Forum menu
The four freedoms are still very possible.
Probably end up paying more to Brussels, but having no say in the rules. Possibly less standardisation of law across Europe - in so far as it ever was standard.
A GE would settle it definitively as could be I suppose, does mean another 4 years of right wing rule, there's plenty more of the welfare state left to dismatle after all
The govt will fight this by saying that it will give our hand away to Europe, of course. They've been saying that up to now anyway.
One of the German papers commented (as far as I could work out) that transparency might help all sides get a good deal.
[tin foil pants] Secrecy, puts the jitters up Johnny foreigner, and so may promote a "rush for the doors" in the EU so as to get favourable deals. If you want to break up Europe, uncertainty and a lack of trust are good tools. [/tin foil pants [i][b]still on[/b][/i]]
A GE would settle it definitively as could be I suppose, does mean another 4 years of right wing rule, there's plenty more of the welfare state left to dismatle after all
How? Both Labour and tory are pro-brexit. I guess Labour may dissappear altogether and be replaced by an anti-brexit liberal party but it's hard to imagine they'll displace the Tories.
Well I think that's the point if its the defining debate of the moment,M PS might have to consider what they really stand for 🙄 Get Brexit over with, let people see the damage they've wrought unto themsrlves and in another 4 years time start putting things back together and consign post truth politics to that embarrassing period of 2014-2020 we can all look back on as a lesson from history
That assumes that Brexit will define this period. It may well be a side show.
48% of people who voted were remain.
The 52% were split far right and far left.
Entirely possible that a centrist pro Europe manifesto could take Westminster, but it would be starting from scratch.
Yeah, the liberals could be the big winners out of all this. Not a bad thing.
The govt will fight this by saying that it will give our hand away to Europe, of course.
You mean the fact we don't have a hand?
Right. I've found my political spiritual home: [url= http://whigs.uk/about-us/ ]It's back to 1678 for me.[/url]
Bring on the GE.
The govt will fight this by saying that it will give our hand away to Europe, of course. They've been saying that up to now anyway.
If secrecy is genuinely an issue (and I accept it might be for some aspects) then couldn't the house hold secret debates?
At least that way there would be [i]some[/i] parliamentary oversight and involvement, rather than relying May-tanian And The Three Brexiteers to come up with something sensible on their own.
All this talk of parliamentary scrutiny of the plans for brexit, there are no plans for brexit. More importantly, there can't be any plans for brexit as we can't negotiate until we've issued article 50. I'd argue we can't even negotiate with the EU then, it's more a case of we'll get what we're given, assuming that's anything at all. It's a complete and utter clusterf***!
"Taking back control" my arse.
So Germany and Italy hide behind their membership of the EU to trade with India without offering better freedom of movement (i.e. the EU won't let them offer it). We leave the EU and offer more freedom of movement to India to get a trade deal... It does seem like the law of unintended consequences at its finest. Meanwhile Indian (and a whole lot of other country) business leaders would prefer us to be in the EU because it gives them a gateway into it.
And today in an interview Tim Martin aka Mr Wetherspoon and Brexit campaigner says that Britain has benefited enormously from EU migration, “not just economically but socially and culturally”. His preferred Brexit model would continue to allow anyone from current EU member states to live and work here. “If you look around the world, successful economies and countries have had gradually rising populations, and that’s needed for the UK as well.” The only change he would make to the free movement of labour would be to exclude countries who join the EU in the future.
The referendum has definitely not clarified anything... wrong questions to the wrong people at the wrong time. I always thought that noone was going to get what they wanted and that's the only thing that's becoming clear.
If we don't get the bulk of our immigrants from Europe it's pretty obvious they'll be coming from elsewhere.
I thought the bulk of our immigrants came from outside the EU? Of course, it would be fantastic if as a result of Sexit we ended up with FoM from Europe as well as a few other places. Australia, India, Canada etc, a real step forward.
Parkrun this morning, there was a haggle of brexiters screech bollox about "what did we vote for " etc I did a pb just getting away from them.
The only thing we've learnt from this shambles is that people cant be trusted to make decent decisions .
And today in an interview Tim Martin aka Mr Wetherspoon and Brexit campaigner says that Britain has benefited enormously from EU migration, “not just economically but socially and culturally”. His preferred Brexit model would continue to allow anyone from current EU member states to live and work here. “If you look around the world, successful economies and countries have had gradually rising populations, and that’s needed for the UK as well.” The only change he would make to the free movement of labour would be to exclude countries who join the EU in the future.
This is the bit that gets me. There are so many different definitions of brexit that no one really knows what it is, but we're supposed to believe that it's better than remaining.
How can we have been so stupid as to vote overwhelmingly for a change into the unknown?
I thought the bulk of our immigrants came from outside the EU? Of course, it would be fantastic if as a result of Sexit we ended up with FoM from Europe as well as a few other places. Australia, India, Canada etc, a real step forward.
Yeah, it's about equal. Won't be without freedom of movement though.
Yes, it would be great to see more freedom of movement. All the racists would find it easier to move to Australia so everyone wins.
All this talk of parliamentary scrutiny of the plans for brexit, there are no plans for brexit. More importantly, there can't be any plans for brexit as we can't negotiate until we've issued article 50.
We can't negotiate, but it would be a bit embarrassing if we showed up for the first day of post-Article 50 negotiations and the EU said "Okay let's hear your terms" and we replied "Sorry we haven't decided yet. We were waiting for Article 50"
So ahead of that day we need to make plans, decide on negotiating goals, figure out what we want and what we can offer, start figuring out how on earth we untangle all the legal bit, etc etc and my view is that parliament should be involved in all of that as the result will impact all of us.
Parkrun this morning, there was a haggle of brexiters screech bollox about "what did we vote for "
You could have doubled your PB by shouting "If you don't know then maybe you shouldn't have voted"
We can't negotiate, but it would be a bit embarrassing if we showed up for the first day of post-Article 50 negotiations and the EU said "Okay let's hear your terms" and we replied "Sorry we haven't decided yet. We were waiting for Article 50"
Plans?
Do we want immigration?
Is it acceptable to pay for access?
What is the budget for compensation - ie can we keep writing the blank nissan cheques?
What are the red lines we cannot cross?
This is the bit that gets me. There are so many different definitions of brexit that no one really knows what it is, but we're supposed to believe that ....
....parliament is going to be able to agree and ratify on our negotiating position. What in earth are we going to debate? Just pass the bloody Act and get on with it.
What in earth are we going to debate? Just pass the bloody Act and get on with it.
THM, so you want to go for the blank cheque option?
Personally I'd like to see the entire process fail and blow up in the faces of the idiots.
I'd also assume Liz Truss has her phone off somebody might want to pop round and wake her up
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37883576
There was a nice campaign asking for the Mail etc. to be up for contempt
I think that it would be in our economic interest if Brexshit failed but not our political interests. But there is an equal lack of clarity on both sides at the moment. When asked remainers have no consensus and at times no idea what they want from the government or what needs to be debated.
IMO we have a technical ruling here, but this should not be used to delay or obstruct the process. We had a referendum and we all knew that a potential outcome was a hard Brexshit, it is disingenuous of any of us disappointed ones to suggest otherwise.
Pass the bill, trigger A50 and lets get on with it. The genie can't be put back in the bottle.
I think that it would be in our economic interest if Brexshit failed but not our political interests.
i would actually say politically it is in out interests for it to fail. The root of most of the UKs issues have been westminster and not brussels but it has just been very easy to blame them.
If the politicians in the UK can't negotiate a deal with Brussels when they keep telling everyone we have the upper hand maybe people will start to understand that the UK is not the world, that the empire has gone, that westminster is incompetent. People might also learn that actions have consequences.
But there is no negotiating the terms of us leaving. Article 50 states that we are leaving in a full hard brexit.
The terms we are talking about are the terms for a trade deal effectively, that's going to take more than 2 years to do it properly. It certainly isn't in the EUs interest to do it quickly, they'll draw it out and make it obvious to all their current members that they are in charge.
We think we have a choice! We think we have taken back control! Oh how the EU laughed....
. Article 50 states that we are leaving in a full hard Brexit
Where does it state that?
Why would it be in the interests of other EU states to delay the process. Their recent comments suggest very much the opposite,
Where does it state that?
I think it's the bit where UK Plc wants starter, 3 sides and 4 bottles of exceptional wine and the other 27 are having bread & water. When it comes to splitting the bill it's going to get ugly and when they say no the UK gets hard brexit
Remain was (or should have been) the choice of the racist.
😆 Love it.
Where does it state that?
Paragraph 3
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
We have 2 years to plead with the EU, or its hard brexit. If they don't want to be nice (why would they after all the recent ****tery?!) we leave with no agreement on a future relationship ie hard brexit.
If they don't want to be nice (why would they after all the recent ****tery?!) we leave with no agreement on a future relationship ie hard brexit.
Or negotiation 101, only negotiate from a position of power, deal not good enough? Wait till the 2 years expires and add 20% in your favour
Sorry neb, but I think that you are mistaken. The Artcile says nothing about the nature of the exit. And the two years are not inflexible. So there is no hard exit sword waiting over us. It is a possibility of course, but that is different and we know that.
We had 3 choices:
1, Stay as we were, with option of changing things from inside the EU.
2, Soft brexit of some kind, that can only be less favourable than what we have now, ie all the bad bits and less of the good bits. Less impact to the economy, we can claim we've left the EU, but we relinquish all the control we had.
3, Hard brexit, really bad for economy in the short / medium term, tough times, but at some point it might be better, or not, no one knows.
Why the **** did we choose option 2 or 3?! I honestly still cannot fathom the thought process that made option 1 the least appealing.
And the two years are not inflexible.
Double negative?? At the end of 2 years there is a vote it's up to the EU I think to go on? Why would they? It's a much better negotiation when the UK is screwed - why try too hard when you know you have a better hand coming.
For Movember https://au.movember.com/mospace/13392380 Much appreciated
Agreed but that doesn't change matters, Athe majority voted against us and our beliefs.
The two years can been extended y mutual agreement. Given that is process if a lose:lose, I ouwld expect both parties to attempt to minimise their losses. Not point being more of an arse than you need to be.
THM it wouldn't be the first time I've been mistaken! Happy to be corrected.
I understand we can discuss extending the time frame and withdrawal agreement, but it all defaults to 2 years and hard brexit if we can't work out an agreement. So really, we're in the hands of those people who've had to put up with Nigel Farage for the last 7 years. How nice will they be whilst trying to discourage other members from doing the same thing we've just done?
Given that is process if a lose:lose
It's the uncertainty that's the lose:lose. I can't see an extension to brexit happening.
Equally I can't see a soft brexit satisfying those that voted for it. So I think hard brexit it is. Probably after 2 futile years of Boris on his knees begging for something that looks like a 'better deal than we have now'.
Ok, so Brexit it is.
What's the likely position of the UK in March 2019?
I'll start:
- no specific trade deals with anyone
- gdp at 2% less than now
- inflation of +2% for the next 2 years, so already we're 4-5% poorer (excluding pensioners as they've the 'lock-in')
- no agreements for those without the ability to get a UK passport to stay
- no agreement for those (now) UK passport holders who live elsewhere in the UK to stay there
- ability to decide which non-UK EU citizens can come here to live/work
- an unelected PM
Anymore?
Optimist
Anymore
Lord Farage 😯
- inflation of +2% for the next 2 years, so already we're 4-5% poorer (excluding pensioners as they've the 'lock-in')
You do realise that achieving a 2% inflation has been a deliberate BOE target for over ten years?
Is one of the problems that if one campaigns on a negative and get into power one has to do something. The nazis did not say their plan was to gas the Jews but they campaigned on the basis that the Jews were a problem that needed sorting out.
Brexit was and still is a negative that means nothing in terms of constructive policy. It means totally different things to Corbin than May in terms of what they would like to build from leaving the eu.
Britain's entire economic policy was and still is based on having access to the eu markets as they are and the negative (I do not mean this in a bad way just in the taking something away point of view) must have a positive policy. Dealing with risk one always must have something to mitigate the risk such as a new plan.
At the moment we have and it looks like we will continue to depend on foreign investment.
What is our plan for the future.?
Big tax cuts for business?
Scrap environmental laws?
Lax employment laws?
National conglomerates.
You do realise that achieving a 2% inflation has been a deliberate BOE target for over ten years?
Yes, but not as a lower limit 😉
If 17 million slightly backwards, misty eyed, out of touch pensioners and meat heads voted to turn off the internet because they didn't really understand it and preferred some imaginary past.... would we push for it to go through parliament illegally because democracy?
NO! We'd be saying something like 'oh shit, who knew we had 17 million voting retards in the UK'
The 52% were split far right and far left.
you would need to prove that - I think that is far from the truth - certainly the many brexiters that phone into LBC are pretty central (they probably filter the extremes out).
Nobody that I have met that voted leave has been extreme in views.
Ms Truss 3 lines statement is not a great defence for the judges.
Holding a second referendum to get a different result that the EU likes would be pretty standard fare for the EU, wouldn't it? And so it would not be losing any face.
If there were a second referendum then the result would still reflect the will of the people, so what's the problem? Why not have three or five?
Ms Truss 3 lines statement is not a great defence for the judges.
Couldn't have been more lacklustre if she tried.
It's almost as though the government are quite happy that miller and the judges have been threatened and abused online, for daring to go against the will of the Brexiters
certainly the many brexiters that phone into LBC are pretty central (they probably filter the extremes out).
They certainly don't filter out the really dim ones though !
If there were a second referendum then the result would still reflect the will of the people, so what's the problem? Why not have three or five?
Exactly. Never ending referendum hell. Once a generation is more than enough.
When it was so narrow it would be realistic to hold another referendum once we know some more detail of what will happen ie the EU will not give us anything but either Norway option or nothing. Then we will know what we are voting for. I am certain another referendum would go remain by a big majority once its clear any deal we can get will be worse than what we have now
They would never be able to frame a question and a voting / majority required threshold
Its easy - just rerun with the same wording and threshold but once all the leavers lies are exposed and with some good analysis of the damage leaving will do
[i]Nobody that I have met that voted leave has been extreme in views. [/I]
or extreme in their views compared to you?
Its easy - just rerun [s]with the same wording and threshold but once all the leavers lies are exposed and with some good analysis of the damage leaving will do[/s] until we get the answer we want.
Nobody that I have met that voted leave has been extreme in views.
Would you like my mum's phone number? A black lady has moved in near her and all she bangs on about is how she will be smuggling refugees in.
Everything she reads in the Mail is fact and by the time it's been around her head a few times it's a miracle we haven't all been slaughtered in our beds.
Are we willing to sacrifice the peace and prosperity that the Eu has brought us to appease the thoughts of a delusional , bigoted old lady?
It's time for a revolution. We need to rise up, take to the streets and overthrow the media barons.
[quote=cchris2lou ]Ms Truss 3 lines statement is not a great defence for the judges.
I presume her position is a entirely a political appointment and the judges have no say at all - because otherwise she'd surely be out on her ear. Completely and utterly useless. Actually that's not fair on the useless.
I thought we'd got as low as we could go already, the events since this judgement make me despair. The articles in the newspapers are bordering on the criminal (I'm actually wondering if there is some incitement law they're breaking - the best thing for those journos would be a night in the cells to reflect on what complete shits they are). The response of our elected representatives even worse because they should know better. Frankly I'm disgusted with the lot of them.
If there were a second referendum then the result would still reflect the will of the people, so what's the problem? Why not have three or five?
There in a nutshell is the SNP. You only need one to go your way eventually to get your result. Leave got the job done with 1. Remain can morph into re-join and have as many as it takes. In the meantime Brexit means Brexit 🙂
It's time for a revolution. We need to rise up, take to the streets and overthrow the media barons.
I am a supporter of this, well worth the time and a few £££'s IMHO http://hackinginquiry.org
Finally FWIW critism of judges for interpreting the law is ridiculous. There will be an appeal and if neccessary a vote in Parliament, job done, Article 50 in March.
It's time for a revolution. We need to rise up, take to the streets and overthrow the media barons.
You could just stop buying papers.
Couldn't have been more lacklustre if she tried.
It's almost as though the government are quite happy that miller and the judges have been threatened and abused online, for daring to go against the will of the Brexiters
Come on, I'm sure all MPs appreciate the sovereignty of Parliament and the benefit of an independent judiciary:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Guess not. Bellends.
So.. you want the will of the people represented, but only at one specific instant in time.
What's special about that particular time?
You could just stop buying papers.
I haven't bought one for years - since they became comics. Sadly many people do buy them and base their opinions on the lies therein.
I doubt anybody here buys the DM (apart from when they have a lego offer on, and buying one costs them money). Or do you 5th? The issue isn't whether anybody here buys the papers, it's that the morons on the street buy them.
molgrips - MemberSo.. you want the will of the people represented, but only at one specific instant in time.
What's special about that particular time?
Same reason we had one election in 1802, and the Tories have been in charge ever since. You can't just have more elections til you get a different result, the people have voted!
Slow hardly anyone pays attention to the newspapers, you are giving the power, just ignore them and the clickbait. TV and internet news is far more influential
to be faur , I can not see how a second referendum would sort this mess . it would be never ending if results are different .
the only sensible option is going to be a very soft exit , Norway style .
no one will be happy at first , but the economy should not suffer , and everyone wallet will stay as it is and in a few years time it will be all forgotten .
The House of Commons starts its proceedings with a prayer. The chaplain looks at the assembled members with their varied intelligence and then prays for the country.
From one very famous judge.
[quote=jambalaya ]Finally FWIW critism of judges for interpreting the law is ridiculous.
Ok, I'll admit it. Jamba is far saner than many of our MPs.
[quote=cchris2lou ]the only sensible option is going to be a very soft exit , Norway style .
I have to admit, this is certainly an option I could live with. Actually I should admit that it's exactly what I wanted a while ago - though now I acknowledge it would be worse than what we have now, it would at least satisfy the majority of those who voted in the referendum. There are even some advantages to it.
There's also the bonus that it actually seems a realistic option at the moment - whilst I don't think I honestly believe that calling the whole thing off really is any more.
I liked this comment on the Indy today:
"One thing which has become very obvious from the discussion is that a great many people in the "leave" camp expected things to be simple. They would win one vote (just one and only one) and we would simply leave the EU.
Never mind it was an advisory and consultative vote won by the narrowest of margins; that most of what was said to win it has been shown to be lies; that the number of bregretters means the "will of the people" now means something different from what it meant back on the 23rd of June. Never mind that Farage himself said that a narrow vote would be grounds to try to get it overturned (so don't be surprised if he is taken at his word). Never mind that the issues are not at all simple. Never mind that there is a huge range of possible terms we could get and which terms we do get will shape our lives for decades. Never mind that the whole relationship between Parliament, the government the judiciary and the fourth estate is in question. Never mind that we don't even know what terms we are going to ask for and far less what Europe will give us. No, never mind any of that inconveniently complex reality. Let's just cling to that one simple certainty, the 52% in favour on one day in June, and cling to it as frantically as a child who has been given a shiny new toy and is terrified it will be taken away.
Along the way our government is going to have to negotiate its disentanglement from a fantastically complex set of treaties and negotiate equally complex treaties to replace them. It will all have to go back to parliament not once but many times to be checked over, because the government's negotiating team simply cannot be allowed to stitch us all up in secret. During the months and years this is going on, there will be major shifts in political alignments, large changes in public opinion, great changes in forecasts of our economic prospects. Any of these things could give more impetus to our departure, or impede it.
It is going to be the biggest and most important political project for a generation. It is not going to be simple at all. It is simply not something that can be achieved by an act of will, a sort of political magic wand.
If we get the right terms, we could do very well outside the EU, maybe even better than inside. If we get the wrong terms, it could be catastrophic. If we can't get acceptable terms at all, then to safeguard the national interest parliament might even have to throw the whole machine into reverse and say we are not leaving after all; unlikely but still possible. Nothing is ever final. At any stage of this long drawn out process, everything will always be all to play for. That is the nature of politics, and its fascination. If you want to stamp your feet and cry that it ought to be simpler; well yes, it would be nicer if it were simpler, but in the real world it just isn't."
Which I think pretty much sums things up for me.
Come on, that's not what the Brexiters want. They think out is out. Completely. What's "soft Brexit" anyway? We continue to pay up for access to the European market but now have no voice in it. Stupid!
What exactly is the benefit of a Norway type relationship compared to our current position?
no benefits at all , costs the same but not allowed to have a say on decisions .
Nothing Neb bar it appeases the loons. anyway I don't think that is on the cards. To join the EEA (I think its called that) needs the approval of its members and Norway have said they will not allow it and anyway Farage and his loony army will cry foul as will the mail etc
Slow hardly anyone pays attention to the newspapers, you are giving the power, just ignore them and the clickbait. TV and internet news is far more influential
Unfortunately all those papers have a large online presence too. The Daily Mail in particular is a very successful "news" website. Most popular UK news site after the BBC I believe!
Jamba - the papers are very important for one thing. the BBC takes its neutrality from an average of the papers so ends up well to the right of centre. If the express/ mail etc run with a story if if its nonsense the BBC have to follow it hence all the airtime Farage gets.
Morning news conferences at the BBC they look at the mail. telegraph and express to decide what is news that day
Next question - will a soft brexit placate the knob heads that want to "make Britain great again" and are so keen to "take back control"?
I'm thinking it won't. So, civil unrest? Riots? Lovely.
Finally FWIW critism of judges for interpreting the law is ridiculous.
I'll hold you to that comment..
[quote=Neb ]What exactly is the benefit of a Norway type relationship compared to our current position?
I think it would allow us to make trade arrangements with other countries which the rules of the EU don't allow us to do.
I don't think there is any requirement for us to join the EEA in order to get such an arrangement - we'd simply have to negotiate it with the EU. Realpolitik suggests there's also a realistic chance of the EU agreeing to such an arrangement as it would be beneficial to them without seeming so advantageous to us that it would make it tempting for other countries to leave. At least I'm sure it could be framed in such a way as to ensure that.
Don't get the idea I would rather this than staying in the EU, but it does appear to be one way to comply with the vote without slitting our own throat. Who cares what Nigel thinks?