Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
If Boris Johnson accidentally mowed down 20 pedestrians waiting at a pavement bus stop, you would blame the bus company for putting their bus stop in the wrong place, or the council for putting in a dangerously sited pavement, or the people for waiting for a bus.
So no deal Brexit will be fine, but if it isn't, it will be the fault of the EU/Remainers/ the French/ Blair, delete as appropriate.
I've got my principles and I stick by them. I've criticised Boris repeatedly but I've been adamant for years I'd prefer no deal to a bad deal. I opposed May's deal at all 3 meaningful votes after all so why would I oppose us having a Clean Brexit now?
The problem with your "principles" is that they are wrong. If you had laid out that this was what you wanted on the side of a bus it would have been utterly rejected. As it is the price is 6% of GDP every year and with compound interest that is a price in the trillions. People are beginning - too late- to understand how wrong you are, and the consequences will include political obliteration.
Blaming foreigners has worked for the current ruling class up to now, so of course they will continue to do it after whatever happens with Brexit at the end of the year.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
Incidentally, you raise an important issue, particularly given you are so keen on trumpeting our flawed democracy. When is the parliamentary vote for MPs to decide what will be a hugely significant decision of leaving with no deal? As against the alternative options on the table: taking the EU's final offer, or asking for more time?
Why should there be one?
No deal is not an action is the default. People who don't accept that we left the EU seem to struggle to understand that but Parliament has already voted to be on WTO terms by default from 23:00 31/12/20. That's already the law.
A deal should have a vote as it would be a change. No deal is the status quo we've already voted to occur.
This is why those claiming that the EU and UK were negotiating to move further apart are wrong. They simply haven't internalised WTO rather than EU membership is our forthcoming baseline to be measured from.
In a genuine democracy, there should be a vote on whether or not to accept the final offer (and on any alternative path that might be on offer). The arguments will be obvious to the reader, particularly any that have managed to follow the twists and turns of your own 'democratic' argumentation.
No there would not. Name any example pre Brexit of Parliament voting on a trade proposal that has not been agreed please.
If we failed to reach a deal with the USA should we have Parliament voting on their final offer?
There's no difference between the EU and any of the other countries Truss etc are negotiating with. We aren't EU members anymore, they're a third party.
If Labour wants a vote on the EUs proposals they can put that into their manifesto at the next election. Or Parliament can No Confidence Boris if they want to try that route.
Have just caught up on the overnight thread. Why are leavers so angry? Casino positively raging at his victory? Why? Isn't this what you wanted? Isn't it all as you expected? Aren't the government warnings of fresh food and medicine shortages what you voted for?
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
You want a deal. You fear No Deal. Great.
But you blame Ultra-Remainers for No Deal. That is preposterous. The government, packed with Leavers, whose Prime Minister fronted the Leave campaign, will be responsible for the manner of our departure, deal or no deal.
Gentle reminder to those gleefully anticipating economic carnage (because they think they'll win the argument and their opponents will look bad) that it was the Remainer court case that forced a vote in Parliament and that Labour voted against May's deal three times.
Yes, the Conservatives deserve excoriating for both lack of planning (also by pro-EU types such as Hammond) for No Deal, and for having the arch-imbecile replace May. But she did strive, albeit with difficulty, to achieve a deal. And the Commons said no, no, and no again.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
Incidentally, you raise an important issue, particularly given you are so keen on trumpeting our flawed democracy. When is the parliamentary vote for MPs to decide what will be a hugely significant decision of leaving with no deal? As against the alternative options on the table: taking the EU's final offer, or asking for more time?
Why should there be one?
No deal is not an action is the default. People who don't accept that we left the EU seem to struggle to understand that but Parliament has already voted to be on WTO terms by default from 23:00 31/12/20. That's already the law.
A deal should have a vote as it would be a change. No deal is the status quo we've already voted to occur.
This is why those claiming that the EU and UK were negotiating to move further apart are wrong. They simply haven't internalised WTO rather than EU membership is our forthcoming baseline to be measured from.
In a genuine democracy, there should be a vote on whether or not to accept the final offer (and on any alternative path that might be on offer). The arguments will be obvious to the reader, particularly any that have managed to follow the twists and turns of your own 'democratic' argumentation.
No there would not. Name any example pre Brexit of Parliament voting on a trade proposal that has not been agreed please.
If we failed to reach a deal with the USA should we have Parliament voting on their final offer?
There's no difference between the EU and any of the other countries Truss etc are negotiating with. We aren't EU members anymore, they're a third party.
A post so absurd that its flaw doesnt need pointing out.
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
Incidentally, you raise an important issue, particularly given you are so keen on trumpeting our flawed democracy. When is the parliamentary vote for MPs to decide what will be a hugely significant decision of leaving with no deal? As against the alternative options on the table: taking the EU's final offer, or asking for more time?
Why should there be one?
No deal is not an action is the default. People who don't accept that we left the EU seem to struggle to understand that but Parliament has already voted to be on WTO terms by default from 23:00 31/12/20. That's already the law.
A deal should have a vote as it would be a change. No deal is the status quo we've already voted to occur.
This is why those claiming that the EU and UK were negotiating to move further apart are wrong. They simply haven't internalised WTO rather than EU membership is our forthcoming baseline to be measured from.
In a genuine democracy, there should be a vote on whether or not to accept the final offer (and on any alternative path that might be on offer). The arguments will be obvious to the reader, particularly any that have managed to follow the twists and turns of your own 'democratic' argumentation.
No there would not. Name any example pre Brexit of Parliament voting on a trade proposal that has not been agreed please.
If we failed to reach a deal with the USA should we have Parliament voting on their final offer?
There's no difference between the EU and any of the other countries Truss etc are negotiating with. We aren't EU members anymore, they're a third party.
A post so absurd that its flaw doesnt need pointing out.
Because there is no flaw.
We voted to leave the EU in 2016 We left the EU months ago with a fixed transition period. We end transition in a few weeks and are a third party to be not EU members.
You may want to rehash the 2017-2019 psychodramas but that goodness that dark period is over. The public were wise to give the Tories a stable majority to ensure that idiocy wasn't repeated.
Gentle reminder to those gleefully anticipating economic carnage (because they think they'll win the argument and their opponents will look bad) that it was the Remainer court case that forced a vote in Parliament and that Labour voted against May's deal three times.
Yes, the Conservatives deserve excoriating for both lack of planning (also by pro-EU types such as Hammond) for No Deal, and for having the arch-imbecile replace May. But she did strive, albeit with difficulty, to achieve a deal. And the Commons said no, no, and no again.
It’s one of the silly arguments out there. If May had spent less time pandering to the DUP and had pursued a genuine compromise like EFTA thing might have been different. But the truth is she was fundamentally undermined by her own leaver MPs. Remainers like Clarke backed her.
I am continually amazed we always try this tactic - having failed with it multiple times. It's like the whole "help from Merkel line". The EU doesn't work like that
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
But there isn't a plan. "Letting the invisible hand of the market sort it out over a few months" is a plan of sorts I guess, but not one that's going to fly.
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
I assume that I - as a leave voter - am one of the "ultra-remainer horde". So a direct question.
Why are so angry at your victory?
You won. Not only the referendum and the election but now the means of departure. Isn't this the ultimate victory? Why the fury having been so utterly triumphant?
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
I am continually amazed we always try this tactic - having failed with it multiple times. It's like the whole "help from Merkel line". The EU doesn't work like that
tbf it was the basis of English/British foreign policy since pretty much the beginning.
Gentle reminder to those gleefully anticipating economic carnage (because they think they'll win the argument and their opponents will look bad) that it was the Remainer court case that forced a vote in Parliament and that Labour voted against May's deal three times.
Yes, the Conservatives deserve excoriating for both lack of planning (also by pro-EU types such as Hammond) for No Deal, and for having the arch-imbecile replace May. But she did strive, albeit with difficulty, to achieve a deal. And the Commons said no, no, and no again.
As mentioned many times, May boxed both the negotiations and cross-party support in very early on with her red lines on freedom of movement and the single market.
Gentle reminder to those gleefully anticipating economic carnage (because they think they'll win the argument and their opponents will look bad) that it was the Remainer court case that forced a vote in Parliament and that Labour voted against May's deal three times.
Yes, the Conservatives deserve excoriating for both lack of planning (also by pro-EU types such as Hammond) for No Deal, and for having the arch-imbecile replace May. But she did strive, albeit with difficulty, to achieve a deal. And the Commons said no, no, and no again.
It’s one of the silly arguments out there. If May had spent less time pandering to the DUP and had pursued a genuine compromise like EFTA thing might have been different. But the truth is she was fundamentally undermined by her own leaver MPs. Remainers like Clarke backed her.
The Leave MPs were 100% right to undermine her.
Her deal was awful and we have a better outcome now. Leave MPs have got what they wanted, facilitated by the useful idiots who marched through the lobbies three times with Steve Baker etc
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Instead they just opposed everything.
Incorrect. May closed off all soft Brexit avenues first ; there was fair cross-party support, and positive noises from Brussels too, for an EEA-type deal.
Gentle reminder to those gleefully anticipating economic carnage (because they think they'll win the argument and their opponents will look bad) that it was the Remainer court case that forced a vote in Parliament and that Labour voted against May's deal three times.
But (if I remember correctly) the Gina Miller case was about MPs getting to vote for Article 50, not to vote on the deal. There was a vote in parliament (that the ERG voted *against*) that made the deal subject to a vote in parliament.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Strange thing. Although it was easy to predict years ago both the nature of this disaster and the fact that Leavers would blame the EU and Remainers for the consequences of their decision, it seems so much worse now it is actually happening.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
But there isn't a plan. "Letting the invisible hand of the market sort it out over a few months" is a plan of sorts I guess, but not one that's going to fly.
Why not?
There's years until the next election. We've just been through nine months of disruption.
What's a few months of flag waving and disruption between friends before we get to the other side of the disruption?
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
If you make it second-order, you lose. When you have hit the iceberg, it's about having hit the iceberg, not about the bad attitude of your passengers and crew towards iceberg-hitting.
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Instead they just opposed everything.
Incorrect. May closed off all soft Brexit avenues first ; there was fair cross-party support, and positive noises from Brussels too, for an EEA-type deal.
Not just May.
During the Referendum it was also closed off by Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Johnson and Gove. So why single out May?
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
I suspect Mrs May, had she remained in charge, would have found herself in much the same position as Johnson finds himself today. Both, have been trying to bang a square peg into a round hole.
Mrs May, I suspect, might have been more amenable to accepting a lengthy transition extension under the cloak of Covid.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
The heart of Brexiteer problems is that it is still an opposition movement. Despite winning, they are still not taking responsibility for the win. They are still in an opposition mindset, still blaming, still claiming things are unfair, still reacting to others.
The height of this are the comments that Remainers should some how get on board and solve all the problems they have created. That somehow Remainers should have voted for this or that policy and everything would be ok.
It’s weird. Brexit folk need to take responsibility, stop blaming others for the consequences of their actions and accept the criticism they gave others for years on end.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
As we potentially are in a joyous day where we may finally get a good Brexit outcome confirmed I am eternally grateful for the useful idiots of the Remainer Parliament.
If we have indeed as a nation achieved a Clean Brexit it couldn't have been done without them.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
That is not entirely true, East Kent voted heavily Leave, West Kent voted Leave at about the English average, Tunbridge Wells voted Remain
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Instead they just opposed everything.
Incorrect. May closed off all soft Brexit avenues first ; there was fair cross-party support, and positive noises from Brussels too, for an EEA-type deal.
Not just May.
During the Referendum it was also closed off by Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Johnson and Gove. So why single out May?
That's to confuse campaigning with government. It's fair to single out May because, at the time, there were plenty of other leading Tories who would have pursued a soft Brexit.
The only positive about the ending of deal talks this weekend is that we get a moment of clarity. Both sides have been throwing around their views as to what no deal means and now we get to find out who was correct.
If - as government declaring shortages of food and medicines suggests - it is going to be really really hard then I assume that the people who angrily declared they would rather eat grass than have any connection to the EU will be happy.
Why then am I confident that the angriest people will be the winners - the Casinos of this world - who having vanquished remoaners will be giving themselves aneurysm in apoplectic rage.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
If Boris Johnson accidentally mowed down 20 pedestrians waiting at a pavement bus stop, you would blame the bus company for putting their bus stop in the wrong place, or the council for putting in a dangerously sited pavement, or the people for waiting for a bus.
So no deal Brexit will be fine, but if it isn't, it will be the fault of the EU/Remainers/ the French/ Blair, delete as appropriate.
I've got my principles and I stick by them. I've criticised Boris repeatedly but I've been adamant for years I'd prefer no deal to a bad deal. I opposed May's deal at all 3 meaningful votes after all so why would I oppose us having a Clean Brexit now?
The problem with your "principles" is that they are wrong. If you had laid out that this was what you wanted on the side of a bus it would have been utterly rejected. As it is the price is 6% of GDP every year and with compound interest that is a price in the trillions. People are beginning - too late- to understand how wrong you are, and the consequences will include political obliteration.
Taking back control was laid out on the side of the bus. Leaving the Single Market was explicitly policy.
People aren't understanding I was wrong. People are still banging on with the same bloody sore loser arguments that lost the Referendum five years ago. It is positively Trumpian.
The only positive about the ending of deal talks this weekend is that we get a moment of clarity. Both sides have been throwing around their views as to what no deal means and now we get to find out who was correct.
If - as government declaring shortages of food and medicines suggests - it is going to be really really hard then I assume that the people who angrily declared they would rather eat grass than have any connection to the EU will be happy.
Why then am I confident that the angriest people will be the winners - the Casinos of this world - who having vanquished remoaners will be giving themselves aneurysm in apoplectic rage.
They are still in opposition despite being in power.
Mr. Jonathan, highlighting two extreme examples of a sensible Remainer (who opposed Article 50 then backed the deal) and a prime narcissist cretin (alas, the PM today) doesn't paint a picture that reflects the majority of the Commons' behaviour, as you know well, which is why you picked those two individuals.
Mr. Oracle, you're correct, and her early rhetoric on no deal being bad than a bad deal then shifted thinking from "Is this better or worse than the alternative" to "Is this a good deal, and, if not, we shall reject it". An ironic echo of Cameron's failure to get a prospectus from the official Leave campaign so that the referendum was solely on the EU and not what the alternative actually was.
Mr. 43, remembering how MPs voted in the Commons isn't some type of nefarious manipulation of history or devious propaganda. It's recalling what happened and the consequences of the choices made.
Just as the decision by the PCP to support the cretin in Number Ten ought not be forgotten, we should remember the MPs bleating loudest about the evils of No Deal made that the default option when they thrice rejected May's deal.
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
Have just caught up on the overnight thread. Why are leavers so angry? Casino positively raging at his victory? Why? Isn't this what you wanted? Isn't it all as you expected? Aren't the government warnings of fresh food and medicine shortages what you voted for?
Because deep down they know the tempest long foretold is about to happen.
Back in 2016 they said No Deal was Project Fear now in 2020 they say No Deal will be fine and they want us to believe them. It will turn Leavers into Gordon Brown when his comments about abolishing boom and bust came back to haunt him during the great financial crisis. There's an absolute plethora of comments that will haunt the Leavers.
Michael Gove privately told a few people in 2017 that if country sees Brexit as a mistake they will ultimately vote to overturn. He's right. That's what's scaring so many Leavers.
We all know Leave would not have won if the electorate had realised No Deal was the most likely outcome, that's why Vote Leave kept on denying it in 2016.
Have just caught up on the overnight thread. Why are leavers so angry? Casino positively raging at his victory? Why? Isn't this what you wanted? Isn't it all as you expected? Aren't the government warnings of fresh food and medicine shortages what you voted for?
I'm not angry I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm in case it all gets snatched away with a bad concession at the lady moment. Otherwise I'm excited. Christmas is coming.
Mr. Jonathan, highlighting two extreme examples of a sensible Remainer (who opposed Article 50 then backed the deal) and a prime narcissist cretin (alas, the PM today) doesn't paint a picture that reflects the majority of the Commons' behaviour, as you know well, which is why you picked those two individuals.
Mr. Oracle, you're correct, and her early rhetoric on no deal being bad than a bad deal then shifted thinking from "Is this better or worse than the alternative" to "Is this a good deal, and, if not, we shall reject it". An ironic echo of Cameron's failure to get a prospectus from the official Leave campaign so that the referendum was solely on the EU and not what the alternative actually was.
Mr. 43, remembering how MPs voted in the Commons isn't some type of nefarious manipulation of history or devious propaganda. It's recalling what happened and the consequences of the choices made.
Just as the decision by the PCP to support the cretin in Number Ten ought not be forgotten, we should remember the MPs bleating loudest about the evils of No Deal made that the default option when they thrice rejected May's deal.
Amber Rudd vs. Rees Mogg David Gauke vs. John Redwood ...
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
You want a deal. You fear No Deal. Great.
But you blame Ultra-Remainers for No Deal. That is preposterous. The government, packed with Leavers, whose Prime Minister fronted the Leave campaign, will be responsible for the manner of our departure, deal or no deal.
The inability to strike a deal is a curious one given how thin the deal is. As Jorge Luis Borges said of the Falklands conflict it was like two bald men fighting over a comb. Wolfgang Munchau who I suggest you all listen to reckoned that the internal market bill did a lot of damage as it ruined the trust that the EU had in the UK. If we were happy to renege on a deal we signed less than a year ago why trust us now? His other thought was that the EU seemed to have shifted recently for reasons that couldn't be totally understood.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
No. It is simply factually demonstrable that Clarke voted against Brexit more.
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
Ed Miliband says No Deal will be a 'disgrace' on Marr and Boris Johnson 'talks out of both sides of his mouth' regarding his oven ready deal comments and is 'cavalier' with the national interest and peoples jobs and livelihoods
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Instead they just opposed everything.
Incorrect. May closed off all soft Brexit avenues first ; there was fair cross-party support, and positive noises from Brussels too, for an EEA-type deal.
Not just May.
During the Referendum it was also closed off by Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Johnson and Gove. So why single out May?
That's to confuse campaigning with government. It's fair to single out May because, at the time, there were plenty of other leading Tories who would have pursued a soft Brexit.
Name one senior Tory that advocated a so called soft Brexit during the Referendum.
Soft Brexit is a lie. Leavers and Remainers unanimously agreed DURING the Referendum that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. May did a lot of things wrong but respecting that is not one of them.
The heart of Brexiteer problems is that it is still an opposition movement. Despite winning, they are still not taking responsibility for the win. They are still in an opposition mindset, still blaming, still claiming things are unfair, still reacting to others.
The height of this are the comments that Remainers should some how get on board and solve all the problems they have created. That somehow Remainers should have voted for this or that policy and everything would be ok.
It’s weird. Brexit folk need to take responsibility, stop blaming others for the consequences of their actions and accept the criticism they gave others for years on end.
And that cuts to the heart of it. Brexit wasn't so much an argument for something, it was an argument against something. Name something you don't like, voting for Brexit will provide you succour.
The problem, and the reason for the apoplectic rage from the Casinos of this world, is that now it's here Brexit doesn't provide the silver bullet cure it was billed as being. We're seeing reportage from across the country of various interest groups now regretful. Fishermen, farmers, car workers - all with valid concerns about the EU now realising that it was the least worst option.
We will initially see some patriotic bulldog blitz spirit guff, but as your farmer realises that tariffs kill his business dead as opposed to freeing it as billed, the anger will sweep away the intellectual heavyweights in government. The problem for the country is that all the old problems and injustices will be there only worse, and the only respite being offered is a return to a status quo ante so hated and so rejected.
So we had better hope that Philip is right and that the Cabinet Office and the manufacturers and the retailers and the industry experts and the logistics planners are wrong. Because otherwise Nigel Farage will be the leading political figure of the decade as we head towards a "kill the migrants" solution to our "woes".
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
You want a deal. You fear No Deal. Great.
But you blame Ultra-Remainers for No Deal. That is preposterous. The government, packed with Leavers, whose Prime Minister fronted the Leave campaign, will be responsible for the manner of our departure, deal or no deal.
Absolutely. The government has an eighty seat majority for a year and full command of negotiations.
It is no ones fault but their own if they didn't believe that the EU are serious about their redlines, and mean what they say.
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
That is not entirely true, East Kent voted heavily Leave, West Kent voted Leave at about the English average, Tunbridge Wells voted Remain
Yes. But aren’t we now at war with East Kent? Haven’t you seen the Gun Boats in the Channel?
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
If Boris Johnson accidentally mowed down 20 pedestrians waiting at a pavement bus stop, you would blame the bus company for putting their bus stop in the wrong place, or the council for putting in a dangerously sited pavement, or the people for waiting for a bus.
So no deal Brexit will be fine, but if it isn't, it will be the fault of the EU/Remainers/ the French/ Blair, delete as appropriate.
And the people who voted for it. "People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more. "
Love the final line though...
"And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan..
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
No. It is simply factually demonstrable that Clarke voted against Brexit more.
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
So what your saying on the meaningful votes, Clarke and other Remainers were more constructive than Boris (and his motley crew).
I am sure there were other votes, and I guess Clarke was against things like shutting down Parliament illegally later on. But it’s a matter of record that on the meaningful, substantial votes, Boris did not help until he sorted his primary career goal. It is therefore wrong to point the finger at Remainers.
Have just caught up on the overnight thread. Why are leavers so angry? Casino positively raging at his victory? Why? Isn't this what you wanted? Isn't it all as you expected? Aren't the government warnings of fresh food and medicine shortages what you voted for?
Because deep down they know the tempest long foretold is about to happen.
Back in 2016 they said No Deal was Project Fear now in 2020 they say No Deal will be fine and they want us to believe them. It will turn Leavers into Gordon Brown when his comments about abolishing boom and bust came back to haunt him during the great financial crisis. There's an absolute plethora of comments that will haunt the Leavers.
Michael Gove privately told a few people in 2017 that if country sees Brexit as a mistake they will ultimately vote to overturn. He's right. That's what's scaring so many Leavers.
We all know Leave would not have won if the electorate had realised No Deal was the most likely outcome, that's why Vote Leave kept on denying it in 2016.
Yes this is on the money. It is fairly contemptible seeing the Hard Leavers here attempting to belittle the justified rage that this crisis is creating.
The demagogue journalists currently in charge are now beginning to panic... The first honest emotion many of them have had in years.
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
The corollary of that is that the British fishing fleet is not big enough to maintain current catch levels in British waters. What is supposed to happen next? Will British companies buy trawlers from Spanish operators, and hire Portuguese crews?
Have just caught up on the overnight thread. Why are leavers so angry? Casino positively raging at his victory? Why? Isn't this what you wanted? Isn't it all as you expected? Aren't the government warnings of fresh food and medicine shortages what you voted for?
I'm not angry I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm in case it all gets snatched away with a bad concession at the lady moment. Otherwise I'm excited. Christmas is coming.
I suppose "lady moments" are what perpetually adolescent sovrantee fanbois have quite a lot of.
Have just caught up on the overnight thread. Why are leavers so angry? Casino positively raging at his victory? Why? Isn't this what you wanted? Isn't it all as you expected? Aren't the government warnings of fresh food and medicine shortages what you voted for?
Because deep down they know the tempest long foretold is about to happen.
Back in 2016 they said No Deal was Project Fear now in 2020 they say No Deal will be fine and they want us to believe them. It will turn Leavers into Gordon Brown when his comments about abolishing boom and bust came back to haunt him during the great financial crisis. There's an absolute plethora of comments that will haunt the Leavers.
Michael Gove privately told a few people in 2017 that if country sees Brexit as a mistake they will ultimately vote to overturn. He's right. That's what's scaring so many Leavers.
We all know Leave would not have won if the electorate had realised No Deal was the most likely outcome, that's why Vote Leave kept on denying it in 2016.
Yes it's a bit difficult to reconcile "Remainers are salivating over the prospect of no deal and the economic catastrophe that will follow" with "it'll all be wonderful".
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
No. It is simply factually demonstrable that Clarke voted against Brexit more.
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
Why do you expect complete agreement from him? He was prepared to vote for compromise, you guys insist on surrender, which is why we are where we are.
Why is the BBC parroting the government line . Any ratchet clauses will be reciprocal so the UK can penalize the EU which was confirmed by Von Der Leyen .
We can take this as the stock thread header that has been in circulation for 4.5 years, just adapted to this week's Brexit news. From my remain voting perspective, there are times I've rolled my eyes, but today I felt generous towards it. (I also feel vindicated in my acceptance of the May WA idea that we had to tunnel our way out, not dynamite our way out).
I see 'clean' is Philip's terminology of optimism today. Is this an Australia-style clean, like a dead coral reef, stripped of its life by the excrement of our own activity? Will row after row of empty supermarket shelves be clean? Brexit is proof that the advocates creative destruction are invariably pure destroyers, interested in creation only as a fig leaf for their vandalism. We do see starkly noe that there was not a single creator amongst them all, the actual benefits of Brexit were not to be hard fought for, they are supposed to come about by magic. Boris is no more prepared for no deal than May was, the only source of his credibility over no deal is not preparedness but the realisation that 'he is that stupid'.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
No. It is simply factually demonstrable that Clarke voted against Brexit more.
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
So what your saying on the meaningful votes, Clarke and other Remainers were more constructive than Boris (and his motley crew).
I am sure there were other votes, and I guess Clarke was against things like shutting down Parliament illegally later on. But it’s a matter of record that on the meaningful, substantial votes, Boris did not help until he sorted his primary career goal. It is therefore wrong to point the finger at Remainers.
The meaningful votes weren't the only votes to leave the EU. Boris was wrong IMO to back MV3 but thankfully it failed despite his error in backing it then. Rejecting the MVs was the right thing to do from my perspective and has helped ensure a cleaner, better, purer Brexit.
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Instead they just opposed everything.
Incorrect. May closed off all soft Brexit avenues first ; there was fair cross-party support, and positive noises from Brussels too, for an EEA-type deal.
Not just May.
During the Referendum it was also closed off by Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Johnson and Gove. So why single out May?
That's to confuse campaigning with government. It's fair to single out May because, at the time, there were plenty of other leading Tories who would have pursued a soft Brexit.
Name one senior Tory that advocated a so called soft Brexit during the Referendum.
Soft Brexit is a lie. Leavers and Remainers unanimously agreed DURING the Referendum that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. May did a lot of things wrong but respecting that is not one of them.
The point about the referendum campaign is absurd, not least because Hannan and others were on television happily promoting a single market exit right from the unofficial start to the campaign, after the 2015 election, to five months before the vote itself. I'm not personally talking about the campaigning , though, but the governmental reality. Had Gawke, Hunt, Cameron, Letwin or others been in charge in 2017, a soft Brexit would have been pursued.
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
The corollary of that is that the British fishing fleet is not big enough to maintain current catch levels in British waters. What is supposed to happen next? Will British companies buy trawlers from Spanish operators, and hire Portuguese crews?
The fish doesn’t need to be caught it can be left to recover and increase.
Mr. B2, a legitimate view, and it remains baffling to me that Labour and other pro-EU MPs didn't back May's deal with a referendum attached. It would've been eminently winnable, and the fact there were three votes would've ratched up pressure in Parliament for it to pass.
Instead they just opposed everything.
Whilst there was a glimmer of hope at reversing this fiasco by a second Referendum, Remainers had every right to oppose by democratic means.
It would seem that most Leavers, weren't sure quite what they wanted, and those that did know are on the cusp of achieving their desires. I, as a former Remainer, are cool with that. However, the victors are blaming me for their winning the wrong kind of victory. Own it, enjoy it!
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
The corollary of that is that the British fishing fleet is not big enough to maintain current catch levels in British waters. What is supposed to happen next? Will British companies buy trawlers from Spanish operators, and hire Portuguese crews?
You know, allowing some recovery of fish stocks whilst the UK fleet built up capacity is not necessarily the worst outcome from a conservation point of view but removal of the current restrictions on the number of days that the UK fleet is allowed to fish will help quite a bit.
Yawn. We are going to now have to suffer weeks of gloating from the same 8-9 regular posters on here (the Ultra-Remain Horde) who are desperate to be vindicated on Brexit and cheer on every hard move of the EU whilst condemning the same if done by the UK. They get off on gloating, provoking, insulting and pompous grandstanding (mainly an exercise in cognitive dissonance they don't have the self-awareness or intelligence to fail to recognise) all whilst tediously clogged up thread after thread with their bilge and like-clicked backslapping and reinforcing of one other.
This is one key reason that I was so keen on a Deal, as I knew how insufferable they'd be with a No Deal, which they secretly all want as they think it suits their long-term political goals the best. In truth, it's a step into the unknown with a variety of (unpredictable) political outcomes.
I get nothing from engaging in that other than irritation so I will be taking a break from this site to leave them to their feverish and euphoric mutual masturbation.
You want a deal. You fear No Deal. Great.
But you blame Ultra-Remainers for No Deal. That is preposterous. The government, packed with Leavers, whose Prime Minister fronted the Leave campaign, will be responsible for the manner of our departure, deal or no deal.
Absolutely. The government has an eighty seat majority for a year and full command of negotiations.
It is no ones fault but their own if they didn't believe that the EU are serious about their redlines, and mean what they say.
Just because the EU are serious about their red lines should we compromise ours?
Or if there's no intersection agreeable shouldn't we do what it looks like we are doing and walk away?
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
The corollary of that is that the British fishing fleet is not big enough to maintain current catch levels in British waters. What is supposed to happen next? Will British companies buy trawlers from Spanish operators, and hire Portuguese crews?
You know, allowing some recovery of fish stocks whilst the UK fleet built up capacity is not necessarily the worst outcome from a conservation point of view but removal of the current restrictions on the number of days that the UK fleet is allowed to fish will help quite a bit.
Quite. People seem to think it's like leaving crops unharvested - giving the fish a breather is no bad thing.
Regarding the polling in Alistair Meeks thread header, a trade deal closely aligned to the EU is the most popular choice with 58% having it as their first choice or acceptable to them, followed by a trade deal with a clear break from the EU which is the first choice or acceptable to 56% of voters, then rejoining the EU which is first choice or acceptable to 47% of voters.
No Deal is the least popular outcome but it is still the first choice or acceptable to 41% of voters
Mr. Pete, your joyous anticipation of hardship for your country supposes that everyone who wanted to leave the EU wanted to do so with no deal whatsoever, and a good amount of ill will thrown in.
I said at the time I was relaxed about a broad range of potential deals, the customs union alone being something I would consider a red line.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
The corollary of that is that the British fishing fleet is not big enough to maintain current catch levels in British waters. What is supposed to happen next? Will British companies buy trawlers from Spanish operators, and hire Portuguese crews?
You know, allowing some recovery of fish stocks whilst the UK fleet built up capacity is not necessarily the worst outcome from a conservation point of view but removal of the current restrictions on the number of days that the UK fleet is allowed to fish will help quite a bit.
Will also increase the value of the fish that are caught on those extra days too.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
Citation needed!
Boris got Brexit done.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Regarding the polling in Alistair Meeks thread header, a trade deal closely aligned to the EU is the most popular choice with 58% having it as their first choice or acceptable to them, followed by a trade deal with a clear break from the EU which is the first choice or acceptable to 56% of voters, then rejoining the EU which is first choice or acceptable to 47% of voters.
No Deal is the least popular outcome but it is still the first choice or acceptable to 41% of voters
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
No. It is simply factually demonstrable that Clarke voted against Brexit more.
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
Absurd. Britain doesn't want just first to leave, but then also to retain privileges beyond those of other third-countries for the EU. What would be your own response in its situation ?
Personally I'm quite content with how Brexit is going. The EU are being scelerotic and unreasonable, so we have two choices: to give in to them or walk away. If I got a vote I would say walk away.
A lot of people are hyperventilating about the impact of a clean Brexit but I think it will be ultimately much ado about nothing, albeit with some disruption. People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more.
And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan.
But there isn't a plan. "Letting the invisible hand of the market sort it out over a few months" is a plan of sorts I guess, but not one that's going to fly.
Why not?
There's years until the next election. We've just been through nine months of disruption.
What's a few months of flag waving and disruption between friends before we get to the other side of the disruption?
Many parts of the country are still living with the consequences of the disruption caused by the restructuring of the UK economy in the 1980s. These things are not resolved in months.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
Lunchtime call between UK and EU apparently..
But those who make the actual decisions in the EU have decided. Britain needs to be punished for its temerity in leaving the project. The views of those directly affected like Eire and Spain can be disregarded as usual. There is no evidence at all of any activity consistent with a last minute compromise.
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.
If the EU was a sensible institution then we may not have left it. So we shouldn't be too surprised.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
A deal is essential. Not agreeing one will be a total failure. Spain and Ireland have both benefited hugely from EU membership.
I don't know about essential but it is certainly highly desirable. I agree that Spain and Ireland have benefited from their EU membership but the price that they pay is having decisions made that they play no part in and which are contrary to their interests.
Mr. Jonathan, May certainly struggled to get her own party on-side.
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Who was more constructive , Remainer Clarke or Leaver Boris?
Leaver Boris.
He voted against Brexit more than Clarke.
Factually incorrect.
Eh? You’re engaging in a Trumpian denial of facts now.
No. It is simply factually demonstrable that Clarke voted against Brexit more.
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Facts are facts. List the number of times Clarke in Parliament voted for Brexit and I can guarantee I can find more votes for Brexit by Boris than that.
Comments
If you had laid out that this was what you wanted on the side of a bus it would have been utterly rejected.
As it is the price is 6% of GDP every year and with compound interest that is a price in the trillions.
People are beginning - too late- to understand how wrong you are, and the consequences will include political obliteration.
Blaming foreigners has worked for the current ruling class up to now, so of course they will continue to do it after whatever happens with Brexit at the end of the year.
Mail is reporting that Johnson has taken personal control of no deal planning.
Buckle UP!
Anyway, the resident PB Brexiteer morons have promised us sunlit uplands and beyond with a no-deal Brexit? Can they be believed?
If we failed to reach a deal with the USA should we have Parliament voting on their final offer?
There's no difference between the EU and any of the other countries Truss etc are negotiating with. We aren't EU members anymore, they're a third party.
If Labour wants a vote on the EUs proposals they can put that into their manifesto at the next election. Or Parliament can No Confidence Boris if they want to try that route.
But you blame Ultra-Remainers for No Deal. That is preposterous. The government, packed with Leavers, whose Prime Minister fronted the Leave campaign, will be responsible for the manner of our departure, deal or no deal.
Yes, the Conservatives deserve excoriating for both lack of planning (also by pro-EU types such as Hammond) for No Deal, and for having the arch-imbecile replace May. But she did strive, albeit with difficulty, to achieve a deal. And the Commons said no, no, and no again.
Instead they just opposed everything.
We voted to leave the EU in 2016
We left the EU months ago with a fixed transition period.
We end transition in a few weeks and are a third party to be not EU members.
You may want to rehash the 2017-2019 psychodramas but that goodness that dark period is over. The public were wise to give the Tories a stable majority to ensure that idiocy wasn't repeated.
Why are so angry at your victory?
You won. Not only the referendum and the election but now the means of departure. Isn't this the ultimate victory? Why the fury having been so utterly triumphant?
However, when you've got the 'pro'-EU side lining up alongside hardline Leavers that was undoubtedly an act that could be called bloody silly. Pro-EU MPs have been the best unwitting allies of sceptics for years, from the stupid reneging of the Lisbon vote through to compelling May to get Commons approval for her deal, to then refusing the deal on three occasions, and now complaining that, having successfully removed almost every alternative, we're set for a turbulent No Deal, in all probability.
*sighs*
There's such a thing as nuance. As a middle between extremes. One might forget that, given blind opposition to The Enemy seems to be a prevailing school of thought amongst many in politics.
Her deal was awful and we have a better outcome now. Leave MPs have got what they wanted, facilitated by the useful idiots who marched through the lobbies three times with Steve Baker etc
There's years until the next election. We've just been through nine months of disruption.
What's a few months of flag waving and disruption between friends before we get to the other side of the disruption?
During the Referendum it was also closed off by Corbyn, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Johnson and Gove. So why single out May?
Mrs May, I suspect, might have been more amenable to accepting a lengthy transition extension under the cloak of Covid.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1337897779994234886?s=20
The height of this are the comments that Remainers should some how get on board and solve all the problems they have created. That somehow Remainers should have voted for this or that policy and everything would be ok.
It’s weird. Brexit folk need to take responsibility, stop blaming others for the consequences of their actions and accept the criticism they gave others for years on end.
It will wargame "“basically, everything that could go wrong in January,”"
If we have indeed as a nation achieved a Clean Brexit it couldn't have been done without them.
If - as government declaring shortages of food and medicines suggests - it is going to be really really hard then I assume that the people who angrily declared they would rather eat grass than have any connection to the EU will be happy.
Why then am I confident that the angriest people will be the winners - the Casinos of this world - who having vanquished remoaners will be giving themselves aneurysm in apoplectic rage.
Leaving the Single Market was explicitly policy.
People aren't understanding I was wrong. People are still banging on with the same bloody sore loser arguments that lost the Referendum five years ago. It is positively Trumpian.
- In the EU and member states' interest
- Much less than membership so most countries will choose membership
- Of interest to those third countries.
Naturally they will prioritise the first two of these.The UK need for European and trade policies is more urgent of course. At the moment it has none.
Mr. Oracle, you're correct, and her early rhetoric on no deal being bad than a bad deal then shifted thinking from "Is this better or worse than the alternative" to "Is this a good deal, and, if not, we shall reject it". An ironic echo of Cameron's failure to get a prospectus from the official Leave campaign so that the referendum was solely on the EU and not what the alternative actually was.
Mr. 43, remembering how MPs voted in the Commons isn't some type of nefarious manipulation of history or devious propaganda. It's recalling what happened and the consequences of the choices made.
Just as the decision by the PCP to support the cretin in Number Ten ought not be forgotten, we should remember the MPs bleating loudest about the evils of No Deal made that the default option when they thrice rejected May's deal.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/12/france-gears-war-european-neighbours-locked-british-waters-no/
With no deal in sight, Olivier Le Prêtre, head of the Hauts-de-France fishing council - whose small boats fish 70 per cent of their catch in UK waters - said he feared the French would be overrun by European rivals if the UK cut them out of theirs.
“If it was only French fishermen in French waters, then no-deal might be ok but we have the Belgians, the Dutch to contend with,” he told the Telegraph.
“If they all end up in French waters, there is a risk of overfishing and in a few months we’ll annihilate stocks.”
Back in 2016 they said No Deal was Project Fear now in 2020 they say No Deal will be fine and they want us to believe them. It will turn Leavers into Gordon Brown when his comments about abolishing boom and bust came back to haunt him during the great financial crisis. There's an absolute plethora of comments that will haunt the Leavers.
Michael Gove privately told a few people in 2017 that if country sees Brexit as a mistake they will ultimately vote to overturn. He's right. That's what's scaring so many Leavers.
We all know Leave would not have won if the electorate had realised No Deal was the most likely outcome, that's why Vote Leave kept on denying it in 2016.
David Gauke vs. John Redwood
...
It’s a long list..
Unless you're for some Trumpian reason only defining May's meaningful votes as voting for or against Brexit.
Soft Brexit is a lie. Leavers and Remainers unanimously agreed DURING the Referendum that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. May did a lot of things wrong but respecting that is not one of them.
The problem, and the reason for the apoplectic rage from the Casinos of this world, is that now it's here Brexit doesn't provide the silver bullet cure it was billed as being. We're seeing reportage from across the country of various interest groups now regretful. Fishermen, farmers, car workers - all with valid concerns about the EU now realising that it was the least worst option.
We will initially see some patriotic bulldog blitz spirit guff, but as your farmer realises that tariffs kill his business dead as opposed to freeing it as billed, the anger will sweep away the intellectual heavyweights in government. The problem for the country is that all the old problems and injustices will be there only worse, and the only respite being offered is a return to a status quo ante so hated and so rejected.
So we had better hope that Philip is right and that the Cabinet Office and the manufacturers and the retailers and the industry experts and the logistics planners are wrong. Because otherwise Nigel Farage will be the leading political figure of the decade as we head towards a "kill the migrants" solution to our "woes".
It is no ones fault but their own if they didn't believe that the EU are serious about their redlines, and mean what they say.
"People living in Kent may notice it more but they also voted for it more. "
Love the final line though...
"And if there's some disruption I think people can live with that so long as they think it's all a part of a plan..
I am sure there were other votes, and I guess Clarke was against things like shutting down Parliament illegally later on. But it’s a matter of record that on the meaningful, substantial votes, Boris did not help until he sorted his primary career goal. It is therefore wrong to point the finger at Remainers.
The demagogue journalists currently in charge are now beginning to panic... The first honest emotion many of them have had in years.
Of course their views don't really matter, this is what they signed up for.
I see 'clean' is Philip's terminology of optimism today. Is this an Australia-style clean, like a dead coral reef, stripped of its life by the excrement of our own activity? Will row after row of empty supermarket shelves be clean? Brexit is proof that the advocates creative destruction are invariably pure destroyers, interested in creation only as a fig leaf for their vandalism. We do see starkly noe that there was not a single creator amongst them all, the actual benefits of Brexit were not to be hard fought for, they are supposed to come about by magic. Boris is no more prepared for no deal than May was, the only source of his credibility over no deal is not preparedness but the realisation that 'he is that stupid'.
It would seem that most Leavers, weren't sure quite what they wanted, and those that did know are on the cusp of achieving their desires. I, as a former Remainer, are cool with that. However, the victors are blaming me for their winning the wrong kind of victory. Own it, enjoy it!
Or if there's no intersection agreeable shouldn't we do what it looks like we are doing and walk away?
No Deal is the least popular outcome but it is still the first choice or acceptable to 41% of voters
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1335499018550587392?s=20
I said at the time I was relaxed about a broad range of potential deals, the customs union alone being something I would consider a red line.
Mr. Alex, different people have different views.
He's taking back control.
He's even ensuring Brexit means Brexit.
Besides platitudes what do you want a citation for?
I wanted and expected a deal but I have called it wrong because I focused on the economics rather than the politics. Its unfortunate but the consequences will be far more modest than the thread header and others suggest.