politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May has finally united the country on Brexit
Options
Comments
-
As I said earlier I genuinely don't think we can get there. I don't think there is now enough time for it. Certainly a public vote will not do it. Why should an option that has not been seriously considered for 18 months suddenly be proposed as one of the alternatives in a referendum?Gardenwalker said:
The vote would be to accept or reject the deal.Richard_Tyndall said:
We already voted on whether to Remain or not. If you want that vote then it is a second referendum under the EU's 'keep asking until they give the right answer' programme. It will be a second referendum and will be portrayed as such with the associated message of 'you voted the wrong way last time, try again'.Gardenwalker said:
A reject shouldn’t (necessarily) lead to WTO.Richard_Tyndall said:
If its a vote on the deal then the two options should be accept the deal or reject it - in which case it is WTO. If there is a Remain option then it is a second vote.Gardenwalker said:
But it’s not a second vote. It’s a vote on the deal - and a chance for the People to tell the incompetent and/or Russian-funded Brexitarchy to go do one.kle4 said:
Please just call it a second referendum. I'm not opposed to one, and in the last couple of weeks I've come to think we are probably going to have to have one, but calling it that just looks so childish, as though the first one was not a people's vote.Gardenwalker said:
Reason #3345 for a People’s Vote.TheScreamingEagles said:So Comrade Leavers you have two options
1) Recant your treasonous support for Russia Leave
or
2) Be sent to The Tower
We ought to keep open the option for EEA or Remain.
However a vote to reject would not necessarily imply a vote for WTO.
If you genuinely want an EEA, how are you going to get there, Richard?
You need:
- May to fall and be replaced by an EEAer or;
- The Commons to reject the deal and force May into an EEA deal, or;
- A vote on the deal which rejects the government’s proposal and leads, probably with May’s ousting, to a pivot toward EEA.
Your hostility to a public vote is blocking one of the possible routes to an EEA solution.
May falling and being replaced by an EEA'er might move things forward but I still think time is too short. The Commons cannot force May into any specific position they can only accept or reject whatever deal she negotiates.
My hostility is not to a public vote. It is to a vote that revisits the question we have already been asked.
0 -
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England0 -
Meaningless given most Leave voters who actually won the vote on that close a margin would clearly put ending free movement first.TheScreamingEagles said:The poll shows the public is shifting towards wanting to stay in the EU’s single market. Currently 38% would prefer to stay in the single market even if it means allowing free movement of Labour, while 34% would prefer to end free movement of labour even if it means we leave the single market.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/fewer-leave-voters-back-tories-handling-of-brexit-poll
Also from that poll 'the public remain unmoved on whether or not to have a new referendum. Asked if there should be another in-out referendum on the final deal, 38% said there should be, while 48% said there should not be.'0 -
It would have ended up with us crashing out. That wouldn't have been a better job.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:
.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.0 -
That is a valid argument. We should explore alternative Brexit destinations. But as I said we should have been exploring them 18 months ago.Gardenwalker said:
I think we need to test the assumption that “no deal” means WTO. I don’t know why it would. I know May would like it to, to scare us into supporting her. And the timetable makes everything almost impossible.RobD said:
An EEA-type agreement is guaranteed to be one of the options? What if it is just deal or no deal?Gardenwalker said:
The vote would be to accept or reject the deal.Richard_Tyndall said:
We already voted on whether to Remain or not. If you want that vote then it is a second referendum under the EU's 'keep asking until they give the right answer' programme. It will be a second referendum and will be portrayed as such with the associated message of 'you voted the wrong way last time, try again'.Gardenwalker said:
A reject shouldn’t (necessarily) lead to WTO.Richard_Tyndall said:
If its a vote on the deal then the two options should be accept the deal or reject it - in which case it is WTO. If there is a Remain option then it is a second vote.Gardenwalker said:
But it’s not a second vote. It’s a vote on the deal - and a chance for the People to tell the incompetent and/or Russian-funded Brexitarchy to go do one.kle4 said:
Please just call it a second referendum. I'm not opposed to one, and in the last couple of weeks I've come to think we are probably going to have to have one, but calling it that just looks so childish, as though the first one was not a people's vote.Gardenwalker said:
Reason #3345 for a People’s Vote.TheScreamingEagles said:So Comrade Leavers you have two options
1) Recant your treasonous support for Russia Leave
or
2) Be sent to The Tower
We ought to keep open the option for EEA or Remain.
However a vote to reject would not necessarily imply a vote for WTO.
If you genuinely want an EEA, how are you going to get there, Richard?
You need:
- May to fall and be replaced by an EEAer or;
- The Commons to reject the deal and force May into an EEA deal, or;
- A vote on the deal which rejects the government’s proposal and leads, probably with May’s ousting, to a pivot toward EEA.
Your hostility to a public vote is blocking one of the possible routes to an EEA solution.
But fuck it, why should it? I see no need to let the country march off a cliff because “reasons”.0 -
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.0 -
See above, it’s not a revisit.Richard_Tyndall said:
As I said earlier I genuinely don't think we can get there. I don't think there is now enough time for it. Certainly a public vote will not do it. Why should an option that has not been seriously considered for 18 months suddenly be proposed as one of the alternatives in a referendum?Gardenwalker said:
The vote would be to accept or reject the deal.Richard_Tyndall said:
We already voted on whether to Remain or not. If you want that vote then it is a second referendum under the EU's 'keep asking until they give the right answer' programme. It will be a second referendum and will be portrayed as such with the associated message of 'you voted the wrong way last time, try again'.Gardenwalker said:Richard_Tyndall said:Gardenwalker said:
But it’s not a second vote. It’s a vote on the deal - and a chance for the People to tell the incompetent and/or Russian-funded Brexitarchy to go do one.kle4 said:
Please just call it a second referendum. I'm not opposed to one, and in the last couple of weeks I've come to think we are probably going to have to have one, but calling it that just looks so childish, as though the first one was not a people's vote.Gardenwalker said:
Reason #3345 for a People’s Vote.TheScreamingEagles said:So Comrade Leavers you have two options
1) Recant your treasonous support for Russia Leave
or
2) Be sent to The Tower
However a vote to reject would not necessarily imply a vote for WTO.
If you genuinely want an EEA, how are you going to get there, Richard?
You need:
- May to fall and be replaced by an EEAer or;
- The Commons to reject the deal and force May into an EEA deal, or;
- A vote on the deal which rejects the government’s proposal and leads, probably with May’s ousting, to a pivot toward EEA.
Your hostility to a public vote is blocking one of the possible routes to an EEA solution.
May falling and being replaced by an EEA'er might move things forward but I still think time is too short. The Commons cannot force May into any specific position they can only accept or reject whatever deal she negotiates.
My hostility is not to a public vote. It is to a vote that revisits the question we have already been asked.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.0 -
Interesting and tends to confirm the impression that the 7-point lead was an outlier. But I think TSE is right that having really low expectations may be TM's friend- in the end, any old deal may seem the best that could be managed, and public hostility to the compromises needed seems to be softening.TheScreamingEagles said:The poll shows the public is shifting towards wanting to stay in the EU’s single market. Currently 38% would prefer to stay in the single market even if it means allowing free movement of Labour, while 34% would prefer to end free movement of labour even if it means we leave the single market.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/fewer-leave-voters-back-tories-handling-of-brexit-poll
A caveat: Opinium is a bit of a mess at the moment - I'm on their panel, and half the emails they send don't have clickable links in my browser. They've resorted to saying "if that doesn't work try this link", which is OK but a bit desperate. They changed their payment system recently with hiccups on the way, though it seems to be working now.0 -
For real?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
Charles, you just totally jumped the shark.0 -
That was pre Winter of Discontent and by May 1976 the Tories led most polls anyway, indeed a November 1976 Gallup poll had Thatcher's Tories leading Callaghan's Labour by a huge 55% to 30% margin and NOP had the Tories ahead 55% to 31% that same month.justin124 said:I have just neen looking at polls from previous Parliaments , and surprised that in March /April 1976 Labour enjoyed leads as high as 6% & 7% over the Tories - ie 18 months into the October 1974 Parliament. It didn't mean lot,however, re-predicting the 1979 election outcome.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1974-1979
Though of course polls in the first half of a Parliament are not always accurate otherwise we would have had PM Foot and PM Ed Miliband.0 -
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.Gardenwalker said:
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.0 -
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statement. I wouldn’t suggest that Tudor France and Spain have similar importance today eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.0 -
Which part of “any history of poisoning people on the streets” do you understand differently to me?Gardenwalker said:
For real?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
Charles, you just totally jumped the shark.0 -
I have never argued that polling data early in a Parliament is likely to be a good indicator of what might happen 3 or 4 years later at an election. A big lead for the Opposition party in years 1 & 2 still gives the incumbent plenty of time to recover as exemplified by the Parliaments of 1955 and 1979. It is when a Government hits choppy waters from year 3 onwards - as happened in the Parliaments of 1959 and October 1974 - that its recovery prospects tend to become much more difficult.HYUFD said:
That was pre Winter of Discontent and by May 1976 the Tories led most polls anyway, indeed a November 1976 Gallup poll had Thatcher's Tories leading Callaghan's Labour by a huge 55% to 30% margin and NOP had the Tories ahead 55% to 31% that same month.justin124 said:I have just neen looking at polls from previous Parliaments , and surprised that in March /April 1976 Labour enjoyed leads as high as 6% & 7% over the Tories - ie 18 months into the October 1974 Parliament. It didn't mean lot,however, re-predicting the 1979 election outcome.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-1974-1979
Though of course polls in the first half of a Parliament are not always accurate otherwise we would have had PM Foot and PM Ed Miliband.0 -
The context was in relation to the referendum and current leaders.Charles said:
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statement. I wouldn’t suggest that Tudor France and Spain have similar importance today eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.
If you really think Tudor France played an active role in the referendum then up your meds.0 -
How long before the 25th amendment to the US constitution gets invoked? Trump is more and more obviously a loon!
On his impending meeting with Kim Jong-un:
"I think within the first minute, I'll know".
"How?" a reporter asked.
"I just, my touch, my feel, that's what, that's what I do. How long will it take to figure out whether or not they're serious? I said, maybe in the first minute. You know the way they say that, you know if you're going to like somebody in the first five seconds? You ever hear that one? Well I think that very quickly I'll know whether or not something good is going to happen. I also think I'll know whether or not it will happen fast."
This is the man whose negotiating style Boris Johnson thinks Britgov should adopt in the Brexit negotiations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyz-vlvB0rA0 -
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]0 -
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.Gardenwalker said:
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.0 -
Did remain seek assistance from foreign powers? Yes.TheScreamingEagles said:
The context was in relation to the referendum and current leaders.Charles said:
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statement. I wouldn’t suggest that Tudor France and Spain have similar importance today eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.
If you really think Tudor France played an active role in the referendum then up your meds.
Did this include Spain and France? Yes to Spain (Gib) I assume so with France
Do France and Spain have a history of positioning people on the streets of England? Yes
You didn’t include any qualifications in your assertion0 -
-
That was the point I made earlier. It is what it is and for all her faults May has I think tried her best for the past year at least to make the deal as palatable as possible. There will be a deal and it won't be brilliant but the idea that a ton of folk on here or other politicos could have done much better is pretty absurd.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.0 -
Would your analogy be affected if you had entered into a binding contract to to sell the old house with a completion date of 29th March 2019 and there was no reason to suppose that the purchasers would contemplate any renegotiation of that contract?Polruan said:
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.Gardenwalker said:
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.0 -
You’ve gone quite mad.Charles said:
Did remain seek assistance from foreign powers? Yes.TheScreamingEagles said:
The context was in relation to the referendum and current leaders.Charles said:
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statement. I wouldn’t suggest that Tudor France and Spain have similar importance today eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.
If you really think Tudor France played an active role in the referendum then up your meds.
Did this include Spain and France? Yes to Spain (Gib) I assume so with France
Do France and Spain have a history of positioning people on the streets of England? Yes
You didn’t include any qualifications in your assertion
Like an Anglican banking scion version of HAL from 2001.0 -
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.Ishmael_Z said:
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?0 -
She made a substantial unforced contribution to the weakness of the hand by giving Article 50 notice.felix said:
That was the point I made earlier. It is what it is and for all her faults May has I think tried her best for the past year at least to make the deal as palatable as possible. There will be a deal and it won't be brilliant but the idea that a ton of folk on here or other politicos could have done much better is pretty absurd.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.0 -
It would be. But we are not going gently gently Jonny. So let’s get a vote to reject the current shambles so we can reset.SeanT said:
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.Gardenwalker said:
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.0 -
Of course. For example, I’d be asking whether the person who was telling me there was no reason to suppose that the purchasers would contemplate any renegotiation of the contract was giving me disinterested advice. I’d also wonder who would enter into that contract without having spotted that the question that they were asking didn’t really give sufficient information to decide whether entering into a potentially irrevocable contract was a smart idea.Ishmael_Z said:
Would your analogy be affected if you had entered into a binding contract to to sell the old house with a completion date of 29th March 2019 and there was no reason to suppose that the purchasers would contemplate any renegotiation of that contract?Polruan said:
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.Gardenwalker said:
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.0 -
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.Gardenwalker said:
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.Ishmael_Z said:
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?0 -
Not controlling immigration post Brexit would destroy the Tory party. Still being under the EU legal thumb would too. And of course EEA doesn't solve the Northern Ireland border issue so it would be EEA + CU so no benefit at all.SeanT said:
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.Gardenwalker said:
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.0 -
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.Gardenwalker said:
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.another_richard said:
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.Gardenwalker said:
I disagree.Richard_Tyndall said:
No one has lost any arguments. The same reasons for leaving the EU still apply and are still valid. Of course Remoaners like you will try and claim it is all doomed but in the end there is no appetite amongst the politicians for reversing the decision as they know it would end their careers and quite possibly their parties. So either they see Brexit through with whatever deal they feel is survivable or we have a WTO Brexit. Either way we will be leaving.Gardenwalker said:Brexit is dying.
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
0 -
I take the reverse view, we should respect the fact that Leave won both as a desire for greater control of immigration and more sovereignty.SeanT said:
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.Gardenwalker said:
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.
After 10 years or so of no free movement and tighter immigration controls then maybe we can rejoin the EEA and single market or EFTA (while still technically being outside the EU).
However to respect the Leave vote properly we have to end freedom of movement and reduce immigration, especially unskilled immigration, first.
0 -
Not to mention requesting help from the US President.Charles said:
Did remain seek assistance from foreign powers? Yes.TheScreamingEagles said:
The context was in relation to the referendum and current leaders.Charles said:
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statement. I wouldn’t suggest that Tudor France and Spain have similar importance today eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.
If you really think Tudor France played an active role in the referendum then up your meds.
Did this include Spain and France? Yes to Spain (Gib) I assume so with France
Do France and Spain have a history of positioning people on the streets of England? Yes
You didn’t include any qualifications in your assertion
And this was the official Remain leader, not some secondary rabble on the Leave side.0 -
Trump is right in this there are whole books written on psychological negotiating. One of the main points is why is it that two people can meet for the first time and instantly dislike each other or vice a versa. Then there is understanding body language et al.Purple said:How long before the 25th amendment to the US constitution gets invoked? Trump is more and more obviously a loon!
On his impending meeting with Kim Jong-un:
"I think within the first minute, I'll know".
"How?" a reporter asked.
"I just, my touch, my feel, that's what, that's what I do. How long will it take to figure out whether or not they're serious? I said, maybe in the first minute. You know the way they say that, you know if you're going to like somebody in the first five seconds? You ever hear that one? Well I think that very quickly I'll know whether or not something good is going to happen. I also think I'll know whether or not it will happen fast."
This is the man whose negotiating style Boris Johnson thinks Britgov should adopt in the Brexit negotiations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyz-vlvB0rA
I always look at shoes as an indicator, a person who wears Clarkes Attackers is a different person to one that has a pair of Chruch's Oxfords on.
The real skilful negotiator recognises all this and changes their behaviour, language, explanation style and body language to make the other side like them to get the deal they want.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/11/british-farmer-moves-fruit-growing-to-china-over-brexit-uncertaintyanother_richard said:the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
0 -
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.SeanT said:
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.felix said:
.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.0 -
Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.Scott_P said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/11/british-farmer-moves-fruit-growing-to-china-over-brexit-uncertaintyanother_richard said:the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
0 -
The Conservatives were well ahead in the May 1976 local elections:justin124 said:
I well understand that but Labour had a clear lead prior to Callaghan taking over on April 5th. As far back as November 1975 Gallup had Labour 5.5% ahead.TheScreamingEagles said:
Tsk, you're grasping at straws.justin124 said:I have just neen looking at polls from previous Parliaments , and surprised that in March /April 1976 Labour enjoyed leads as high as 6% & 7% over the Tories - ie 18 months into the October 1974 Parliament. It didn't mean lot,however, re-predicting the 1979 election outcome.
Those leads were down to Labour dominating the airwaves due to the leadership contest that saw Jim Callaghan become PM.
You do know new PMs get a polling boost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_1976
Though perhaps by not as much as in 1975 and 1977.0 -
Leaving CAP and CFP (do I get a bonus point for naming two?)Elliot said:
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.SeanT said:
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.felix said:
.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.0 -
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-Ishmael_Z said:
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.Gardenwalker said:
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.Ishmael_Z said:
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
Then you are at best a useful idiot.0 -
It's not though.Elliot said:Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked0 -
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.another_richard said:
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.Gardenwalker said:
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.another_richard said:
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.Gardenwalker said:
I disagree.Richard_Tyndall said:
No one has lost any arguments. The same reasons for leaving the EU still apply and are still valid. Of course Remoaners like you will try and claim it is all doomed but in the end there is no appetite amongst the politicians for reversing the decision as they know it would end their careers and quite possibly their parties. So either they see Brexit through with whatever deal they feel is survivable or we have a WTO Brexit. Either way we will be leaving.Gardenwalker said:Brexit is dying.
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.0 -
Important for farmers and fishermen for sure, but it's hardly a powerful message of freedom to the rest of us, is it?Polruan said:
Leaving CAP and CFP (do I get a bonus point for naming two?)Elliot said:
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.SeanT said:
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.felix said:
.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.0 -
A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.0 -
Arron Banks, the millionaire businessman who bankrolled Nigel Farage’s campaign to quit the EU, had multiple meetings with Russian embassy officials in the run-up to the Brexit referendum, documents seen by the Observer suggest.
Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign. The Observer has seen documents which a senior Tory MP says, if correct, raise urgent and troubling questions about his relationship with the Russian government.
The communications suggest:
Multiple, undisclosed meetings between the leaders of Leave.EU and high-ranking Russian officials, from November 2015 to 2017.
Two meetings in the week Leave.EU launched its official campaign.
An introduction to a Russian businessman, by the Russian ambassador, the day after Leave.EU launched its campaign, who reportedly offered Banks a multibillion dollar opportunity to buy Russian goldmines.
A trip to Moscow in February 2016 to meet key partners and financiers behind a gold project, including a Russian bank.
Continued extensive contact in the run-up to the US election when Banks, his business partner and Leave.EU spokesman Andy Wigmore, and Nigel Farage campaigned in the US to support Donald Trump’s candidacy.
Banks and Wigmore – who was also present at many of the meetings – were due to appear before the select committee for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on Tuesday to answer questions about Leave.EU’s role in the European referendum.
Hours after the Observer contacted them for comment on Friday, they published a letter stating they would not attend the hearing, and accused the committee of colluding with a pro-Remain campaign group.
But on Saturday Banks suggested that he would attend after all, and accused the Tory chairman, Damian Collins, of colluding with journalists.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeting0 -
Migration large enough it shows up in any actual data? Otherwise it's just the same cherry picking and confirmation bias you show in Brexit related news. Meanwhile, in the real world, the UK has record high employment and the next Eurozone crisis is already starting.Gardenwalker said:
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.another_richard said:
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.Gardenwalker said:
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.another_richard said:
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.Gardenwalker said:
I disagree.Richard_Tyndall said:
we will be leaving.Gardenwalker said:Brexit is dying.
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.0 -
If you eat food, both are likely to have some impact. Actually I thought the perceived inefficiency of CAP and the imagined sovereignty issues of CFP were seen as a big deal by many leavers, so both should count as wins.Elliot said:
Important for farmers and fishermen for sure, but it's hardly a powerful message of freedom to the rest of us, is it?Polruan said:
Leaving CAP and CFP (do I get a bonus point for naming two?)Elliot said:
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.SeanT said:
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.felix said:
.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.0 -
I am in Britain, you twit.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.0 -
I can quote from the Guardian as well:Scott_P said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/11/british-farmer-moves-fruit-growing-to-china-over-brexit-uncertaintyanother_richard said:the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
' Britain may be in the grip of a cold snap but consumers can get a taste of the first UK strawberries of 2018, which went on sale on Thursday.
A Welsh fruit grower has broken the record for picking the earliest ever British strawberries – grown in glasshouses – and getting them on to supermarket shelves.
The berries, grown by Springfield Nursery near Cowbridge in south Wales, went on on sale in Tesco’s Bridgend Extra store. The discount supermarket Aldi was also selling strawberries at its store in Bridgend. '
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/22/earliest-ever-british-strawberries-arrive-supermarket-shelves-wales
Now go down to your local supermarket and see all the produce displaying the Union Jack.0 -
That means it is. They can't get it picked because it's work of such low value it's not worth them paying a decent wage to do it. The UK had a productivity problem. Why maintain low productivity work when people have better paid jobs elsewhere?Scott_P said:
It's not though.Elliot said:Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked0 -
Scott_P said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/11/british-farmer-moves-fruit-growing-to-china-over-brexit-uncertaintyanother_richard said:the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
Surely that is from the Daily Mash, not the Guardian. There is still a difference, I think.Scott_P said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/11/british-farmer-moves-fruit-growing-to-china-over-brexit-uncertaintyanother_richard said:the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
0 -
I doubt EEA membership would ever flown as a referendum option. The Leave Ultras would have declared it a smoke-and-mirrors betrayal as immigration is untouched; Remainers would say it was a poor-man's EU membership. We'd also have a bit of 'vassal state' thrown in from all sides. It's really just the minority Brexit preferred by the metropolitan dinner-party set.0
-
Except the analogy doesn't hold. What has actually happened is that there are lots of other houses available but one person has decided that only a house in need of a lot of renovation will do. And actually even though there are other houses you would rather move to, even the house in need of renovation is still better than the rat infested hole you were living in before.Polruan said:
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.Gardenwalker said:
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Edit: Oh and the person who decided you must move to the house in need of renovation didn't actually want to move in the first place and still doesn't get why you couldn't learn to put up with the rats and rising damp in the old place.0 -
That wasn't the question which was asked.Gardenwalker said:
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-Ishmael_Z said:
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.Gardenwalker said:
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.Ishmael_Z said:
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
Then you are at best a useful idiot.0 -
The drop in FDI is massive. That’s a real world stat. The question is, as you say, why it is not showing up in aggregate unemployment figures.Elliot said:
Migration large enough it shows up in any actual data? Otherwise it's just the same cherry picking and confirmation bias you show in Brexit related news. Meanwhile, in the real world, the UK has record high employment and the next Eurozone crisis is already starting.Gardenwalker said:
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.another_richard said:Gardenwalker said:
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.another_richard said:
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.Gardenwalker said:
I disagree.Richard_Tyndall said:
we will be leaving.Gardenwalker said:Brexit is dying.
Philosophically, it’s bankrupt. Many of its erstwhile backers have gone quiet or publicly disowned the project. The public are bored it with it, or associate it with calamity.
Only Rees Mogg and the ERG seem to care anymore but they have already lost the main arguments. Corbyn remains privately loyal of course, but cannot bring himself to say it out loud.
I’m not even sure David David believes in it intellectually, although he remains committed to seeing it through for career reasons.
Like a house with rotten timbers and worm eaten joists, it still appears solid, but is one strong gust away from complete collapse.
Ironically, an exit to EEA might be the only way to keep Brexit alive, as it at least coherent. But perhaps only Gove or Johnson are capable of of leading that pivot.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
I assume it manifests at present as lost growth, and lost total employment rather than unemployment. The tragedy is that’s difficult to quantify.0 -
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.Gardenwalker said:
I am in Britain, you twit.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.0 -
That’s entirely fair, but to continue with the analogy, any meaningful question in real-life would include comparing the other houses you would rather move to (and can afford, and which are for sale) with the house in need of renovation and the house you currently live in - rats, damp and all. After all, if it’s that bad, why would you be worried about asking people to compare it with all the other available options?Richard_Tyndall said:
Except the analogy doesn't hold. What has actually happened is that there are lots of other houses available but one person has decided that only a house in need of a lot of renovation will do. And actually even though there are other houses you would rather move to, even the house in need of renovation is still better than the rat infested hole you were living in before.Polruan said:
Not a new analogy I realise, but if the original question “shall I move house or not?” yielded the answer “move”, when you find only one other house is available (and it’s a bit rubbish), insisting that the only acceptable question to now ask is “this house or NO HOUSE?” seems a bit dogmatic. In real life, one would admit that the original question was perhaps a bit flawed and that the three options (old house, potential new house or no house) should now be considered. I can’t see why anyone would object in principle to that method of decision-making - although obviously there are many reasons that the various political parties might consider that it’s in their interests to invent a ‘principled’ reason to limit the available branches of a decision tree.Richard_Tyndall said:
Sorry we are talking at cross purposes. I was objecting to a vote that revisited the basic question of whether or not we leave. You included a Remain option in your earlier comment. I have no objection to a vote that asks what sort of final Brexit we have. Though again I think we (as in the UK Government) should have been making these proposals 18 months ago instead of fixating on immigration.Gardenwalker said:
See above, it’s not a revisit.
Polling suggests it is the public’s preferred solution. It is economically sane. It honours “the vote”. Even Remainers like me could go along with it, as a least worst option.
You should support a Vote to scrap the current insanity and allow us the opportunity to change course.
Edit: Oh and the person who decided you must move to the house in need of renovation didn't actually want to move in the first place and still doesn't get why you couldn't learn to put up with the rats and rising damp in the old place.
0 -
I am not interested in whether any final deal destroys the Tory party or any other party. No party has an innate right to exist and we certainly shouldn't be deciding our future based on whether or not one political party or another will be damaged or destroyed by it.Elliot said:
Not controlling immigration post Brexit would destroy the Tory party. Still being under the EU legal thumb would too. And of course EEA doesn't solve the Northern Ireland border issue so it would be EEA + CU so no benefit at all.SeanT said:
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.Gardenwalker said:
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.0 -
Yeah it was.Ishmael_Z said:
That wasn't the question which was asked.Gardenwalker said:
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-Ishmael_Z said:
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.Gardenwalker said:
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.Ishmael_Z said:
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
Then you are at best a useful idiot.0 -
You clearly can't read.Gardenwalker said:
Yeah it was.Ishmael_Z said:
That wasn't the question which was asked.Gardenwalker said:
But if you can’t see the difference between David Cameron pulling in a favour from Obama (and one which ironically backfired), and the clandestine funding of political activists as part of a broader propaganda effort by a hostile power —-Ishmael_Z said:
I oppose foreign interference in our affairs with every fibre of my being; I was just pointing out that it's a bit more widely distributed than some have suggested.Gardenwalker said:
So that’s @tlg86 and @Ishmael_Z willing to excuse away Russian meddling in our elections.Ishmael_Z said:
"The U.K. is going to be in the back of the queue." B ObamaTheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
UK citizens detained and tortured at Guantanamo - 17.
[Incoming yebbuts: they were very bad hombres, who says water is poisonous, who says Guantanamo is in the UK]
And possibly Charles, if he has a clue what he’s saying.
Anyone else?
Then you are at best a useful idiot.0 -
Yet it is being picked because its in the supermarket.Scott_P said:
It's not though.Elliot said:Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
I'll believe that reality rather then unquestioned anecdotes in the Guardian.
Especially as it involves farmers - a group notorious for proclaiming the current year to be the 'worst ever' and who always want the government to provide a cheaper workforce or another subsidy.0 -
It wouldn't just be the hardcore Leavers. It would be the vast bulk, who want laws and control of who comes here to be decided by us. How could we be said to be a free nation again when we have to abide by a foreign parliament and a foreign court? Your argument about the principle would be laughed out of court. Remainers want to have a Brexit which comes with all the disadvantages and none of the advantages so that they can discredit it. Your slow pivoting away would actually be used as a springboard to go back in as "we've shown there are no advantages possible anyway".SeanT said:Elliot:
"Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU"
Well there's the CAP and CFP and various other things we would leave, which may seem trivial, and maybe they are, but at least they would be a start.
The point is more the principle. We are a free nation again. Ireland was tied to the UK for decades after Ireland gained independence, but slowly they have moved towards a better place (though now they seem happy to throw it all away, in return for being governed, albeit prosperously, by Berlin - but that is their sovereign choice)
We need to dramatically move the ratchet the other way from "ever closer union". Brexit does that. It sets a new trajectory. The least damaging Brexit is EEA, and from there we can inch slowly and gently ever further away, while quietly keeping the best bits (if possible).
Ultimately I would (with great trepidation and bewailing and rending of garments) accept WTO No Deal Brexit if it has to be that way, but it is utterly ridiculous and stupid if that happens, and would be a grave political failure: as I am pretty sure the nation could wearily unite around EEA status - polls show it.
Mad Remainers and hardcore Leavers would go ape. Fuck them.
The right course is what May's muddling through is slowly coming to. Exit the Single Market but have some sort of mutual recognition of regulations by 2020. Announce new Brexit immigration controls just before the next election. Exit the Customs Union around 2023 and then announce new trade deals just before the following one. There is your pivot.0 -
EEA + CU is a non starter. Neither EU or EFTA rules allow it.Elliot said:
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.SeanT said:
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.felix said:
.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.0 -
I would have preferred a cleaner break than the EEA to be honest but I could live with it as an intermediate step. The negotiations have demonstrated many of the worst aspects of the EU. I find it remarkable that so few remainers are minded to call them out for their disgraceful behaviour. @Alastair_Meeks in fairness does but many seem to glory in every petty insult inflicted on their own country. It’s like some sort of Stockholm effect.SeanT said:
Count me in. I think Rob Smithson too. Plenty of Leavers on here wanted EEA or EFTA as a non-damaging holding position, whence we could slowly pivot away from a Federalising (or crumbling) EU, over time.Richard_Tyndall said:
I have been part of the EEA campaign from the very start. As I pointed out to HYUFD yesterday I was campaigning for that option (and incidently wrote a thread header supporting it) both before and after the vote. I regularly get accused of wanting to ignore the will of the people because I believe in it. Funnily enough often by Remainers who want to reverse the decision of the referendum.Gardenwalker said:
I actually think your option is closer, or more attainable than you think.
It needs a Gove or Johnson to front it, but the moment of “betrayal” is over.
Sure, the loony fringe will cry foul, but they wil do that anyway and they are increasingly marginal figures.
If you have courage of your convictions you should join the EEA campaign.
Nor am I alone. There are plenty of commentators such as Richard North who were strongly in favour of the EEA option for many years. If you think criticism of the Leave campaign is strong on here you should go and see what he and is supporters have to say about it. It would make your eyes water.
After all, countries that enter the EU are given several years, sometimes many years, to transition (as we were in the 1970s). It should be the same in reverse. It's the obvious route. Gently, gently; gently Jonny.0 -
Yes, and those others include Russia and her apologists in the West.tlg86 said:
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.Gardenwalker said:
I am in Britain, you twit.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.0 -
She burns another source?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
For goodness sake!Gardenwalker said:
You’ve gone quite mad.Charles said:
Did remain seek assistance from foreign powers? Yes.TheScreamingEagles said:
The context was in relation to the referendum and current leaders.Charles said:
I was simply correcting your inaccurate statement. I wouldn’t suggest that Tudor France and Spain have similar importance today eitherTheScreamingEagles said:
Are you really comparing communist era Bulgaria to the Bulgaria of today?Charles said:
Bulgaria is a member of the EU.TheScreamingEagles said:
Not from any that have a history of poisoning people on the streets of the UK.tlg86 said:@TheScreamingEagles - Did Remain seek assistance from foreign powers during the referendum?
Spain and France regularly used poison (read Walsingham’s diaries)
That’s at least 3 with history of poisoning people on the streets of England
I really should expect such poor defences from Comrade Leavers.
If you really think Tudor France played an active role in the referendum then up your meds.
Did this include Spain and France? Yes to Spain (Gib) I assume so with France
Do France and Spain have a history of positioning people on the streets of England? Yes
You didn’t include any qualifications in your assertion
Like an Anglican banking scion version of HAL from 2001.
I was being a pedant, not making a serious point0 -
Telegraph reporting that Amber Rudd and IDS have joined forces and told the press that every conservative MP must vote for what T May wants in the votes next week.
Interesting.0 -
Yah.Scott_P said:
She burns another source?TheScreamingEagles said:
Kippers/Leavers surprisingly willing tools of the Kremlin.
I'm never using that in future thread headers. Honest.0 -
I did try to say something positive about the EU on a couple of occasions. True, it was a small area, and one that could be argued to be inconsequential, but an area where the EU has been a positive. All I got in response were (to use your wording) 'deluded' leavers telling me that I was lying, that I was wrong, etc, etc. Despite my giving lots of links and supporting information.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
(Snip)
They did not argue the information, and they did not argue the consequences of that information. They could not countenance that there might even be a small area where the EU has been a positive. One poster who had been arguing with me eventually admitted he'd not even looked at the supporting information.
Now, IMO the correct response would have been something like: "Okay, I'll give you that. The EU isn't totally bad. But if you weigh it up against all the negatives, it's still bad."
But not one of the 'deluded' leavers on here could do that. If you didn't hear anything positive about the EU, might it be because you are incapable of hearing anything positive about it?0 -
Can you explain more? How would you deal with NI?Richard_Tyndall said:
EEA + CU is a non starter. Neither EU or EFTA rules allow it.Elliot said:
Name one freedom we would gain from EEA + CU.SeanT said:
A great or even good deal was impossible, given the incredible advantages Article 50 bestows on the EU. It guarantees that any state leaving the EU will get marmalised. That't the entire point.felix said:
.SouthamObserver said:
A weak negotiating hand is a weak negotiating hand; and that is what the UK has. Not sure anyone could make much of it.Pulpstar said:
To be fair though I think Trump would have done a better job of negotiating with Barnier than May/Davis has done. The British desire to be seen to be reasonable at all times has been ruthlessly exploited. Trump would have had had no such worries.SouthamObserver said:
Really?Barnesian said:
That is a wonderful photograph. Look at the body language. Macron is speaking. Bolton is aghast. Merkel is dominant - "What do you have to say for yourself, boy?" Theresa is tucked in behind. Juncker is steadying himself. Trump is a shrunken but defiant little boy, arms crossed.williamglenn said:.
A picture is worth a 1000 words.
I see someone sitting there not giving a flying fuck; someone who will do whatever he wants whenever he wants, no matter what harm it causes his own people and others; someone who is impossible to engage with on a rational basis.
When was Article 50 written and invented? Was it in the original Treaty of Rome? Was it part of the foundation documents of the EU? Of course not. It was drafted by a British civil servant, Lord Kerr, and it was first included in the EU Constitution of 2004, and was designed to be so punitive no country would ever use it, as Kerr himself says (except perhaps some mad Slavic country gone Nazi). It was designed to imprison nations within the EU.
And this fundamentally profound document (as we now realise) was forced on us, despite being rejected in referendums in France and Holland, and despite a vote being promised to us, by both Labour and the Tories (a promise never fulfilled). The Europhile c*nts took fright and renamed it a Treaty and rammed it through European parliaments, avoiding the people.
Now the europhiles reap as they sowed. They ignored democracy, they expressed utter sneering contempt for it, for so long, now it threatens them on all sides. And may destroy the project entirely.
Fuck them. We have to leave. Whatever the pain. Regain our pride. And freedom.0 -
-
Oakshott of Cameron Porking a Pig fame?0
-
I was never a fan of Cameron but Oakeshott's smear of him made me lose all belief in her as a credible journalist.Scott_P said:
She burns another source?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
A foreign power is a foreign power, irrespective of how they behave.Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and those others include Russia and her apologists in the West.tlg86 said:
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.Gardenwalker said:
I am in Britain, you twit.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.0 -
And telling Vicky Pryce that she wouldn't go to jail if she went on the record saying Chris Huhne was the one driving the car fame.dr_spyn said:Oakshott of Cameron Porking a Pig fame?
0 -
That might be and clearly some parts of the economy are struggling (high street retail most obviously) but other parts of the economy are doing better.Gardenwalker said:
I’m seeing a slow migration of activity from the U.K. on my industry. Not a collapse, more of a tide going out.another_richard said:
So you can't point out any closed car factories, bankers relocating to Frankfurt or supermarkets empty of strawberries.Gardenwalker said:
Actually this board was wall to wall disaster - from Remainers and Brexiters alike - on Friday.another_richard said:
We've had people pointing and claiming its a disaster since 24/06/16.Gardenwalker said:
I disagree.Richard_Tyndall said:
No one has lost any arguments. The same reasons for leaving the EU still apply and are still valid. Of course Remoaners like you will try and claim it is all doomed but in the end there is no appetite amongst the politicians for reversing the decision as they know it would end their careers and quite possibly their parties. So either they see Brexit through with whatever deal they feel is survivable or we have a WTO Brexit. Either way we will be leaving.
It’s Emperor’s New Clothes, and once someone is brave enough to point and laugh (or pivot to EEA as I suggest) the whole rotten carapace will collapse.
But the reasons that they've been claiming have become thinner and thinner.
By now they expected to be knee deep in closed car factories, departing bankers and crops rotting in the fields.
Get up to speed, grandaddy. The arguments that “won” the vote are not enough to sustain it.
All that you have is "Brexit is a disaster because British politicians are crap".
Well yes they are crap and they would have been crap if Remain had won and they were crap in every negotiation with the EU for decades and they're crap in anything not related to Brexit.
Yet despite all the crap politicians the car factories haven't closed, the bankers haven't departed and the strawberries haven't rotted in the fields as you Remainers predicted.
We have a dynamic economy in a globalised world and change is inevitable.
What those changes will amount to I don't know.0 -
Nor am I seeing any great change in the cost of Strawberries compared to last year. £2 for 400g in Sainsburys or Tesco is the same price it has been for a good few years.another_richard said:
Yet it is being picked because its in the supermarket.Scott_P said:
It's not though.Elliot said:Textile weaving has also gone to Bangladesh because no ome is willing to work for dirt poor wages here. It's not a loss if it's done because our citizens have gone on to better things.
It was on the radio only this morning. Growers are stopping growing fruit in the UK because they think they will be unable to get it picked
I'll believe that reality rather then unquestioned anecdotes in the Guardian.
Especially as it involves farmers - a group notorious for proclaiming the current year to be the 'worst ever' and who always want the government to provide a cheaper workforce or another subsidy.0 -
IDS doesn’t want a customs union.ralphmalph said:Telegraph reporting that Amber Rudd and IDS have joined forces and told the press that every conservative MP must vote for what T May wants in the votes next week.
Interesting.
Rudd wants to keep May in knowing that she’s the best bet toward remaining...in a customs union.
Both would be better realising that it’s time to throw the dice. Gove (or rather Javid), and a vote on the deal, is all you need.0 -
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of positives. I think cooperation on science and such like (in the manner of an intergovernmental organisation) is a good thing. We cooperate on railway safety and things like that. All good.JosiasJessop said:
I did try to say something positive about the EU on a couple of occasions. True, it was a small area, and one that could be argued to be inconsequential, but an area where the EU has been a positive. All I got in response were (to use your wording) 'deluded' leavers telling me that I was lying, that I was wrong, etc, etc. Despite my giving lots of links and supporting information.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
(Snip)
They did not argue the information, and they did not argue the consequences of that information. They could not countenance that there might even be a small area where the EU has been a positive. One poster who had been arguing with me eventually admitted he'd not even looked at the supporting information.
Now, IMO the correct response would have been something like: "Okay, I'll give you that. The EU isn't totally bad. But if you weigh it up against all the negatives, it's still bad."
But not one of the 'deluded' leavers on here could do that. If you didn't hear anything positive about the EU, might it be because you are incapable of hearing anything positive about it?
The problem is that none that is good enough for a political campaign that needed to overcome the costs, and Osborne et al knew it.0 -
I should also add that leavers did not disagree with me on the occasions that I made comments *against* the EU.
Funny, that.0 -
-
The odious Oakeshott shops her sources.Elliot said:
I was never a fan of Cameron but Oakeshott's smear of him made me lose all belief in her as a credible journalist.Scott_P said:
She burns another source?TheScreamingEagles said:
Say no more.0 -
-
It is still stupid to get rid of May until at least 2020.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
-
Tautology doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about why you’re happy to shrug off Russian interference.tlg86 said:
A foreign power is a foreign power, irrespective of how they behave.Gardenwalker said:
Yes, and those others include Russia and her apologists in the West.tlg86 said:
Apologies. Well, you're more than welcome to call me a traitor to my face.Gardenwalker said:
I am in Britain, you twit.tlg86 said:A message for deluded remainers. You lost because when it came to it, you had nothing positive to say about the EU.
Not because of Russia.
@Gardenwalker - Why don't you come to Britain and say that to my face.
Quite frankly, your dancing on the head of a pin saying that Cameron just called in a favour from Obama. As others have pointed out, the US isn't exactly a paragon of virtue.
It is of course fine to criticise the US. Who doesn’t? It becomes rather alarming, though, when you can’t see the difference between the US and Russia.0
This discussion has been closed.