politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Immigration, immigration, immigration – it hasn’t gone away yo
Comments
-
That would be the honourable thing to do. There" ain't" much honour in politics these daysTOPPING said:
Surely if "The Party" has endorsed May's view of the world, thus making The Party the one designed and lead by Mrs May, then if A N Other Cons MP doesn't like it shouldn't that MP resign.SquareRoot said:
He wants to be PM...rottenborough said:Erm. We've just been through this Dom. Only about 12 hours ago.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/10731660918563307520 -
0
-
well at least the Germans had a vote in their ParliamentScott_P said:0 -
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.0 -
For May 200Scott_P said:
Why can't they just accept the result of the vote and move on...rottenborough said:Erm. We've just been through this Dom. Only about 12 hours ago.
Against May 117
0 -
0
-
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.0 -
we are all leavers now William.williamglenn said:
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.0 -
-
How is that "threatening"?williamglenn said:0 -
Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.0 -
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!TGOHF said:
we are all leavers now William.williamglenn said:
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.0 -
Parliament ... continued. Having received the wrong result, their cunning plan is ... lets faff around for a while, get everyone fed-up and then announce a re-run.0
-
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.williamglenn said:
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!TGOHF said:
we are all leavers now William.williamglenn said:
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.
0 -
Depends what you mean by that.Scott_P said:
Clearly the public supports an end to FoM and achieving this is a success of the deal and a reason to compromise other things. So it makes sense to want to make it clear.0 -
How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.0 -
Great idea.... not. How to cause huge panic and uncertainty for 3.5 months (or likely more) in a nutshell.TGOHF said:
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.williamglenn said:
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!TGOHF said:
we are all leavers now William.williamglenn said:
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.0 -
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )0 -
Representative democracy?CD13 said:Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...0 -
O/T France - European Election poll IFOP
RN (Le Pen) 24 (+2)
LREM/Modem (Macron + Bayrou) 18 (-1)
LR (non-macronist right) 11(-2)
FI (Melenchon - far left) 9 (-1)
DLF (Dupont-Aignan - eurospectic right) 8 (+2)
Verts (Green) 8 (+1)
PS (socialist) 4.5 (-1.5)
Generations (Left - Hamon) 3.5 (+1)
UDI (macronist centre-right) 3 (-1)
Communist 2.5 (-0.5)
Resistons (Lassalle - defence rural areas) 2.5 (+0.5)
Patriotes (far-right) 1
UPR (far-right) 0.5 (-0.5)
Others 4.5
As the cut to get EMPs is 5%, only 6 lists would get seats:
RN 24 seats (same as 2014)
LREM/Modem 18 (+11 compared to the centrist Modem/UDI list in 2014)
LR 11 (-9)
FI 9 (+5)
DLF 9 (+9)
Greens 8 (+2)
The socialists would lose their 13 seats
0 -
Probably shared already but I think this piece in the Guardian today is spot on in terms of the
dynamics of the current situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/may-eu-second-referendum-brexit0 -
Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*0 -
The EU will never compromise on FOM.
That has always meant no real deal is possible. Any alteration can only be for a short and temporary fix.
0 -
-
Off topic What a fantastic result for Tottenham against Barcelona.tottenhamWC said:Probably shared already but I think this piece in the Guardian today is spot on in terms of the
dynamics of the current situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/may-eu-second-referendum-brexit
To secure their place in the last 16 of the European champions league.
I hope their ground is ready for the knock out stages.0 -
But which season?Yorkcity said:
Off topic What a fantastic result for Tottenham against Barcelona.tottenhamWC said:Probably shared already but I think this piece in the Guardian today is spot on in terms of the
dynamics of the current situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/may-eu-second-referendum-brexit
To secure their place in the last 16 of the European champions league.
I hope their ground is ready for the knock out stages.0 -
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.TOPPING said:I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )0 -
It's not reported enough here, but there's serious disquiet about the WA in multiple European countries - they think Barnier gave too much away.Scott_P said:0
-
Any corporate body exposed to imports/exports that hasn't been planning for the possibility of No Deal Brexit for at least a year really hasn't been paying attention....tottenhamWC said:
Great idea.... not. How to cause huge panic and uncertainty for 3.5 months (or likely more) in a nutshell.TGOHF said:
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.williamglenn said:
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!TGOHF said:
we are all leavers now William.williamglenn said:
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.0 -
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.0 -
Why did Parliament or the government at the time , not make the 2016 legally binding ?148grss said:
Representative democracy?CD13 said:Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...0 -
No, because you can tell by the audio-visuals. Leavers will be either very posh and eccentric types or they will look and sound like oiks, Remainers will be the bland and boring everyone else with a sprinkling of overwrought zealots who at first might appear to be Leavers until you see that they have a beard.williamglenn said:You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.
0 -
I am assuming that the No Deal option would be eliminated in Parliament and so it would not get on the ballot paper.TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......0 -
There seems not much point signing up to an agreement that is (a) non-binding and (b) one that no Western country has any intention of honouring.
All that we do is give some UN Rapporteur a stick with which to beat us.0 -
Exactly. People are confusing 'no deal', with 'no arrangements', and Remainers are encouraging that lack of distinction, just as they traditionally like to confuse 'no trade deal' with Europe with 'no trade', or 'cutting us off'.TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Once again, the Leave side is behind the punch in the game of giving names to things, with 'managed no deal' being a belated and somewhat modest attempt to convey that whilst we won't have the WA, we will of course leave in an organised fashion and prepare for eventualities. It is quite outrageous of anyone to suggest otherwise, but there we go.
0 -
Mr. F, is that a reference to the UN Migration Pact?0
-
No chance A50 is being invoked again by parliament.Xenon said:
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.0 -
To work, that depends on having elected representatives who are more intelligent than the common man, which is not a given.148grss said:
Representative democracy?CD13 said:Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...0 -
Coz Cameron and Osborne thought they'd win and politicians were complacent?Yorkcity said:
Why did Parliament or the government at the time , not make the 2016 legally binding ?148grss said:
Representative democracy?CD13 said:Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...
I'm not saying our parliamentary system is good, or even fit for purpose, or that our politicians are indeed intelligent elites, but for people to be surprised at it's clear elitism when it is "thwarting" something they care for is hilarious.
Cuts to social programmes, local government and other services is seen as being the adult in the room and making the hard decisions that the mooching common man wouldn't understand.
Thwarting "the will of the people" to make us a tax haven and to make rich people richer and poor people poorer; well, that elitism can't stand!
Our system of government is entirely designed in favour of elitism, from the boys club of the Eton / Oxbridge crowd, the civil service, the monarchy and the lords. It's awful. But now the right wing care about that, because their beloved Brexit.0 -
Because it was to vague to put down in legal terms.Yorkcity said:
Why did Parliament or the government at the time , not make the 2016 legally binding ?148grss said:
Representative democracy?CD13 said:Parliament voted for a referendum. Parliament agreed to implement the result. Then they thought. No, this is the wrong thing to do?
No, they always thought it was, but they were frit to death to tell the electorate they didn't trust them.
That is the truth. They do feel they are superior beings. That isn't actually democracy. There is a term for it that I can't bring to mind.
Could someone on here help me out. Where a pre-selected group (selected by a political grouping) decide they should be the arbiters of everything because they consider themselves to be superior.
It's almost like our system of government is designed to unburden the electorate from complex decision making and leave that to professional politicians, and that our system of government, with a monarch and hereditary peers, doesn't believe in the rule by the wishes of the common man...0 -
I do wonder how many people think "No Deal" means things remain exactly how they are. I suspect it is (as a minimum) 25% of the population...Cyclefree said:
I am assuming that the No Deal option would be eliminated in Parliament and so it would not get on the ballot paper.TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......0 -
Well hopefully this one, but it seems never ending.tlg86 said:
But which season?Yorkcity said:
Off topic What a fantastic result for Tottenham against Barcelona.tottenhamWC said:Probably shared already but I think this piece in the Guardian today is spot on in terms of the
dynamics of the current situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/may-eu-second-referendum-brexit
To secure their place in the last 16 of the European champions league.
I hope their ground is ready for the knock out stages.
I think Pochettino has done a great job.
Especially in esscence having no home games.
Real Madrid will be after him this summer I think.0 -
Good old Ed.dr_spyn said:Even Ed M is laughing at his political tombstone. https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1073155740490231809
At least he can sit back and laugh at himself AND Cameron's nonsense. In retrospect the country would probably have been far better off if Labour had won in 2015.0 -
Yes it would. I think though that price needs to be paid. There will be a political price to be paid if we crash out without a deal. That price may be even higher. Who knows? Do no harm is a good maxim. Revoking Art 50 while we can preserves the status quo. It does not close off the option of leaving in the future. Whereas crashing out is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences and closes off options.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*
0 -
Why not if voted on as an option in a referendum?Pulpstar said:
No chance A50 is being invoked again by parliament.Xenon said:
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
It's the only way I can see out of this mess.0 -
There are several issues with that approach, namely what does "work towards a WTO bare bones deal" actually look like? It means I would imagine spending a bucketload of cash on a bunch of measures which would be designed to keep us sort of where we are. Can you really see a government agreeing to do that? Lorry park in Kent, new customs officers, new airport and other port design and structures.Xenon said:
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.0 -
The best option is to pass the WA. It honours the result of the 2016 Referendum, without burning the economy.Cyclefree said:
Yes it would. I think though that price needs to be paid. There will be a political price to be paid if we crash out without a deal. That price may be even higher. Who knows? Do no harm is a good maxim. Revoking Art 50 while we can preserves the status quo. It does not close off the option of leaving in the future. Whereas crashing out is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences and closes off options.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*0 -
Just finished a meeting with one of my South American born staff who was in tears about how the UK immigration is treating her. The rules seem to be changing daily. Despite having a masters in engineering from Berlin, a British ex husband, a right to work in Schengen and a British daughter it is a fight to keep her working legally in the UK. To say the mood against the Government in business is hardening is an understatement.
Spoke last night with an old school friend who runs an electronic company in Manchester area. They are hiring 2 extra staff to look after all the extra paperwork they will need to fill in to sell to Europe. EC takes 50% of their goods. His view is that the manufacturing industry is being thrown under the bus. He has voted Tory for over 30 years and is now considering the Lib Dems.
The sad thing is that the Leavers have some very good arguments. Why should we pay money into an organisation that uses the money to gives grants to places like Spain to shift jobs out of the UK, that gives our fish to the Dutch and allows large MNCs to not pay UK taxes by bribing the Luxembourg Minister who then was made head of the EC.
There is a need to reset our relationship with the EU but the present plan is flawed.
0 -
-
Which is why re-negotiating was never an option. Those in favour need to outline which advantages gained they would like to lose in return for the backstop being removed.Andrew said:It's not reported enough here, but there's serious disquiet about the WA in multiple European countries - they think Barnier gave too much away.
Scott_P said:0 -
I am sure you are right, indeed it may be highereek said:
I do wonder how many people think "No Deal" means things remain exactly how they are. I suspect it is (as a minimum) 25% of the population...Cyclefree said:
I am assuming that the No Deal option would be eliminated in Parliament and so it would not get on the ballot paper.TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Personally, while I could live with May’s deal by comparison with No Deal it is still a rubbish deal.
We don’t know what we want to do as a country and our representatives are no better.
May is obsessed with FoM, having failed at reducing non-EU immigration, which is likely more of a concern to those worried about such things than FOM. She has made this the only key objective of her negotiations, stupidly in my view.
But if the WA does not pass, then Article 50 should be revoked. IMO.
It is incumbent on those who want to make a big irrevocable change to come up with a coherent workable plan that has the necessary support in Parliament and can be agreed with the EU. They haven’t. So we stay as we are.
Those who want change can go away, lick their wounds and do the hard thinking they have failed to do until now.
And now I must be off. It is clear and frosty and the hound is looking at me pleadingly.......0 -
This is not the Brexit thread we need but it's the Brexit thread we deserve:
https://twitter.com/josephmdurso/status/10731789851887329290 -
It won't be removed, but a legally binding "clarification" note on it might be possible. I have some ideasdixiedean said:
Which is why re-negotiating was never an option. Those in favour need to outline which advantages gained they would like to lose in return for the backstop being removed.Andrew said:It's not reported enough here, but there's serious disquiet about the WA in multiple European countries - they think Barnier gave too much away.
Scott_P said:
i) Referendum in N Ireland to either join ROI or remain in backstop (Wouldn't pass DUP though)
ii) Parliamentary lock from moving to transition through to backstop. (Needs change to WA though so probably not possible)
iii) rUK remains in Single market for goods removing regulatory concerns via legally binding note.
iv) Time limit of after say 10 years for i). That should be enough for a FTA.0 -
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?Scott_P said:0 -
William, you make a profound mistake when you project your own world view on to others. I could not care less if the EU exists or not, I am merely delighted that my country will no longer be part of it.williamglenn said:
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.TOPPING said:I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Whilst I am in favour of tariff free trade, I am not in favour of trade deals with secret courts that appear to have been designed for large corporations to eviscerate national economies - this is as undemocratic as large supranational bureaucracies. So I was profoundly disturbed by TTIP and am quite pleased to be 'at the back' of any queue that may bring us something similar.
This is one reason why I feel it's wise to hold off entering any such arrangements though the pull to do so is strong on both sides. We need to be earning money in the world by offering products and services that the world wants, at the right prices. We don't need to be in some blob of other countries to do that.0 -
Yeah all about Brexit.Luckyguy1983 said:
William, you make a profound mistake when you project your own world view on to others. I could not care less if the EU exists or not, I am merely delighted that my country will no longer be part of it.williamglenn said:
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.TOPPING said:I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Whilst I am in favour of tariff free trade, I am not in favour of trade deals with secret courts that appear to have been designed for large corporations to eviscerate national economies - this is as undemocratic as large supranational bureaucracies. So I was profoundly disturbed by TTIP and am quite pleased to be 'at the back' of any queue that may bring us something similar.
This is one reason why I feel it's wise to hold off entering any such arrangements though the pull to do so is strong on both sides. We need to be earning money in the world by offering products and services that the world wants, at the right prices. We don't need to be in some blob of other countries to do that.
Have you glanced at the UK trade deficit recently? "We need to be...offering products and services that the world wants..."
Except we don't, right at this moment, offer enough of them.0 -
Do you view the Brexit deal as 'no longer being part of it'? If not then you prove my point.Luckyguy1983 said:
William, you make a profound mistake when you project your own world view on to others. I could not care less if the EU exists or not, I am merely delighted that my country will no longer be part of it.williamglenn said:
To people who hoped Brexit would mean the EU would disappear, the idea of any kind of deal with the EU is repugnant because it symbolises the continuing dominance of the EU. They thought all the countries of Europe would suddenly rise up and decide to deal with us bilaterally instead. 'No Deal' is the last chance saloon for this fantasy.TOPPING said:I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )0 -
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.Alistair said:
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?Scott_P said:0 -
The evidence for that is sketchy, to say the least.Luckyguy1983 said:
Exactly. People are confusing 'no deal', with 'no arrangements', and Remainers are encouraging that lack of distinction, just as they traditionally like to confuse 'no trade deal' with Europe with 'no trade', or 'cutting us off'.TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
Once again, the Leave side is behind the punch in the game of giving names to things, with 'managed no deal' being a belated and somewhat modest attempt to convey that whilst we won't have the WA, we will of course leave in an organised fashion and prepare for eventualities....
'Of course' is what might accurately be termed begging the question.
0 -
Better than losing a vote, a PM and holding a GE 6 weeks before a crash out.tottenhamWC said:
Great idea.... not. How to cause huge panic and uncertainty for 3.5 months (or likely more) in a nutshell.TGOHF said:
Simple free vote in parliament - May's deal or no deal.williamglenn said:
Good point. That means kinabalu's idea can be simplified to Deal v Remain!TGOHF said:
we are all leavers now William.williamglenn said:
You'd first need a vote to establish who is a Leaver and who is a Remainer.kinabalu said:
#metoo.williamglenn said:Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.
But the same applies to the hard remainer faction. They should be forced to choose between the deal and a no deal exit.
In fact there is the solution to the impasse. 2 votes (either in parliament or of the public or both).
Vote 1 on deal vs remain and only leavers take part.
Vote 2 on deal vs WTO and only remainers take part.
Leavers choose the deal in vote 1. Remainers choose the deal in vote 2.
Kaboom. The country is unified and we leave with the deal.
Hold it tomorrow - if passes proceed, if not then we prepare for no deal until there is a call from Berlin.0 -
What actually are they? If she added that to "The Deal" as an addendum (just to the British people, mind), then that would box in the loons even further (although being loons it might make no difference).Pulpstar said:
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.Alistair said:
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?Scott_P said:0 -
No one mentions it which is perplexing. Especially not Leavers who like to paint Britain as a victim who is powerless.Pulpstar said:
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.Alistair said:
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?Scott_P said:0 -
Here you go.TOPPING said:
What actually are they? If she added that to "The Deal" as an addendum (just to the British people, mind), then that would box in the loons even further (although being loons it might make no difference).Pulpstar said:
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.Alistair said:
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/CornishSkipper/status/10288952537833472000 -
Well how much money? It's probably only going to be a few months worth of contributions to the EU anyway.TOPPING said:
There are several issues with that approach, namely what does "work towards a WTO bare bones deal" actually look like? It means I would imagine spending a bucketload of cash on a bunch of measures which would be designed to keep us sort of where we are. Can you really see a government agreeing to do that? Lorry park in Kent, new customs officers, new airport and other port design and structures.Xenon said:
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.
Well the border question is more difficult. Perhaps we need to accept that to leave the EU meaningfully we'll need to have a hard border or some other compromise with Ireland in time. I don't think this is the end of the world as some are claiming.0 -
1) It would be difficult to justify any number of billions of pounds on "preparations" for something people had told us wouldn't be needed; andXenon said:
Well how much money? It's probably only going to be a few months worth of contributions to the EU anyway.TOPPING said:
There are several issues with that approach, namely what does "work towards a WTO bare bones deal" actually look like? It means I would imagine spending a bucketload of cash on a bunch of measures which would be designed to keep us sort of where we are. Can you really see a government agreeing to do that? Lorry park in Kent, new customs officers, new airport and other port design and structures.Xenon said:
How's about cancel and invoke A50 again and work towards a WTO bare bones deal?TOPPING said:
I read Prodi's remarks as meaning that if there was no deal there would be some "negotiation" on vital issues to keep the wheels turning, such as in preventing the planes falling out of the sky, medicines, etc.Cyclefree said:How about this as a way forward?
Votes in Parliament next week on 3 options:-
1. No Deal (literally) Brexit.
2. The WA
3. Article 50 revocation.
The one with the least support gets eliminated.
The top two get voted on again until there is a majority in Parliament.
Or the top two get put to the people again.
I’m sure something about AV probably needs saying at this point.
Anyway just a thought.
One of the reasons that "no deal" can't be on any ballot paper is because by that instruction even these deals can't be made (sozza @Xenon )
That is doable in two years and won't involve the destruction of the planet earth like an unprepared no deal.
Perfectly reasonable to have that in a referendum with the other 2 options.
And this is of course aside from the h*rd b*rd*r issue which of course is unsolvable with current (and near future?) technology.
Well the border question is more difficult. Perhaps we need to accept that to leave the EU meaningfully we'll need to have a hard border or some other compromise with Ireland in time. I don't think this is the end of the world as some are claiming.
2) "we'll need to have a hard border" illustrates, I'm afraid, your lack of understanding of modern day British politics.0 -
It's the fact David Cameron didn't even bother to start looking at this stuff before calling an EU referendum which is most perplexing of all.Alistair said:
No one mentions it which is perplexing. Especially not Leavers who like to paint Britain as a victim who is powerless.Pulpstar said:
Remaining and starting to use all the tools available to restrict FoM to the original intention of the EU might be a goer. I haven't heard any prominent remain advocates even start to go there. It's all #Peoplesvote / FBPE like some sort of drone hivemind on twitter.Alistair said:
This being the Home Secretary who failed to use all the options currently available within the EU to restrict immigration from EU countries?Scott_P said:
His entire attitude toward immigration was completely contradictory in word and practice.0 -
I
It honour’s May’s interpretation of the result of the 2016 referendum. But she has failed to bring anyone else along with her...... so an alternative needs to be found.Sean_F said:
The best option is to pass the WA. It honours the result of the 2016 Referendum, without burning the economy.Cyclefree said:
Yes it would. I think though that price needs to be paid. There will be a political price to be paid if we crash out without a deal. That price may be even higher. Who knows? Do no harm is a good maxim. Revoking Art 50 while we can preserves the status quo. It does not close off the option of leaving in the future. Whereas crashing out is likely to have all sorts of unintended consequences and closes off options.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Cyclefree, it's be legal to revoke Article 50 just in the Commons, but the political price of doing so without a referendum would be significant.
Edited extra bit: it'd*
0 -
Such an unexciting sentiment. But no matter, the plain prosiac truth seldom thrills.Sean_F said:The best option is to pass the WA. It honours the result of the 2016 Referendum, without burning the economy.
Of course the WA should be ratified. It is the logical consequence of the 2016 referendum. The only reason it is being held up is that we have a hung parliament which delivers inordinate influence to plotters and special pleaders and minority factions.0 -
You are absolutely right. And the EU didn't cause it and Brexit won't of itself solve it. But it could be the necessary catalyst.TOPPING said:
Yeah all about Brexit.
Have you glanced at the UK trade deficit recently? "We need to be...offering products and services that the world wants..."
Except we don't, right at this moment, offer enough of them.0 -
I disagree. Sadly, you have ended up not far from the position of Trump.Cyclefree said:
You are being disingenuous. Lithuania would, I’m willing to guess, have no objections to having people from Northumbria or Naples move there. They do not want immigrants from the Middle East being dumped on them, largely because they want to avoid the sorts of social tensions, problems and terrorism which other countries with significant Muslim minorities have had. And this is not, frankly, an unreasonable view.YBarddCwsc said:
The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.
Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.
This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.
Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.
For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.
If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.
Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like to do).0 -
Brexit: "If it's not hurting, it's not working."Luckyguy1983 said:
You are absolutely right. And the EU didn't cause it and Brexit won't of itself solve it. But it could be the necessary catalyst.TOPPING said:
Yeah all about Brexit.
Have you glanced at the UK trade deficit recently? "We need to be...offering products and services that the world wants..."
Except we don't, right at this moment, offer enough of them.0 -
That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).YBarddCwsc said:
I disagree. Sadly, you have ended up not far from the position of Trump.Cyclefree said:
You are being disingenuous. Lithuania would, I’m willing to guess, have no objections to having people from Northumbria or Naples move there. They do not want immigrants from the Middle East being dumped on them, largely because they want to avoid the sorts of social tensions, problems and terrorism which other countries with significant Muslim minorities have had. And this is not, frankly, an unreasonable view.YBarddCwsc said:
The EU has frankly allowed the Eastern states to adopt a ludicrous position.
Countries like Hungary or Romania or the Baltic states value freedom of movement for their own citizens.
This has caused widespread emigration of the young, the able and the gifted. In some cases, such as the Baltic states, it has even led to the populations of these countries to fall, despite a desire by many people outside Europe to come to Europe.
Yet these states, which are in desperate need of more people, are the most vocal in opposing the immigration of others outside the EU.
For every Lithuanian who moves out of Lithuania, an immigrant who wishes to resettle in the EU should be moved to Lithuania.
If Lithuania can support a population of just under 4 million, and its present population is now 2.8 million, then it is immoral of Lithuania to deny the rights of others from less fortunate parts of the world to settle in Lithuania.
Freedom of movement for your citizens should also mean that -- if your citizens move to Germany or the UK -- they can be replenished by immigrants from elsewhere.
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like to do).0 -
-
Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
0 -
I take the view that it's up to the Lithuanians to determine who they wish to come to their country.YBarddCwsc said:Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.0 -
Not if the second stage would have had status-quo Remain in it, no, because that renders the first stage meaningless as a bit of a "free hit".edmundintokyo said:
How about "David Cameron got it wrong, the massive over-educated bellend, vote again"?Donny43 said:
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".OllyT said:
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to doDonny43 said:
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.AlastairMeeks said:
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.Alanbrooke said:
MrT thanksTOPPING said:NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.
Having a referendum on something you have no concrete proposal for, have made no preparations for, and think is a terrible idea, is stupid. Designing a process where you don't even get to check you want to do it once you know what it is is extra-stupid.
If he'd proposed a two-stage process ahead of the first referendum, I don't think you'd be complaining about it. Am I right?0 -
If you mean Davis and Raab, that is incorrect - May and Robbins froze them out of the negotiations.logical_song said:
.... and bear in mind two leading Brexiteers helped negotiate it.williamglenn said:
Given that Brexiteers are rejecting May's perfectly reasonable deal, I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to make a forced choice between May's deal and no Brexit.Pulpstar said:
With May's perfectly reasonable deal on the table it is extremely clearly a case of keep voting till the correct answer I'm afraid.williamglenn said:
A second vote would be more a case of "we got it wrong, vote again".Donny43 said:
It is not "perfectly legitimate" to say "you got it wrong, vote again".OllyT said:
Remain will only come about via a second vote so would be perfectly legitimate in that scenario as people will have been shown to have changed their minds, as they are perfectly entitled to doDonny43 said:
Time's only really being wasted because there is a significant number of MPs who haven't given up on the idea of overturning the result. These people won't be satisfied with any deal unless they think Remain is out of the question - at which point, of course, nearly all of them will accept any deal as preferable to no deal, and the deal in place at that point passes easily.AlastairMeeks said:
That was completely predictable in advance and one of the huge drawbacks of Brexit. Wasting so much time on a second order issue was always a terrible idea.Alanbrooke said:
MrT thanksTOPPING said:NIce article Alan - you do know what the definition of insanity is, don't you?
Why on earth would the government decide now to "come clean" and tell us all about the pros and cons of immigration?
Also, would need to do some research on the "made no serious effort to accommodate its biggest ever increase in population". Is that really so?
Im currently waging a ( losing ) campaign to offer a few divergences from Brexit. Since out there in the big world things go on and will eventually come back to bite us. The current introspection on UK problems doesnt really pick up how similar our issues are to lots of other countries. Somewhere along the line we need to get back a sense of perspective. Brexit has made Westminster as functional as Stormont.0 -
Was it up to the native Americans to decide who came to their country?Sean_F said:
I take the view that it's up to the Lithuanians to determine who they wish to come to their country.YBarddCwsc said:Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
Was it up to the native Africans to decide who came to South Africa?
No, white Europeans moved to underpopulated parts of the world.
0 -
-
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Bangladeshis want to live in Lithuania?YBarddCwsc said:Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
I don't think people are attracted to underpopulated (certainly in terms of people per sq km terms) places.0 -
I suspect many Bangladeshis would jump at the chance of migrating to underpopulated parts of the world (US, Canada, Australia & Eastern Europe).tlg86 said:
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Bangladeshis want to live in Lithuania?YBarddCwsc said:Sean_F wrote “That sounds like pretty hard luck on the Lithuanians (who have suffered more than their share of bad luck).”
But, the Lithuanians don’t want to live in Lithuania -- their population is declining.
There are empty houses & schools in Lithuania (that is the practical consequence of a declining population).
There are people who need houses.
If there were Lithuanians ready to live in the empty houses, well and good. But there aren’t. Why can’t the houses be use to populate non-Lithuanians?
I am not of course picking on Lithuania. Ultimately, if a country’s population is actually declining, and the global population is rising, then the country with the decline population must accept the consequences of failing to hold on to their own population. One of them is that they should accept more immigration.
I don't think people are attracted to underpopulated (certainly in terms of people per sq km terms) places.0 -
-
-
General Election in 2019 it is then.Scott_P said:0 -
-
The movement of white people to Africa is I think described as colonialism and is generally seen as not a good thing because of the effects it had on the places where it was tried, not least because it was often unwanted by those who were living there already.YBarddCwsc said:
I disagree. Sadly, you have ended up not far from the position of Trump.Cyclefree said:
You are being disingenuous. Lithuania would, I’m willing to guess, have no objections to having people from Northumbria or Naples move there. They do not want immigrants from the Middle East being dumped on them, largely because they want to avoid the sorts of social tensions, problems and terrorism which other countries with significant Muslim minorities have had. And this is not, frankly, an unreasonable view.YBarddCwsc said:
The population of Lithuania is 2.8 million. The population of Bangladesh is 167 million.
The land area of Bangladesh is about twice the land area of Lithuania.
It is hard to conclude from these figures anything other than that Bangladesh is very, very overcrowded, and Lithuania is very, very under crowded.
So, what is the Cyclefree solution for Bangladesh? It seems to be that the Bangladeshis must stay put in a very, very overcrowded part of the world.
I think it is perfectly reasonable for Bangladeshis to want to migrate to under-crowded parts of the world.
Particularly as some of the most under-crowded parts of the world (the US, Canada, Australia) have only recently been occupied by (largely white) people who moved from elsewhere (much as many Bangladeshis would like to do).
You are proposing a form of reverse colonialism whereby Bangladeshis come to parts of Europe regardless of the wishes of the local inhabitants. I don’t agree. I think the wishes of the local inhabitants take priority over the desires of Bangladeshis or anyone else. If individual Bagladeshis want to move then they should have to show the country they want to move to that they bring something of value and won’t cause problems.
The reason a lot of countries don’t want people from some parts of the world is that they have taken the view, based on quite a lot of evidence from countries around them, that some groups don’t bring a lot of value and do bring a lot of problems. Forcing social problems on them against their wishes is a recipe for disaster. You would do better to address the reasons why a country like Bangladesh is such a mess.0
