No one, no one was saying this before the result.
It's disingenuous to say so now and you know it.
But as the Brexshiteers have noted It doesn't matter. It's happening.... get used to it
Next step, stop the plebs voting????
A plebiscite is the purest form of democracy, it is just incredibly expensive, so representative democracy is a sensible compromise. But it is perfectly sensible for major issues to be settled by plebiscite and if you are a believer in the concept of the "wisdom of crowds", a very good one.
Our country is being screwed as I type this, it will be being screwed for many years after this. My rights are being eroded. My country is being diminished. The democratic process surely demands my point of view is listened to when this is what's at stake?
Our country will be substantially better off as a result of Leave. This will be fully apparent by 2020. The country listened to your point of view during the Referendum campaign with extra lashings of Armageddon for good measure. It then voted.
Next step, stop the plebs voting????
Nope, I want us plebs to get to vote between two fully formed options, not just "status quo" vs loads of different ill defined options.
So a vote once we can see the terms of our exit from the EU.
1) except exit terms (these will need to be defined for other countries to agree to them at some point).
2) ask our partners in the EU for us to keep current terms (they can of course tell us to do one at this point).
In the meantime, both MPs and public alike should be pressuring the government towards trying to get exit terms, and a future relationship with the EU once we leave, that is in the interest of as much of the UK population (and Brits abroad) as possible.
And would..
Shall we start with a little test on "membership of" versus "access to"?
We can disqualify anyone who cannot accurately define the Norway model?
Etc....
Or "in" or "part of" the single market.
Etc…
That's you out.
Next....
You guys might just be on to something here
The problem with a second referendum is that you completely screw up your negotiating position - it basically a back door way of saying we will remain.
That's the intention mefty. It's just that people don't have the balls/honesty to admit it
Lib Dems aside. They at least are up front about it.
We all know the basis of the referendum.
Indeed we do. It was a non-binding advisory poll of the population, in other jurisdictions known as a plebiscite. Just as it's not Jamby's fault that Boris stood in front of a great big lie on a bus, it's not my fault that Cameron was more than slightly misleading on the legal standing of the vote. In Jamby's defence, his side won the vote, regardless of the various nefarious means of garnering support it employed. In my defence, the legal significance of that vote isn't enhanced simply because Cameron told porkies himself over what a result one way or the other would actually mean.
You are. Thats clear.
It's only clear if you're being deliberately obtuse, or a moron. I'll give you the courtesy of deciding which of these two categories your current debating style leaves you in.
Neither thanks.
Go through any post oherpes ore 23 June 2016 and tell me which one was talking about the vote being merely a one off to be followed by a series of other votes. Tell me where you reminded everyone that this was for advisory purposes only, that if it was a remain that we would still be awaiting more bills to clarify and referendums on the basis of us remaining etc..
Its BS and you know it, be honest FSS.
In the spirit of the EU, bon nuit
The problem with a second referendum is that you completely screw up your negotiating position - it basically a back door way of saying we will remain.
Sophy Ridge pointed that out to Salmond today. EU guaranteed to offer a non-dealboth Remainers and Leavers reject which guarantees we stay a member. Job done from EU's perspective.
Personally I don't mind a second Referendum on the basis A50 is irreversable and WTO is the default in 2019.
Anyway Parliament is getting a vote on A50 and will get a debate on the White Paper (April/May ?). Then a Parliamentary debate/vote on the final deal too.
People need to get their heads round the fact the EU is in a weak position. Coming into Dutch, French and German elections parties will have to discuss how they will replace the UK's budget contributions and what happens if there is no deal and WTO tariffs. All during this time the EU is a passenger.
Anyway Parliament is getting a vote on A50 and will get a debate on the White Paper (April/May ?).
The debate has to be before A50 is declared otherwise it's pointless.
Then a Parliamentary debate/vote on the final deal too.
Fairly pointless as it's that deal or the hard brexit one really.
People need to get their heads round the fact the EU is in a weak position. Coming into Dutch, French and German elections parties will have to discuss how they will replace the UK's budget contributions
Given how small the actual amount is in real terms it's not that tough a choice really.
Given how small the actual amount is in real terms it's not that tough a choice really
Eh? We are the second biggest net contributor (only nine of the 27 are net contributors)
Ccougar, we both know that whatever reasons anyone gave,
...
blah blah blah
...
C'mon man, it's surely not a difficult question.
Democracy requires an informed electorate.
Democracy bypasses an ill-informed electorate.
Our country will be substantially better off as a result of Leave.
Now we're getting somewhere. How / why?
It's 314 million pounds per member for the UK's net contribution. (8.5 Billion/27 nations)
In perspective
Germany recorded a €18.5bn budget surplus in the first half of 2016, beating expectations and giving chancellor Angela Merkel’s plenty of financial wiggle room ahead of next year’s crucial parliamentary elections.
https://www.ft.com/content/a33b0456-05b3-3ffa-b0f2-cf64bc5bb659
[img]
[/img]
It's 314 million pounds per member for the UK's net contribution. (8.5 Billion/27 nations)
In perspective
But only nine (including the UK) are net contributors, so it's more like a 10% increase in EU contributions for each of them to fill the gap
and what is that as a proportion of their GDP?
What savings will the UK make from not having the UK there?
These numbers are actually small when you look at them at a whole of government level. One of the ways Leave tried to scare people by misrepresenting the figures and trying to make them sound much bigger than they were in many ways.
Its BS and you know it, be honest FSS.
No, it's the clear legal standing of the plebiscite. As I have already stated, that this wasn't discussed before the referendum is no more my fault than the big bus lie is Jamby's fault. Neither diminishes the result nor the implications of that result. The big bus lie probably contributed to an awful lot of people voting leave expecting something they were never going to get, the disingenuous implication that the vote was binding probably also influenced voters into believing they would receive something they still have no more legal right to than they did in June 22nd.
As I have said, morally it's a lot more murky, but legally it's crystal clear.
And I'll settle for deliberate obtuseness.
This was funny and desperate in equal measure.
mefty - Member
A plebiscite is the purest form of democracy
Mrs B tells me estimated cost is €500bn
Your good lady reads the Republican figures, a bit like the £350 million on the side of the bus it's misleading and fails to take into account the allocations it will replace. 45bn euros is also quoted.
Add all the centre-left results in your opinion poll together and you have a bigger number than the right. France remains leftward leaning. The electoral system may however produce a right wing victory.
IGM. Neither funny nor desperate. Try accurate if inconvenient (for the new whiny narrative)
The cost is a rounding error. Hence the need for Brexshiteers to resort to diversionary stunts. We know that. Learn why liars resonate and succeed so that it won't happen again.
THM: On membership… we are all already clear that Norway isn't a member of the Single Market, even though it is in it. It was pointed out by many during the referendum that this is a far weaker position than we have as a full member, including by politicans from Norway, and both Leave and Remain campaigners. Members get to set the rules of the Single Market; if you are in it but not a member, you have to follow the rules but play no part in setting them.
I keep saying "Norway is in the Single Market" and you keep countering this by asking "is Norway a member of the Single Market". These are not the same things.
It is in the Single Market (for goods but not food) but it is not a member.
The rules include FoM, and an ECJ equivalent by the way. So back to those red lines of May's that rule this kind of compromise out....
They also include budget contributions, but she hasn't ruled that out yet…
That are not the same thing - you are staring to get it right. Success. I am glad that we ARE clear now
I have said all along that what we have now is far better than the alternatives that we will be discussing in the future. But my views are not shared by the majority. I lost. They won.
We will see who ia right at some point in the future.
P.S. you are also correct in where the current red lines leave us. I stated that many, many pages ago. According to the non-existent plan, our negotiating starting point is for a bespoke deal between FTA and the CU but currently biased towards the former
So is Norway in the Single Market THM?
Stop dancing on your head of a pin.
Given how small the actual amount is in real terms it's not that tough a choice really
I make it that EU will lose 0.05% of GDP in terms of budget contribution when we leave.
Of course, economically it'll be far more impacted than this… any focus on the contribution ignores this.
No, we have discussed this before and give you the appropriate homework.
Norway has access to the Single Market though as we know or should do. We will too albeit through a different arrangement.
Tip. Avoid pins. They hurt the feet. Dance on solid ground instead. Better and less painful
How about "Norway pays a substantial sum of money to be able to freely trade a limited selection of goods and services with the EU".
I am on the fence but, would like any pro brexit types to explain how brexit will benefit economically?
Don't hold your breath. The economic argument is clear, but it's not about that, as the Sccot Nats say, the economic cost is worth it if we can at least fake control in the end.
The economic case is that the UK will be much better off trading with India then the largest trading bloc in the world.
First Greek debt story in the mainstream media for a while. Eurozone finance ministers meet Feb 20, also notes vital role IMF plays
"Greece 3 weeks away from explosive debt problems"
Issue will be kicked into the long grass again given French and German elections but the problem is just intensifying
Great article in the Graun on American food; expect it on a shelf near you soon.
If this comes to pass then I'm heading for vegetarianism; American food is foul, their agri business calls the shots.....corn syrup in bread, FFS!
The sad thing was that the NFU, instead of making the distinction between our good, EU-controlled stuff, want to adopt the same practices.....race to the bottom.
This is the kind of thing that we'll miss- "red tape" eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/29/britain-us-trade-deal-gm-food-eu-rules?CMP=fb_gu
Democracy bypasses an ill-informed electorate.
We had a special thread on all the ridiculous Remain campaign predictions. Leavers saw straight through them all.
GM stuff is a red herring 😉 is all those steroids in the meat that aren't so good
We had a special thread on all the ridiculous Remain campaign predictions. Leavers saw straight through them all.
Call us when it happens, the crash on the threat was bad. You really think a deal that sends shit US food to the UK is a good one to be chasing?
I think people aren't quite understanding what 'democracy' means. It's not a complete national constitution. It's simply a basic concept - we get to vote. It says nothing about how to actually run a country. That's the bit we have to create. There's no such thing as 'pure' or 100% democracy, where everyone votes on everything, as if that's something to aim for and everything else is a compromise.
So it would be equally democratic if we gave the referendum absoute power; or we didn't and passed the result to parliament. They are both democratic. Only difference is that one, in my opinion, is stupid democracy, and one is a bit more sensible given the circumstances.
We had a special thread on all the ridiculous Remain campaign predictions.
So my rights aren't being taken away after all? Was that just a ridiculous prediction? I hope so.
@mike I discussed the extra budget contributions a while ago. Estimates are Germany €4-5bn, France €2-3bn pa etc, this is to maintain the same EU budget spending. Remember Germany is already facing €20-40bn pa for the 1 million migrants they took in plus pressure from US for them to increase NATO spending by €30bn to meet the 2% (they are barely over 1%) plus then of course the almost limitless requirements of propping up the over borrowed Southern European states. Remember also the EU is oaying Turkey some €9bn in return for it pkaying ball with taking failed asylum seekers back.
There is going to be an EU budget sh.t fight as the countries which receive large annaul payments are asked to take a cut as Germany/France etc don't want to pay more. Elections there in 2017 remember
Molgrips - the Brexies are basically religious fanatics - you know, stick to their claims whatever happens, hatred is an acceptable tool (dress it as patriotism, nationalism, believing in sovereignty), anyone who doesn't agree with them is a heretic to be burned (or at least shouted down) and in extreme cases they believe it is ok to murder those who oppose you.
These are the people you are dealing with - don't expect to beat them with rational argument (they said that much themselves).
Waiting for the brexies to cry foul about sovreignity
now that we have swapped the evil EU hegemony for being supplicants to Trumpism, so desperate to secure a trade deal that 'British Values' come a distant second to America First.
Estimates are Germany €4-5bn, France €2-3bn pa etc, this is to maintain the same EU budget spending
how much do they save without having to give us money back? without us the EU budget spend reduces, non?
Germany is already facing €20-40bn pa for the 1 million migrants they took in
again. 40bn is YOUR number. also of the 1m migrants to Germany, a quarter of them are not refugees or asylum seekers.
pressure from US for them to increase NATO spending by €30bn to meet the 2% (they are barely over 1%)
did I misunderstand Mike's pie chart above? it's behind a paywall so I can't check. that appears to show Germany's defence spend at 5%?
I've just remembered that I meant to ask this a while ago....Andy (Jamba), ninfan-
The impending Euro debt crisis. As I understand it, we're not on the hook for that. We're [i]part[/i] of it in that our economy is considered part of an overall larger eurozone economy, and if a payout is needed we contribute- but my understanding is that we automatically and instantly are credited the sum back. We're really just there as a backstop.
That was the case in 2016- is this now no longer the case, would we have to pay, and then forego this payment...forever?
If this has been covered elsewhere then apologies, but it seems a central plank of your argument and I just....don't get it. I dont see us being at risk directly for, for example, any Greek economic collapse.
Now, I can see the risk to general economic wellbeing if the eurozone and beyond tanks, as we're a close trading partner, but thats not what I'm meaning here. I mean a specific, direct encumbrance to the UK as a result of any member of the EU's economy failing.
Cheers-
You did misunderstand I'm afraid Del. NATO want members spending 2% of GDP on defense, not 2% of government expenditure.
It's all bogus though, because the "defense" budget of each country contains, and is spent on, very different things.
Given the contents of the 634 pages, wanting a Yorkshire free of the UK and EU seems the only sane option.
kelvin - MemberYou did misunderstand I'm afraid Del. NATO want members spending 2% of GDP on defense, not 2% of government expenditure.
It's all bogus though, because the "defense" budget of each country contains, and is spent on, very different things.
Yup. Frinstance, we have a load of american VA students studying here on full scholarships- that's defence funding, by the US definition. Upkeep of USS Constitution? Defence funding. I reckon it'll just lead to lots of moving things around in budgets and other accounting tricks.