But less than half of voters want her to deliver it
Folks, let Jamba have his grieving process for hard Brexit. He's in the denial stage. Let him have that.
After all the Brexies were supportive when we lost a future of prosperity, peace and international cooperation in June 16.
She is the Prime Minister and 85% of voters voted for parties supporting her vision of Brexit
She has a vision of Brexit?
When did she share that with everyone?
I see that 6 pages in we are still waiting for the OP, Chewy or Jamby to tell us what the benefits of Brexit are.
If it's 'to free us from the shackles of the EU', that's a bit like saying you want to go and live in a field to free you from the shackles of living in a house. Who needs a roof, warmth, running water and sanitation?
I voted Labour and successfully dislodged our sitting Tory MP. It's the first time in nearly 40 years of voting I've ever voted for someone who got elected, but I'm not happy as my conscience wanted me to vote LD. In my constituency that would have been a wasted vote, given our fatally flawed electoral system, so I voted tactically to deny May her mandate for a hard Brexit.
jambalaya - MemberOf course May is pushing on. She is the Prime Minister and 85% of voters voted for parties supporting her vision of Brexit
That's not true.
Repeating something that isn't true doesn't make it true. That's not how truth works. Sorry.
Have we reached post post-truth yet?
She has a vision of Brexit?
When did she share that with everyone?
^ 😀
I don't think people know what the hell is going on. It feels like the villagers put the EU on the stake and lit the fire. Now they are all running around knowing that it could be the wrong enemy/victim they are burning. But to save face they are simply hoping for a strong wind and a fast burn.
I don't know why you're all trying to claim "hard Brexit" is dead… is it just to antoganise Jamba?
Given the timescales are tightening, it is looking more rather than less likely, unfortunately.
kelvin - Member
I don't know why you're all trying to claim "hard Brexit" is dead… is it just to antoganise Jamba?
Given the timescales are tightening, it is looking more rather than less likely, unfortunately.
Because the majority of people are vocal about it being a really bad idea - see business etc.
The other option as Macron suggested was the are you really sure.... we can call the whole thing off if you want.
I don't know why you're all trying to claim "hard Brexit" is dead… is it just to antoganise Jamba?
Given the timescales are tightening, it is looking more rather than less likely, unfortunately.
It was Theresa May's vision. She called the GE explicitly to get an endorsement of that vision and spectacularly failed to get it.
Of course with the help of the DUP, and if the Conservatives don't fall apart, she can keep it alive.
It would be foolish to claim it's dead, but it's certainly quite poorly.
I fully believe that the sensible thing would be a cross-party approach to brexit. For one I would like to see Sir Keir Starmer in the negoitating team. However I dont think Labour have said they would agre to it (havent read all previous pages). Also I think while it would be 'for the greater good' to have a cross-party brexit apraoc, it would be detrimental to Labour. If Brexit goes well, tories will claim all the credit as its a tory govt., if it goes poorly, just say it was labours fault and they should have done it alone.
Two things:
Firstly, I wish to apologise for my attitude towards chewkw. I've had a great deal of frustration at his posting style, his repeated assertions without citation and his annoying habit of repetitively posting the same thing again and again. However, I went too far in my criticism and I regret losing my temper at him.
Secondly, I think Macron's words yesterday were very encouraging. Of course, we can't expect the EU to tear up Article 50 and pretend that it has never happened, but there's a deeper need for reform of our media and politics here too.
The EU have been the convenient excuse for all that's wrong in politics for too long. My (pro remain) MP tells me that we can't renationalise the railways because the EU won't allow it. My father (aged 83) thinks that his mobility allowance was stopped because of an "EEC directive". He doesn't understand that the cuts came from closer to home. If I may reference chewkw for a moment, he always refers to the "EU bureaucratic system", without any acknowledgement of the fact that the EU brings a huge amount of trade and has invested all over Europe. Britain is hugely divided, economically. We've not distributed money to our regions in terms of investment as fairly as we should have. It's no wonder that people in deprived areas see the EU as a gravy train and want to lash out at something. For that, we need to continue to hold our politicians to account and never let them off the hook. There's clearly an agenda in the press, who've been allowed to exert an unhealthy amount of influence upon our politicians. One positive from last week's result was the realisation that there is a limit to the amount of vitriol that the voting public will accept from angry white geriatric men in the media.
While it's easy to feel a little sorry for Theresa May and those Conservative MPs facing financial hardship because they've lost their seats, we need to remember the poor and sick who are demonised on Channel 5 and in the press every day and who suffer at the hands of a callous benefits system that costs more to run than any tangible advantage in cutting the welfare bill.
he always refers to the "EU bureaucratic system"
Which is disingenuous in itself.
The UK has elected parliament members who make decisions and pass legislation, supported and administered by an unelected civil service. In stark contrast, the EU has elected parliament members who make decisions and pass actual legislation, supported and administered by an unelected civil service.
My conclusion: the Brexit part of the Labour manifesto is inherently contradictory and it's impossible to achieve all of the purported aims.
Replicating the other conclusion: that the arguments to leave the EU are inherently contradictory and it's impossible to achieve all of the purported aims.
"EU bureaucratic system"
this fave quote of chewks betrays a staggering amount of ignorance
My (pro remain) MP tells me that we can't renationalise the railways because the EU won't allow it
Which leads to a question, how privatised are DB, SNCF etc. Who pushed the agenda, the UK pushed for the inclusion of Poland et al into the EU.
A Privatised railway needn't be a bad thing, the issue is how and for whom. Switzerland does have some private railways, as does Japan and they seem to work ok. The UKs are simply crap.
Every country has a different situation and history. Particularly where railways are concerned.
I am not going to rekindle that discussion. There are opposing viewpoints from across the spectrum and we have already discovered that reaching a consensus will not happen.I see that 6 pages in we are still waiting for the OP, Chewy or Jamby to tell us what the benefits of Brexit are.
Therefore, the whole argument should really be put back to the people for a second vote.
1) Hard Brexit. Leave customs union, single market, freedom of movement.
2) Scrap the original vote and remain as a fully paid up member, with all of the above as they were.
A watered down brexit will not appease those who voted to leave and the issue will rumble on for years with a great many from both sides feeling aggrieved.
But the whole point flanagaj is that no-one has put forward any sensible reasons for leaving or what advantages it brings. That was the case with the referendum (no real arguments put forward) and it continues.
I am not going to rekindle that discussion. There are opposing viewpoints from across the spectrum and we have already discovered that reaching a consensus will not happen.
See, I really don't think this is true. I have never seen a Brexiter explain the benefits of Brexit. If you know what they are, I'd really like you to tell us about them.
Quite a claim there @mikewsmith. On who's evidence do you base such a claim. Do you honestly think that everyone who voted leave (including business) are now thinking it's a bad idea?Because the majority of people are vocal about it being a really bad idea
Once again, I feel as though you have made a sweeping generalisation based on your own biased interpretation.
I am not going to rekindle that discussion.
That's a no then? Since I've not seen any discussion anywhere that brings forward any creditable case for Brexit beyond vague promises of 'taking back control'. I'm genuinely interested.
Once again, I feel as though you have made a sweeping generalisation based on your own biased interpretation.
Once again, I offer you the chance to tell us why it is a good idea. If you are so keen on it, your reluctance to even try to make a case for it is puzzling.
Therefore, the whole argument should really be put back to the people for a second vote.1) Hard Brexit. Leave customs union, single market, freedom of movement.
2) Scrap the original vote and remain as a fully paid up member, with all of the above as they were.
I agree that this is a sensible way forward. However, we need to keep Big Data away from any Referendum Two campaign and focus on what we know and the benefits / disadvantages of either option.
Also, Government needs to pony up some money to remedy the real causes of disquiet - homes, jobs, communities and infrastructure.
It's obvious that policies of low income tax, high purchase taxes and elaborate ways around the tax system for the very wealthy have had their day.
Therefore, the whole argument should really be put back to the people for a second vote.1) Hard Brexit. Leave customs union, single market, freedom of movement.
2) Scrap the original vote and remain as a fully paid up member, with all of the above as they were.
I agree. Given the array of possibilities, the choice of implementing any particular Brexit strategy must be given to the people as well.
Teresa going off and delivering upon us whatever she chooses on the basis of the referendum result is as ridiculous as me ticking a box on an estate agent's website saying "I'd like to buy a house in London", and them saying "Here's your house, you owe us £1.72m."
Erm, what?
It's a modern mystery........Only hardline Brexiters know the benefit of Brexit? They cannot tell the undecided or the remainder? How did they find out the secret in the 1st place? Does sharing the benefits somehow water them down?
I think that some think Brexit will allow us to replace the trade we would lose with the EU with increased trade elsewhere. But that seems to be just a supposition without any kind of plan or evidence, as far as I can see.
A watered down brexit will not appease those who voted to leave and the issue will rumble on for years with a great many from both sides feeling aggrieved.
agreed if only the tories had managed to contain their internal bickerings about EU membership...
How many threads do you knobbers need to argue about the same thing?
dumbbot - Member
How many threads do you knobbers need to argue about the same thing?
i wouldnt underestimate the power of brexshit
As I understand it from lurking on various conservative message boards (know your enemy) and reading the various news quotes from Brexiteers, some of the intended 'benefits' are as follows:
1) The opportunity to scrap an enormous burden of legislation, some of it admittedly arcane and to start from scratch.
2) To cause a severe shock to the UK economy, to force a restructure and eventual recovery. This approach is sometimes known as 'Disaster Capitalism'.
3) To erode and repeal EU legislation protecting the workforce - note the language from pro-Brexit MPs proclaiming protection for employee rights in the workplace - which most workers will not be afford to enforce through tribunal courts since a fee was introduced. There's a strong drive amongst Brexiteers to take advantage of our low skill, poor productivity workforce as the cheaper option to fixing the skills and productivity gap, which requires investment.
A lot of the thinking is based on the experience of European economies in the immediate post war period, the restructures inevitably paved the way for prosperity for countries like Germany. Of course, they neglect to mention the existence of The Marshall Plan...
You can see why 'benefits' 2 and 3 are not too widely broadcast!
1) yet we will be replacing it all as is with the repeal bill!
are they really arcane or a burden?
the other massive headache is that as laws are constantly changing the ones we keep we will have to update them as the EU does, we will be replicating a huge amount of bureaucracy
2) those comments made by Nigel Lawson would seem to confirm that
3) oh great
You can see why the Leave campaign focussed on immigration and nationalism, because it had dick-all else to offer, unless you were a millionaire business owner in the insurance sector, for example.
Still waiting...
[img] 
[/img]
the other massive headache is that as laws are constantly changing the ones we keep we will have to update them as the EU does, we will be replicating a huge amount of bureaucracy
Yes, in the short term, the idea is to cut and paste the legislation to the UK however that then becomes the motivating factor to slash and burn later on. Will the likely outcome be that enhanced employee rights are enshrined in law, or that they will be the first thing a hard right Tory government takes an axe to, while Dacre and Murdoch will continue to inform us that we're "getting our country back" and that it's our patriotic duty to suck it up?
while Dacre and Murdoch will continue to inform us that we're "getting our country back" and that it's our patriotic duty to suck it up
As far as I have been able to ascertain throughout this whole mess, is that "take back control" does not apply to anyone other than a very narrow elite. And by "take back", what they really mean is "take more".
That's the great lie of Brexit - it's is motivated not through patriotism or some sense of setting out Good Ship Blighty on a new voyage of discovery, but from an insatiable greed for money and power. British history is littered with it (largely by looting foreign lands), and so the past continues to repeat itself.
PJM, why the insurance sector? Massive benefits to the insurance sector of being part of the single market.
It'll be interesting to see the reaction from the Leave side of the fence (I'm not using that f***ing word) once there's a costed plan in place and they can finally putting a figure on "Getting back control". Will it be £100s or £1000s each? That'll focus minds. . . .
Would also be interesting to see right now what this monster clusterfudge has cost already in wasted effort, productivity, jobs, currency fluctuations, not to mention an inconclusive general election and all the fallout from that.
I half believe that they're slowly managing expectations to a damp squib following the big reveal of our very limited options once it all runs through. After all it does seem the options from Europe are all but total exit or stay in with egg on your face.
The "government" can promise all they like but it's the EU who will decide what shaped ball we get to play with.
PJM1974 - MemberAs I understand it from lurking on various conservative message boards (know your enemy) and reading the various news quotes from Brexiteers, some of the intended 'benefits' are as follows:
1) The opportunity to scrap an enormous burden of legislation, some of it admittedly arcane and to start from scratch.
2) To cause a severe shock to the UK economy, to force a restructure and eventual recovery. This approach is sometimes known as 'Disaster Capitalism'.
3) To erode and repeal EU legislation protecting the workforce - note the language from pro-Brexit MPs proclaiming protection for employee rights in the workplace - which most workers will not be afford to enforce through tribunal courts since a fee was introduced. There's a strong drive amongst Brexiteers to take advantage of our low skill, poor productivity workforce as the cheaper option to fixing the skills and productivity gap, which requires investment.
A lot of the thinking is based on the experience of European economies in the immediate post war period, the restructures inevitably paved the way for prosperity for countries like Germany. Of course, they neglect to mention the existence of The Marshall Plan...
Posted 1 hour ago #
Please continue to focus on this. Ask yourself what the uber-rich Brexiteers have to gain by supporting Brexit - then you have your answer.
Point 3 is particularly apposite and they were straining at the leash behind May in the run-up to the GE. "Keep quiet until after we have our enhanced majority, lads, then we'll let you do what you like in the interests of 'economic competition'".
Happily the enhanced majority didn't materialise and the result offers more than a glimmer of hope for the vast majority of us for whom Brexit is going to be a disaster (irrespective of which way we actually voted in the referendum).
PJM, why the insurance sector? Massive benefits to the insurance sector of being part of the single market.
Arron Banks
Just looked him up. What a delightful character!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arron_Banks
UK motor insurance. No EU trade.
Asked if his companies paid full corporation tax, Banks "I paid over £2.5m of income tax last year ... My insurance business, like a lot of them, is based in Gibraltar but I've got UK businesses as well that deal with customers and pay tax like everyone else."[31] One of the UK businesses of which Banks is director, Rock Services Ltd, had a turnover of £19.7m last year and paid corporation tax of £12,000. The company deducted £19.6m in "administrative expenses", and the main activity appears to be "recharge of goods and services" with Southern Rock Insurance Company.[31] Southern Rock Insurance states on its website that it underwrites policies for the customers of GoSkippy.com, which is run by Banks. Because it is based in Gibraltar, there is little information available on it.Rock Services and Southern Rock Insurance's ultimate holding company is Rock Holdings Ltd, a company based on the Isle of Man.[31] Banks has also been a "substantial" shareholder in STM Fidecs, of which Leave.EU is a subsidiary; the company claims to be specialising in "international wealth protection", maximising tax efficiencies for entrepreneurs and expatriates and of "structuring international groups, particularly separating and relocating intellectual property and treasury functions to low- or no-tax jurisdictions".[58]
As if by magic, the Independent have an article on this very scenario: [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-no-deal-privitisation-perfect-cover-for-tories-a7789141.html ]Here[/url]
Just looked him up. What a delightful character!
And he was one of the biggest - if not [i]the[/i] biggest - funding sources for the leave campaign. He pumped millions into Leave.EU (IIRC).
Just reading up on Arron Banks' bio:
One of the UK businesses of which Banks is director, Rock Services Ltd, had a turnover of £19.7m last year and paid corporation tax of £12,000. The company deducted £19.6m in "administrative expenses", and the main activity appears to be "recharge of goods and services" with Southern Rock Insurance Company.
I think we have identified our chief villain.
