdrawal Agreement then we would already know if we needed a hard borde with Ireland or not.
It was the EUs idea to have the WA first as their negotiating position to put presure on theUK.
As it has turned out the EU strategy has backfired.
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
The EU insisted on WA before trade negotiations. This makes no sense and for those of us who are sick of this and all the whining from both sides, the prospect of a further phase is terrible.
I think it's going to be like this for some time. We still have the negotiations for the implementation period, then the future agreement... However, if it helps, I don't like this either.
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
The EU insisted on WA before trade negotiations. This makes no sense and for those of us who are sick of this and all the whining from both sides, the prospect of a further phase is terrible.
Well, we left the Club, it didn't leave us. It was not obliged to do anything other than wave us goodbye.
Order and security is not necessarily the natural bedfellow of the rule of law. See Iraq, DPRK, China, Eritrea, KSA, USSR, Ceasuescu's Romania (cont. with Godwin p.94).
You're usually such a thoughtful poster and whenever I saw a massive post I couldn't be bothered to read I'd make myself read it if it was one of yours and I was never disappointed; it was always as coherent as it was persuasive.
But in this thread you've backed, even in jest, withdrawing medicine and food from the populace on the grounds of the way they voted, suggested an immediate revocation you must know is both unlawful (as per the AG and the ECJ in Wightman) and a catastrophic departure from the basic principles of democracy, and suggested in the face of all the evidence that order and security is the progenitor of democracy and a reflection of the rule of law.
No - I haven't backed withdrawing food and medecine. It was @TSE who suggested it and I who cautioned him against.
The ECJ has ruled that Britain can revoke Article 50.
I have made the point that for democracy to flourish there needs to be order first. That has historically been the case in most countries, including this one. If there is a breakdown in order then the voters may be somewhat less keen on the consequences of their votes. It is those in favour of a No Deal exit who are risking the imposition of martial law. Not me.
My personal preference, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is - given that Leavers are refusing to agree to the WA their government has negotiated - for a second referendum so that people can vote on whether they want to go ahead with Brexit on the basis of the WA or not. That is the most democratic option.
But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. I could live with an exit with a Deal. But it is the Leavers who are turning their backs on what they claim to desire. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, in my opinion.
There are no good options. If the Deal is to be rejected, a 2nd referendum is IMO the least worst option. Revoke is the next option. A No Deal option would be disastrous - both economically and politically.
Now it may just be project fear but will the Republic be expected to carry on funding the £10bn subsidy the UK provides per annum to Northern Ireland. Apparently a study by experts suggests a united Ireland could reduce living standards in the Republic by 15%.
Will residents of NI by contrast be keen to pay 50 euro to see a GP, 100 euro to go to A&E or pay 70 euro a night to stay in hospital if they earn more than 14,000 euro - and yes those charges also apply to kids aged over 7. Let alone see their grandkids or siblings or nephews and nieces pay 33% inheritance tax on any legacies over a mere 33,000 euro (and that is a one off tax free threshold for life not per inheritance) - one tenth of the tax free threshold per estate (not for life) in the UK.
Many may love the theory - but will they like the reality of a united Ireland? Cos there is already quite a hard border in terms of healthcare, welfare and inheritance tax policies!
Now it may just be project fear but will the Republic be expected to carry on funding the £10bn subsidy the UK provides per annum to Northern Ireland. Apparently a study by experts suggests a united Ireland could reduce living standards in the Republic by 15%.
Will residents of NI by contrast be keen to pay 50 euro to see a GP, 100 euro to go to A&E or pay 70 euro a night to stay in hospital if they earn more than 14,000 euro - and yes those charges also apply to kids aged over 7. Let alone see their grandkids or siblings or nephews and nieces pay 33% inheritance tax on any legacies over a mere 33,000 euro (and that is a one off tax free threshold for life not per inheritance) - one tenth of the tax free threshold per estate (not for life) in the UK.
Many may love the theory - but will they like the reality of a united Ireland? Cos there is already quite a hard border in terms of healthcare, welfare and inheritance tax policies!
Now it may just be project fear but will the Republic be expected to carry on funding the £10bn subsidy the UK provides per annum to Northern Ireland. Apparently a study by experts suggests a united Ireland could reduce living standards in the Republic by 15%.
Will residents of NI by contrast be keen to pay 50 euro to see a GP, 100 euro to go to A&E or pay 70 euro a night to stay in hospital if they earn more than 14,000 euro - and yes those charges also apply to kids aged over 7. Let alone see their grandkids or siblings or nephews and nieces pay 33% inheritance tax on any legacies over a mere 33,000 euro (and that is a one off tax free threshold for life not per inheritance) - one tenth of the tax free threshold per estate (not for life) in the UK.
Many may love the theory - but will they like the reality of a united Ireland? Cos there is already quite a hard border in terms of healthcare, welfare and inheritance tax policies!
You're so right. Studies by experts and pointing out the economic issues always win against emotive appeals to sovereignty.
Well they always seem to work on the Scots!
But my latter point remains of validity - vote for a united Ireland, see massive cuts in public spending, see your close relatives and friends bled dry by penal inheritance tax when you die and lose your free at the point of use NHS unless you earn below minimum wage. Perhaps emotional appeals to sovereignty in the six counties might win out - perhaps not?
NI lives on subsidies - and its much easier for the UK with 65 million people to find that cash than the Republic with only 4.5 million.
OT have we done this Kamala Harris video? It's not just the policy, it's the self-righteous glee with which she laughs about it. She's like a more disturbing version of Hillary Clinton.
Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms.
Then we should have a crowdfunding exercise on Facebook for the Tory party to have the intensive therapy it so badly needs.
That 's an option.
But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
Not for those things where there is still a veto.
But frankly I think that we need to rethink our whole attitude to Europe and have a strategy for the world as it is and is likely to become not the world as it was. Our thinking about Europe, about the EU, about the world is - and this has become painfully obvious in the last two years - rooted in the past, as if Brexit if the only thing needed for the world to be as it was in 1966.
To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.
The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
For the love of god.
The argument for political union is dead. The reason why remainiacs have been banging on about economics all this time is because the vast majority of the British public has zero interest in "More Europe". Even most Remain voters don't want more power to Brussels. It is simply going in a direction we don't want to go and the antagonism is only going to grow the longer we stay.
The refrain of "if only we got more involved" is perhaps the most delusional thing to come from the referendum. Okay perhaps not most, but up there. It's not happening, in any of our lifetimes at least.
More to the point what on earth makes you think an institution built on post-war ideology, one that is terribly, terribly flawed, is the right vehicle to lead us into the 21st century? The EU is an institution rooted in the past, even older than 1966! The EU is not interested in fresh thinking, the only thing it knows is "More Europe" and our decades of membership had **** all effect on that. All it produced was a political class ever more subservient to the federalist desires of the Franco-German partnership, which poisoned our politics.
Now it may just be project fear but will the Republic be expected to carry on funding the £10bn subsidy the UK provides per annum to Northern Ireland. Apparently a study by experts suggests a united Ireland could reduce living standards in the Republic by 15%.
Will residents of NI by contrast be keen to pay 50 euro to see a GP, 100 euro to go to A&E or pay 70 euro a night to stay in hospital if they earn more than 14,000 euro - and yes those charges also apply to kids aged over 7. Let alone see their grandkids or siblings or nephews and nieces pay 33% inheritance tax on any legacies over a mere 33,000 euro (and that is a one off tax free threshold for life not per inheritance) - one tenth of the tax free threshold per estate (not for life) in the UK.
Many may love the theory - but will they like the reality of a united Ireland? Cos there is already quite a hard border in terms of healthcare, welfare and inheritance tax policies!
The argument for political union is dead. The reason why remainiacs have been banging on about economics all this time is because the vast majority of the British public has zero interest in "More Europe". Even most Remain voters don't want more power to Brussels. It is simply going in a direction we don't want to go and the antagonism is only going to grow the longer we stay.
The refrain of "if only we got more involved" is perhaps the most delusional thing to come from the referendum. Okay perhaps not most, but up there. It's not happening, in any of our lifetimes at least.
More to the point what on earth makes you think an institution built on post-war ideology, one that is terribly, terribly flawed, is the right vehicle to lead us into the 21st century? The EU is an institution rooted in the past, even older than 1966! The EU is not interested in fresh thinking, the only thing it knows is "More Europe" and our decades of membership had **** all effect on that. All it produced was a political class ever more subservient to the federalist desires of the Franco-German partnership, which poisoned our politics.
I don't think the EU is the answer. I do think though that it will - in some form - continue to exist, it will develop, it will impact very heavily on our life and, more importantly, that there will be other changes in the world (the USA's retreat into isolationism, a weakened but dangerous Russia, an aggressive China) which will require fresh thinking on everyone's parts, including ours and the rest of Europe.
I don't see any evidence that Brexiteers have any answers to these developments. For the love of God, they can't even work out how to agree a transition agreement.
So I think it dangerous to leap into the unknown under the guidance who, on the basis of the evidence so far, have no idea what they are doing.
But if you have a plan - other than to criticise the EU - and I have done lots of that in the last 3 years, by all means share it.
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
The EU insisted on WA before trade negotiations. This makes no sense and for those of us who are sick of this and all the whining from both sides, the prospect of a further phase is terrible.
Well, we left the Club, it didn't leave us. It was not obliged to do anything other than wave us goodbye.
people keep saying this and it just makes the EU look like idiots. They want a deal too remember? It's in their interests too remember? That means yes, they're not obliged to do things for us, but it means they do need to negotiate something both of us agree so they can get what they say they want. No that doesn't mean they should give in to final demands, but blithely talking about how we left and acting as though that means they don't need to do anything at all ignores that they do want things from these talks, and even one sided negotiations involve trade off.
What you say only makes sense if they never wanted a deal at all. So are you saying they've been lying this whole time?
Fair point, except so many think we need to listen to the non expect people in a second vote, and they'll be right this time? Either we listen to the people or we don't, and if you do and you think the view has changed fine, but can one denigrate the view of the non expert will also wanting to seek that non expert opinion?
Arguably any mass letter for publication is designed to influence public opinion and therefore will put the best/worst possible case rather than a balanced assessment
So far the public is depressed but phlegmatic. Will it change if it looks like they won’t be able to get a Big Mac post deal?
We saw what happened with KFC. It will be pandemonium, but the public seem unable to anticipate this happening. If this is allowed to happen the panic and anger will be swift and strong.
Was it *really* pandemonium with KFC?
I remember a few snarky newspaper articles and that was about it. Life went on as normal
Morning all. So is today the day we finally see a breakthrough, or is it going to be yet more talking and no action from our politicians, happy to talk about what they don’t want but unable to agree any way forward?
So the Brady amendment - the Irish backstop replaced by what he calls "alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border" - what does that actually mean?
Looks like trying to pass the TM deal subject to the EU agreeing unspecified alternate arrangements, probably MaxFac. That is unreasonable.
If MPs really don't want the backstop they have to remove it or put in a time limit after which it will lapse. Anything else and there is nothing concrete for the EU to respond to.
I think it will now be a very poorly prepared for No Deal. The EU don't want that but don't care enough to stop it. We aren't sure what we want and there are not enough votes to stop the default.
Remain supporters will blame the Leavers. The Leave supporters will blame the EU and the PM whose heart wasn't in it. The PM will blame Labour. Labour will blame the Tories. Basically everyone will blame everyone else who isn't on 'their side'. And we will all look really stupid.
In the long term it may be right or it may be wrong. Interesting times ahead.
That’s about the best summary of where we are now. A complete failure by our politicians and negotiators to come up with something acceptable, now more interested in blaming each other than finding a way forward.
I quite like the idea someone here proposed, of a new election but with the 650 incumbents barred from standing!
Fair point, except so many think we need to listen to the non expect people in a second vote, and they'll be right this time? Either we listen to the people or we don't, and if you do and you think the view has changed fine, but can one denigrate the view of the non expert will also wanting to seek that non expert opinion?
Arguably any mass letter for publication is designed to influence public opinion and therefore will put the best/worst possible case rather than a balanced assessment
And those from various groups over the past few days have clearly been co-ordinated by government, as the lady from Airbus let slip on TV the other day. https://youtube.com/watch?v=PASCzchXG2w
Meds and food should be prioritised for Remainers.
Leavers can go whistle, this shall be their Brexit dividend
Careful. When I said something similar - and I only said that when I felt spiteful (which is not very often) I felt like that - not advocated it as a policy, I was told that I should be ashamed of myself, blah, blah.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If it actually happens, I suspect the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who said they weren't frightened by it will be absolutely deafening.
I’m working on the basis thatbit’s Not a good look for the EU if there is famine and starvation in a country that tries to leave. So it won’t happen.
I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.
I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.
But will Cooper spoil things?
Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.
Note the difference.
Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.
But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.
But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
I think you are conflating the reason why a referendum was called (party politics) with the need for a referendum.
It was clear that there was a substantial portion of the population that did not like the EU as constituted. Would you deny them a say in the future if their country?
The argument for political union is dead. The reason why remainiacs have been banging on about economics all this time is because the vast majority of the British public has zero interest in "More Europe". Even most Remain voters don't want more power to Brussels. It is simply going in a direction we don't want to go and the antagonism is only going to grow the longer we stay.
The refrain of "if only we got more involved" is perhaps the most delusional thing to come from the referendum. Okay perhaps not most, but up there. It's not happening, in any of our lifetimes at least.
More to the point what on earth makes you think an institution built on post-war ideology, one that is terribly, terribly flawed, is the right vehicle to lead us into the 21st century? The EU is an institution rooted in the past, even older than 1966! The EU is not interested in fresh thinking, the only thing it knows is "More Europe" and our decades of membership had **** all effect on that. All it produced was a political class ever more subservient to the federalist desires of the Franco-German partnership, which poisoned our politics.
And what makes you think a conception of a nation state still emotionally fuelled by the dregs of empire, mixed with an ideology that it would be a struggle to call ‘post-war,’ is any more serious an alternative ?
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If it actually happens, I suspect the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who said they weren't frightened by it will be absolutely deafening.
I’m working on the basis thatbit’s Not a good look for the EU if there is famine and starvation in a country that tries to leave. So it won’t happen.
The EU isn't going to ban the export of food to the UK. And the UK isn't going to refuse to purchase food on the basis that it doesn't meet standards
There are no votes in starving your population.
That does not mean that there won't be impacts on the relative prices of certain foods and drinks. It does not mean that some people will end up rather out of pocket, and probably rather pissed.
But it does mean no one will starve as directa result of No Deal Brexit.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If it actually happens, I suspect the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who said they weren't frightened by it will be absolutely deafening.
I’m working on the basis thatbit’s Not a good look for the EU if there is famine and starvation in a country that tries to leave. So it won’t happen.
There will be shortages, prices will go up. You may not know this, Charles, but there are a large number of people in this country who already struggle to feed their families, hence the growing use of food banks. No-one will starve, plenty may go hungry. The good news is that the swivel-eyed loons leading us to a No Deal will be fine. Phew.
I still don't really understand why Labour doesn't simply abstain on the MV, allow the WA deal through, see the DUP turn puce and end the C&S agreement, and back themselves to force an election, win it and put through whatever long-term future arrangement with the EU they see fit.
I used to think that too. I now see it differently. May is cornered and if Labour hold the line - just continue to oppose and not get dragged into a search for alternatives - they can force her to make the ultimate choice of no deal or revoke. Either of those should be sufficient to sweep Jeremy Corbyn into Downing Street.
But will Cooper spoil things?
Revoke finishes the Conservatives. No Deal merely hurts them.
Revoke helps the country. No Deal hurts the country.
Note the difference.
Honestly, you strike me as a decent Tory.
But I am beginning to loathe the Tories for the way they are putting their interests above those of the country. And don't give me that "honouring the referendum" bullshit. The referendum was largely done to sort out a Tory party problem. If the Tories had genuinely wanted to address the concerns the country had with its membership of the EU and its effects here - and there were serious problems, many of which I sympathise with, a referendum was not the way to go about it.
But now - the Tories should not drag us into No Deal because they lack the courage to call a halt to a disastrous set of negotiations and a policy which no-one can defend, other than by saying "a referendum made me do it" and which will weaken and harm a country the Tories claim to be patriotic about.
No Deal hurts the country. And so does Revoke. The former does economic damage. The latter does political damage.
And I expect Conservatives would say that political damage leads to economic damage as a Corbyn government would follow Revoke.
The City is likely to be hammered by both a Corbyn government and the EU after Revoke for those who give the City's well-being as a priority.
And the City, if that is one's main concern, would take what view of No Deal followed by a Corbyn Government (a perfectly possible sequence in my opinion.)?
We’d take a deep breath, scratch our heads and get back to the business of making moneyproviding capital to the UK’s growth businesses
But the EU back a plan that Parliament won’t accept. Quid pro quo
It was the UK Government that asked for the deal and it was the UK government who specified the deal. As has been pointed out by others, the EU version of this deal is different and the EU have offered another deal (the Canada one) which was discarded by May.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
The EU insisted on WA before trade negotiations. This makes no sense and for those of us who are sick of this and all the whining from both sides, the prospect of a further phase is terrible.
Well, we left the Club, it didn't leave us. It was not obliged to do anything other than wave us goodbye.
people keep saying this and it just makes the EU look like idiots. They want a deal too remember? It's in their interests too remember? That means yes, they're not obliged to do things for us, but it means they do need to negotiate something both of us agree so they can get what they say they want. No that doesn't mean they should give in to final demands, but blithely talking about how we left and acting as though that means they don't need to do anything at all ignores that they do want things from these talks, and even one sided negotiations involve trade off.
What you say only makes sense if they never wanted a deal at all. So are you saying they've been lying this whole time?
The EU has negotiated a deal it took nearly two years because the UK government could not agree with itself on what it wanted. Finally, The PM agreed a deal and told everyone it was the only one possible. She has now changed her mind with less than 60 days to go until we leave. I am struggling to see how this makes the EU either unreasonable or idiotic. From where I sit it makes the British government look utterly moronic.
Just revoke - for God's sake. We keep our existing membership terms. s.
That 's an option.
But, it means we stay in for as long as the EU exists, and get dragged into things we don't want.
Not for those things where there is still a veto.
To take just one example: why - when the US is turning away from Europe and Russia is flexing its muscles - is an EU army or a common EU defence policy such a bad thing? It may be a very good thing, a much needed thing and something where we could shine and contribute. We really do need fresh thinking. As does the EU. And we could contribute to such fresh thinking.
The old post-war world and settlement is changing and disappearing. We can be part of creating a new settlement, a new world or we can retreat and be irrelevant. For all the challenges and difficulties and annoyances of the former, I think - having seen how Brexit has been handled - I prefer the former.
For the love of god.
The argument for political union is dead. The reason why remainiacs have been banging on about economics all this time is because the vast majority of the British public has zero interest in "More Europe". Even most Remain voters don't want more power to Brussels. It is simply going in a direction we don't want to go and the antagonism is only going to grow the longer we stay.
The refrain of "if only we got more involved" is perhaps the most delusional thing to come from the referendum. Okay perhaps not most, but up there. It's not happening, in any of our lifetimes at least.
More to the point what on earth makes you think an institution built on post-war ideology, one that is terribly, terribly flawed, is the right vehicle to lead us into the 21st century? The EU is an institution rooted in the past, even older than 1966! The EU is not interested in fresh thinking, the only thing it knows is "More Europe" and our decades of membership had **** all effect on that. All it produced was a political class ever more subservient to the federalist desires of the Franco-German partnership, which poisoned our politics.
And yet in all the years we have been members I have never found the EU to be anything other than convenient and useful. Common regulations have saved me a ton of paperwork. It's nice being able to cross borders without a passport - can't think why we insist on not joining in with that. I can buy and sell freely. My daughter was able to settle in Berlin without any hassle. And the Euro has stabilised currency values - which is a real benefit.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If it actually happens, I suspect the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who said they weren't frightened by it will be absolutely deafening.
I’m working on the basis thatbit’s Not a good look for the EU if there is famine and starvation in a country that tries to leave. So it won’t happen.
The EU isn't going to ban the export of food to the UK. And the UK isn't going to refuse to purchase food on the basis that it doesn't meet standards
There are no votes in starving your population.
That does not mean that there won't be impacts on the relative prices of certain foods and drinks. It does not mean that some people will end up rather out of pocket, and probably rather pissed.
But it does mean no one will starve as directa result of No Deal Brexit.
Which UK isn't going to refuse to purchase food that does not meet standards? There is no Whitehall department of importing and storing food. Supermarkets, wholesalers and the like will be obliged to continue following whatever are the legal requirements for food, and anything else for that matter. There are no profits in poisoning your customers.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If it actually happens, I suspect the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who said they weren't frightened by it will be absolutely deafening.
I’m working on the basis thatbit’s Not a good look for the EU if there is famine and starvation in a country that tries to leave. So it won’t happen.
The EU isn't going to ban the export of food to the UK. And the UK isn't going to refuse to purchase food on the basis that it doesn't meet standards
There are no votes in starving your population.
That does not mean that there won't be impacts on the relative prices of certain foods and drinks. It does not mean that some people will end up rather out of pocket, and probably rather pissed.
But it does mean no one will starve as directa result of No Deal Brexit.
I know. But “lettuce pray” is a better headline from a commercial perspective
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If the examples given are the lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits I don’t count it as a food shortage - it would be an inconvenience. If we run out of bread, potatoes etc then that would be more of a worry. I’m just saying I wasn’t convinced by the person on 5live. If I can’t eat something like green veg and apples then I am not very imaginative. I mean my local Tesco is pretty spotty on soft fruit and I just manage my diet without it. Last summer it was hard to get lettuce we just didn’t eat lettuce.
On Topic - not sure what’s so scary about food shortage. We should be able to live temporarily without lettuce tomatoes and soft fruits - all examples given today - and should obviously prioritise medicines.
"not sure what’s so scary about food shortage"
Pause.
Backs away slowly.
If it actually happens, I suspect the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from people who said they weren't frightened by it will be absolutely deafening.
I’m working on the basis thatbit’s Not a good look for the EU if there is famine and starvation in a country that tries to leave. So it won’t happen.
There will be shortages, prices will go up. You may not know this, Charles, but there are a large number of people in this country who already struggle to feed their families, hence the growing use of food banks. No-one will starve, plenty may go hungry. The good news is that the swivel-eyed loons leading us to a No Deal will be fine. Phew.
And yet in all the years we have been members I have never found the EU to be anything other than convenient and useful. Common regulations have saved me a ton of paperwork. It's nice being able to cross borders without a passport - can't think why we insist on not joining in with that. I can buy and sell freely. My daughter was able to settle in Berlin without any hassle. And the Euro has stabilised currency values - which is a real benefit.
Not sure what your issue with it is.
Hmm - stabilised currency values which is a major benefit to Germany but has resulted in little to zero growth in large parts (Italy, Greece to an extent France) of the rest of Europe.
Comments
Dreading Wembley on weds in contrast.
You're usually such a thoughtful poster and whenever I saw a massive post I couldn't be bothered to read I'd make myself read it if it was one of yours and I was never disappointed; it was always as coherent as it was persuasive.
But in this thread you've backed, even in jest, withdrawing medicine and food from the populace on the grounds of the way they voted, suggested an immediate revocation you must know is both unlawful (as per the AG and the ECJ in Wightman) and a catastrophic departure from the basic principles of democracy, and suggested in the face of all the evidence that order and security is the progenitor of democracy and a reflection of the rule of law.
Do you want a deal or not? If you do then you have to accept that both sides must agree it voluntarily. This current state (where a deal has been agreed but Parliament won't sign off on it) is silly: we are currently negotiating with ourselves about the deal we wish the EU would accept, which is taking refuge in fantasy.
Next impossible issue .. Who to open for England?
Something heavier would be ideal.
I look forward to an EU rep or the Irish deputy pm to respond in the morning.
Assuming Plan B is only applied without a withdrawal agreement, then "continu[ing] to offer plan A" is pointless as it's already been rejected...
..so we're going to be negotiating the Implementation Period after crashing out with No Deal..
"Hi, guys! You know we've just asked you for a deal, you offered us one and told you to fuck off? Well, we'd like to negotiate another deal. Sound good?"
so...they're asking for a backstop if the new FR agreement hasn't been agreed at the end of the new IP agreement which hasn't been agreed yet.
"that is so not Brexit", one of them says.
The Chairman of Selectors nominates two players. The other selectors and captain disagree. No decision is made until the match starts. The opposing team is asked to delay the start of the match pending agreement amongst the selectors as to who shall open. A period of delay is agreed, the sides toss up and the match starts. At this point the other selectors cave in and the Chairman's choices make their way out to the middle.
No prob.
It was the EUs idea to have the WA first as their negotiating position to put presure on theUK.
As it has turned out the EU strategy has backfired.
The ECJ has ruled that Britain can revoke Article 50.
I have made the point that for democracy to flourish there needs to be order first. That has historically been the case in most countries, including this one. If there is a breakdown in order then the voters may be somewhat less keen on the consequences of their votes. It is those in favour of a No Deal exit who are risking the imposition of martial law. Not me.
My personal preference, as I have stated on numerous occasions, is - given that Leavers are refusing to agree to the WA their government has negotiated - for a second referendum so that people can vote on whether they want to go ahead with Brexit on the basis of the WA or not. That is the most democratic option.
But since that is not, apparently, going to be on offer, I would choose Revoke rather than a No Deal exit. I could live with an exit with a Deal. But it is the Leavers who are turning their backs on what they claim to desire. A No Deal exit is a risk too far, in my opinion.
There are no good options. If the Deal is to be rejected, a 2nd referendum is IMO the least worst option. Revoke is the next option. A No Deal option would be disastrous - both economically and politically.
I see the proposal is being called the 'Malthouse Compromise' - after Minister for Housing Kit Malthouse.
Could that title end up going down in history?
"We need to get out of the EU on time and with a functioning government. This is how." - Steve Baker
Will residents of NI by contrast be keen to pay 50 euro to see a GP, 100 euro to go to A&E or pay 70 euro a night to stay in hospital if they earn more than 14,000 euro - and yes those charges also apply to kids aged over 7. Let alone see their grandkids or siblings or nephews and nieces pay 33% inheritance tax on any legacies over a mere 33,000 euro (and that is a one off tax free threshold for life not per inheritance) - one tenth of the tax free threshold per estate (not for life) in the UK.
Many may love the theory - but will they like the reality of a united Ireland? Cos there is already quite a hard border in terms of healthcare, welfare and inheritance tax policies!
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/united-ireland-would-see-living-standards-in-republic-fall-by-15-1.3629748
But my latter point remains of validity - vote for a united Ireland, see massive cuts in public spending, see your close relatives and friends bled dry by penal inheritance tax when you die and lose your free at the point of use NHS unless you earn below minimum wage. Perhaps emotional appeals to sovereignty in the six counties might win out - perhaps not?
NI lives on subsidies - and its much easier for the UK with 65 million people to find that cash than the Republic with only 4.5 million.
Chris is hoping that Jacob Rees Mogg gets whipped - luckily we are on after the watershed!
https://twitter.com/WillisJermane/status/1089983025713213440
The argument for political union is dead. The reason why remainiacs have been banging on about economics all this time is because the vast majority of the British public has zero interest in "More Europe". Even most Remain voters don't want more power to Brussels. It is simply going in a direction we don't want to go and the antagonism is only going to grow the longer we stay.
The refrain of "if only we got more involved" is perhaps the most delusional thing to come from the referendum. Okay perhaps not most, but up there. It's not happening, in any of our lifetimes at least.
More to the point what on earth makes you think an institution built on post-war ideology, one that is terribly, terribly flawed, is the right vehicle to lead us into the 21st century? The EU is an institution rooted in the past, even older than 1966! The EU is not interested in fresh thinking, the only thing it knows is "More Europe" and our decades of membership had **** all effect on that. All it produced was a political class ever more subservient to the federalist desires of the Franco-German partnership, which poisoned our politics.
I don't see any evidence that Brexiteers have any answers to these developments. For the love of God, they can't even work out how to agree a transition agreement.
So I think it dangerous to leap into the unknown under the guidance who, on the basis of the evidence so far, have no idea what they are doing.
But if you have a plan - other than to criticise the EU - and I have done lots of that in the last 3 years, by all means share it.
What you say only makes sense if they never wanted a deal at all. So are you saying they've been lying this whole time?
I remember a few snarky newspaper articles and that was about it. Life went on as normal
I quite like the idea someone here proposed, of a new election but with the 650 incumbents barred from standing!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PASCzchXG2w
It was clear that there was a substantial portion of the population that did not like the EU as constituted. Would you deny them a say in the future if their country?
There are no votes in starving your population.
That does not mean that there won't be impacts on the relative prices of certain foods and drinks. It does not mean that some people will end up rather out of pocket, and probably rather pissed.
But it does mean no one will starve as directa result of No Deal Brexit.
For simplicity (ignoring the minor parties)
23 UKIP
27 tory
50 Corbyn
Is likely to result in “destruction of the Tory party by UKIP and a Corbyn government”
People with long memories!
Not sure what your issue with it is.