politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » BACK TO THE FUTURE – Part 1  Europe has changed – We can’t put

matt said:

Donny43 said:

kle4 said:

Donny43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Donny43 said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

glw said:

There was a Commission bureaucrat on the radio the other day saying the "fiscal compact needs to be completed", which I took to mean real restricitions on budgets, and transfers. Obviously they don't want to frighten the horses, but it seems clear that Brexit is seen as an pportunity to push the EU towards true statehood.

I'll take any Brexit over being in that, no matter how chaotic leaving proves to be.

Exactly. Those wanting a "peoples vote" might want to reflect how meaningless they proved to be in Greece and how little they might mean here if we choose to remain.

I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?

I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.

So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?

Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.

Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.

When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?

Ideally they shouldn't, but if parliament fails in its task there's not many other options. Voting again is problematic for many reasons, I'm certainly not a fan of the 'vote again and get it right this time you dummies' message that is implicit from some and explicit from others, but voting again is still a democratic exercise. It shouldn't be necessary, but parliament has proven inadequate..

If there is a further referendum it establishes that Parliament won't implement the result if the people get it wrong - in which case, why have a referendum?

Why indeed. There’s a good reason that we are a representative democracy and don’t ask people specific multifaceted questions which they have to answer in simplistic binary terms.

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Donny43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Donny43 said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.

Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.

When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?

Because, if it happens, Parliament will have been unable to agree on a method of effecting the previous referendum. I would back the deal if I were an MP since it effects Brexit in accordance with the mandate campaigned for. If as seems likely it is heavily defeated I would ask the public for their views as to next steps. This is a failure of the politicians but better to accept that than take irrevocable action without a suitable mandate.

In those circumstances, if the public is going to be asked for its guidance, it would be appropriate to check it remained of the same view as to the ultimate outcome. It would be truly anti-democratic to exclude an outcome that was polling twice as well as at least one of the options under consideration.

The most extreme Leavers are among those most upset by the idea of a second referendum. But if they aren’t prepared to take what’s on offer, they can’t expect either morally or practically to impose on the public a Brexit that was not campaigned for and which apparently does not command majority support in either Parliament or among the public.

I agree with all of that. If in Parliament I would vote for May's deal. If that is rejected I do not see how it is possible to exclude remain from any subsequent referendum. Possibly, if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, so it wasn't an option but not short of that.

Agreed. But if the CJEU said that we could not revoke Art 50 unilaterally and the EU said, stuff it, you're out, I suspect May's Deal would very quickly be voted through parliament upon being re-presented.

In any sane Parliament it would. This one, nothing can be taken for granted.

Black_Rook said:

Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

Most of the EU states are in the Eurozone. If the currency is going to be made to work in the long term then they are going to need to give more power and authority to the centre. They will also, over time, need to make more and more common or co-ordinated decisions. They will caucus, and eventually the ability of countries to block core EU initiatives by qualified minority will become redundant. Then the ring of non-Euro states - including us - will find themselves effectively in a similar place to Norway by default. Yes, we'll also have our seats in the European Parliament (although whether or not non-Euro MEPs will be treated, either formally or informally, as second class remains to be seen,) but on the other hand we won't have the limited freedoms or additional protections enjoyed by the EFTA states.

In short, Britain will end up in exactly the position of powerlessness that today's Remain supporters claim as the key reason why we should reject any compromise Brexit deal such as that negotiated by Theresa May, and stay in the EU as a full member.

Given these circumstances, there are only two courses of action that make long-term sense for the country:

1. Accept that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are numbered, drop all our opt-outs and join the Euro. Then at least we would be a full participant in the project, and it should also solve the perfidious Albion problem at a stroke. We'd be locked in and we wouldn't be receiving any of the special perks that are resented.
2. Declare that the days of the UK as a sovereign state are not numbered, and make a clean break with the EU project rather than sit permanently in its outer orbit as a protectorate.

If people can't be persuaded to accept option 1 (and almost nobody in Britain, whichever side they were on in that accursed referendum, believes the Euro to be a success story,) then why not proceed directly to option 2? The longer we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.

ExiledInScotland said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.

I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.

Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.

It will also require (for decades probably) a willing transfer of money from Germany to the poorer parts of the Eurozone. As that looks highly unlikely that zone is eventually going to fall apart.

I read that the US and UK transfer c.8% of GDP annually via state spending from rich areas to poor areas. The EU does about 0.5%. I don’t think UK taxpayers would accept increasing our contributions from £150m net a week to £1.5bn a week. Discuss

Benpointer said:

Donny43 said:

Benpointer said:

Donny43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Donny43 said:

justin124 said:

Donny43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Donny43 said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?

I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.

So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?

Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.

Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.

When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?

The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'

That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.

That option was not campaigned for and actively dismissed by Leave campaigners. The public did not vote for food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies. If Britain is to leave the EU with those risks, it needs a mandate first.

And there won't be food shortages and disruptions to medical supplies, so that's a moot point.

And your evidence for that assertion is based on... what exactly?

That I don't believe the EU will impose an economic blockade.

Of course they won't. But that won't stop widespread delays and shortages as new customs checks necessarily come into operation.

Benpointer said:

You do appreciate that as the metaphorical good ship Britain cuts its ties to the EU and drifts off into the wide blue ocean, significant chunks of it are going to detach themselves from Britain and row as quickly as possible back to the EU?

matt said:

Why indeed. There’s a good reason that we are a representative democracy and don’t ask people specific multifaceted questions which they have to answer in simplistic binary terms.

HYUFD said:

The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.


Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.


17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-to-handbag-brussels-in-frantic-bid-to-save-brexit-deal-bbcq7n5kl

justin124 said:

Donny43 said:

justin124 said:

Donny43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Donny43 said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

glw said:

del.

del.

I don't think it would be right to Stay without a 2nd referendum, do you?

I don't think it would be right, period. The illusion that everything would somehow go back to what it was before and that that was somehow okay is every bit as deluded as those who think we are going to back to ruling the waves or some such nonsense.

So you don't think it would be right, even if a 2nd referendum voted say 60/40 in favour of staying?

Given thant a second referendum with a Remain option would be intrinsically illegitimate, nothing could be derived from the result.

Democracy did not stop on 23 June 2016. The public is allowed to change its mind.

When the people wanted Thatcher to become PM in 1979 they had to vote for her once.

When the people wanted Blair to become PM in 1997 they had to vote for him once.

When the people wanted to leave the EU in 2016, why must they be made to vote at least twice?

The 2016 Referendum was couched in very general terms - no specific deal or proposal was presented to the electorate.Having voted Leave myself , I see nothing unreasonable or undemocratic in going back to the people with the message ' We have made every effort to leave the EU as directed by the June 2016 Referendum. This is the best deal available to us. Do you still wish to proceed?'

That's not true though. May has utterly bungled the negotiations. And even now there is an option to leave: we just leave.

I don't think it reasonable to interpret the 2016 Referendum result as indicating a willingness to leave regardless of the terms or circumstances. I certainly did not vote Leave on that basis , and always wanted - perhaps naively assumed - that the final agreed terms of departure would be given to the people in a Confirmatory Referendum.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Benpointer said:

ExiledInScotland said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.

I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.

Something that, needless to say, I want no part of.

It will also require (for decades probably) a willing transfer of money from Germany to the poorer parts of the Eurozone. As that looks highly unlikely that zone is eventually going to fall apart.

I read that the US and UK transfer c.8% of GDP annually via state spending from rich areas to poor areas. The EU does about 0.5%. I don’t think UK taxpayers would accept increasing our contributions from £150m net a week to £1.5bn a week. Discuss

We're not in the Eurozone.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

"Labour ready to form government on Wednesday if PM deal rejected"

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-could-be-prime-minister-in-days-if-brexit-deal-rejected-labour-says-11576164

BUT Labour becomes the Gov't if the deal................. passes.

williamglenn said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

We're not the 51st state of the US. No point bringing straw men into the argument.

"May's deal" is not in any meaningful sense "taking control". In nearly three years, Brexit errs have not come up with a realistic plan "to take control". That's not because they are stupid people. It's because of the inherent contradiction of Brexit. As long as we want a close relationship with our European neighbours, and we don't have a viable alternative to that close relationship, it will be on the EU's terms. They own the system and aren't going to change the way they do things or give us a say that is superior to that of a member. We take the access and follow the rules but give up on the governance. The opposite of "taking control".

Black_Rook said:

williamglenn said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.

I think we're moving a bit beyond these archaic rivalries.

Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.

williamglenn said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.

eek said:

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.


Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.


17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-to-handbag-brussels-in-frantic-bid-to-save-brexit-deal-bbcq7n5kl

We have already had the Remain versus leave referendum so we should go straight to May Deal or No Deal.

I will repeat my post of earlier today - the last referendum did not offer remain it offered Cameron’s deal or leave.

glw said:

HYUFD said:

The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.


Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.


17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-to-handbag-brussels-in-frantic-bid-to-save-brexit-deal-bbcq7n5kl

Do these two referendum options make any sense?

Case 1: May's Deal will have already been rejected by Parliament

Case 2: If we pick Leave then the two options are the rejected May's Deal and No Deal.

What's to stop Parliament blocking those outcomes? There's no majority for any of them.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

NickPalmer said:

Another good article by Alanbrooke. I don't think I agree that the Euro is unsustainable - rather, its existence constrain policy options (in much the same way as the lack of a different Scottish currency contains the Scottish government). But if anything I think the article understates the centrifugal forces in the EU at the moment, with even nominally social democrat parties in Eastern Europe in reality as nationalist as anyone.

I agree the Euro is sustainable but not if the EU does not deeply integrate. For the Euro to survive it needs complete fiscal and political union in Europe with unified taxation and spending policies. It needs a country called Europe.

Based on that logic USA is also insufficiently integrated.

grabcocque said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.

Well we have done that within the EU for the last 40 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now?

UK foreign policy has always been towards a disunited Europe. We fought countless wars to prevent the emergence of European hegemonic powers. It seems that we haven't really changed that much.

The EU is simpy the latest in a long line of prospective Euro-hegemons we want to ruin.

glw said:

HYUFD said:

That may be the case but it seems Whitehall is only prepared for two questions both of which have Remain and Deal but only one of which has No Deal as an option and then only if Leave beats Remain on a first question. The establishment will only allow No Deal on the ballot through gritted teeth it seems

How the hell is No Deal going to get through Parliament if May's Deal can't? Does anyone actually believe that if we voted for it that it would happen?

glw said:

HYUFD said:

That may be the case but it seems Whitehall is only prepared for two questions both of which have Remain and Deal but only one of which has No Deal as an option and then only if Leave beats Remain on a first question. The establishment will only allow No Deal on the ballot through gritted teeth it seems

How the hell is No Deal going to get through Parliament if May's Deal can't? Does anyone actually believe that if we voted for it that it would happen?

glw said:

kle4 said:

Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.

I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.

I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.

kle4 said:

I agree it would be a farce for no deal or May's deal to be included, but I'm operating on the basis that a majority of the Commons clearly wants to remain, but is too scared to do so without further democratic cover. Ergo it has to be remain up in a vote against something.

grabcocque said:

Black_Rook said:

williamglenn said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

Because as a nation we don’t like the idea of playing second fiddle to France and Germany.

I think we're moving a bit beyond these archaic rivalries.

Either the EU eventually collapses, in which case the more distance we put between us and the Eurotanic as it sinks, the better. Or it thrives, in which case France and Germany, as sovereign states, eventually cease to exist.

Cease to exist in the same way as, say, California or New York or Texas have ceased to exist?

Roger said:

Another interesting observation by Raheem Sterling.

https://www.joe.ie/sport/raheem-sterling-speaks-abuse-chelsea-game-651027

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

The Sunday Times reports Deputy PM David Lidington and Justice Secretary David Gauke after talks with Labour MPs have concluded there is more support for EUref2 than a Norway-style deal if May's Deal fails.


Civil servants are now also openly wargaming two EU referendum questions as EUref2 becomes more likely. The first would be a straight choice between May's Deal and Remain, the second would see a Leave v Remain question and if Leave won a second question would ask them if they wanted to leave under the terms of May's Deal or under a No Deal departure on WTO terms.


17 Labour MPs also reportedly in talks about breaking away from the Labour Party if Corbyn fails to back EUref2



https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-may-to-handbag-brussels-in-frantic-bid-to-save-brexit-deal-bbcq7n5kl

We have already had the Remain versus leave referendum so we should go straight to May Deal or No Deal.

grabcocque said:

kle4 said:

grabcocque said:

glw said:

kle4 said:

Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.

I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.

I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.

Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.

They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.

So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?

Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

Quite. The logic of some EU supporters on this point fails the Canada test. The Canadians are both economically dependent on their beast of a neighbour and vastly smaller (by population,) in the same way as we are on ours, yet they are very happy with their lot and have absolutely zero interest in the manifold benefits that throwing in the towel and becoming part of the US might provide. Nor do they feel the need to chain themselves to the US by a web of restrictive treaties, subject their legal system to its oversight, and farm out great chunks of their trade, employment and other policies to be written for them by Donald Trump.

Why can't we be another Canada?

We can be Canada if we are prepared to negotiate for years and take a significant hit to our living standards at the end of it. But we won't be. We're too invested in the European system for that. So we we will stay in the system because of our inability to come up with anything better. That inability is real, which is why we are in this mess.

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

kle4 said:

grabcocque said:

glw said:

kle4 said:

Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.

I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.

I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.

Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.

They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.

So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?

Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.

She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.

notme said:

kle4 said:

grabcocque said:

glw said:

kle4 said:

Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.

I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.

I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.

Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.

They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.

Youve got until march and then we are out. There is no second referendum once we are out, to join the god awful deal we currently have. Any future deal would be even worse. Always the bill payer, no thanks.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

grabcocque said:

kle4 said:

grabcocque said:

glw said:

kle4 said:

Hence a compromise with all options which parliament doesn't like but makes all think their path would win. It's a gamble. One I'd rather they not take, but time for remainers and no dealers to see if they are indeed the will of the people.

I simply can not see how Parliament would pass legislation to enable a deal we are told they will reject by a huge margin next week, and No Deal is that times ten. If there is to be a second referendum the options have to be things Parliament will pass, not things they've rejected, or swear they will block in any circumstance.

I've little doubt that if either of those referendums are carried out, and we vote Leave where the options are May's Deal or No Deal, then we will be heading straight to a third referendum.

Mostly, it's May's final play. After Tuesday, May only has one opportunity to save her deal, and that's get it approved in a referendum. The difficutly for May is that her party will depose her long before she has a chance to bring forward a referendum bill.

They still believe in a negotiation. May surviving or not the first action will be to beg Brussels for some further concessions. Only if that fails will the Tories start as a whole start accepting the idea of a second referendum, though how they might fall on the question and options I am less sure about.

So, let me get this straight. What Cabinet wants is for May to go back to Brussels and tell them *she* rejects the deal *she* negotiated and *she* signed? And then demand the renegotiation *she* told us was impossible, and *she* got the EU to demand was also impossible?

Yeah, that sounds like a fruitful strategy alright. It definitely won't get *her* laughed out of the Europa Building.

She wouldn't have rejected it, Parliament would have.

And since she has no idea what Parliament will and will not accept, given how much the deal will be voted down by, she might as well bring along Corbyn, Cable and the SNP so the EU negotiators can tell them all 'It's this deal or you beg for an off the shelf option'.

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

Now you see, the problem with the UK not being in the Eurozone is something that is not highlighted often enough when people talk about the costs and benefits of staying in.

we put off the inevitable, the more painful doing so becomes.

Brexit precisely means moving into outer orbit. Part of the system but not a participant in it. That's where Leavers are so wrong. All the contradictions of Brexit hang on this core fact. "Vote Leave to take control" was the biggest lie of them all.

Simply untrue That is just the myth that you Remainers try to perpetuate to justify the lack of logic in your position. One might just as easily say we are part of the American system but not in it but I don't see to many people crying out to be the 51st state.

We're not the 51st state of the US. No point bringing straw men into the argument.

"May's deal" is not in any meaningful sense "taking control". In nearly three years, Brexit errs have not come up with a realistic plan "to take control". That's not because they are stupid people. It's because of the inherent contradiction of Brexit. As long as we want a close relationship with our European neighbours, and we don't have a viable alternative to that close relationship, it will be on the EU's terms. They own the system and aren't going to change the way they do things or give us a say that is superior to that of a member. We take the access and follow the rules but give up on the governance. The opposite of "taking control".

This garbage again. Yes Brexiteers have come up with workable plans. The trouble is to actually get those plans on the table they have to be in control and yet again it is pointing out that all the levers have been held by Remainers using a few Leave ministers as a smoke screen.

Now you can always come up with objections to these plans because in the end the only thing that really interests you is remaining. But that doesn't mean the plans are not valid or workable. Or at least would be if we had actually had people in charge who wanted to leave rather than wanting to just survive in office for as long as possible.

kle4 said:

Floater said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/12/09/mps-must-reject-pms-wretched-deal-deliver-proper-brexit-face/

MPs must reject the PM's wretched deal and deliver a proper Brexit, or face a political disaster

And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Floater said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/12/09/mps-must-reject-pms-wretched-deal-deliver-proper-brexit-face/

MPs must reject the PM's wretched deal and deliver a proper Brexit, or face a political disaster

And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?

‘Proper Brexit’ is up there with ‘Brexit means Brexit’ in its utter vacuity.

And given the number of times we are told that MPs ‘must’ do things, most of which are contradictory, it’s little wonder they can’t agree on a course of action.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Floater said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/12/09/mps-must-reject-pms-wretched-deal-deliver-proper-brexit-face/

MPs must reject the PM's wretched deal and deliver a proper Brexit, or face a political disaster

And if it can't deliver a 'proper' Brexit (more ill defined rubbish), what then?

‘Proper Brexit’ is up there with ‘Brexit means Brexit’ in its utter vacuity.

And given the number of times we are told that MPs ‘must’ do things, most of which are contradictory, it’s little wonder they can’t agree on a course of action.