Whoever is Tory PM speaks the truth to you. Such a fan boy.
>sigh< 2x
Fine, if you want to abide in the land of ignorance and alternative facts then feel free, Meanwhile, the rest of us can deal with the actual facts. You decide.
But you are correct. In this case the Tory PM is being more truthful than you are, so yes, I will take her side here. Why would I side with untruths??
"we" have voted out on the basis of certainty issues. These complicate our choices on how we intend to negotiate on-going access to the single market. May is currently looking for a bespoke deal between options 2 and 3, neither of which can be mis-labelled hard Brexshit. Of course, whether we get what we want is the subject of.....
....a "negotiation"
May has stated that there is not such thing
Trying to set the political agenda by ignoring the language your opponents use to describe possible situations, is old hat. Keep it up and copy the PMs language though if you feel it's useful.
Hard Brexit, Clean Brexit, Clean Break… call it whatever your want, decide that's the path we're on if you want… but if others think it looks like we're on that path, and want to use their own term for it, you can't stop them.
You can use whatever term you want and on this tread you have demonstrated a strong propensity to use inaccurate ones. That is your choice.
Fortunately the Tory PM is being more accurate and frankly given your relative positions, that is more important right now.
EDIT: so pleased you wrote that whilst I was busy reading the PMS speech transcript on Brexit
That has really made my day hurty
BRILLIANT
These complicate our choices on how we intend to negotiate on-going access to the single market.
But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.
From the PM's speech its a direct quote and you moan about alt facts and lecture us on reality OH THE IRONY
Now Mr snake oil salesman what do you have to say now?
😀
QED.
You see kelvin, there are lots of examples of how using inaccurate language makes it very difficult for people to understand what is going on. You are not alone.
Another nail in the coffin for using referendums
P.s. hope mefty wasn't watching Barrrrrrrroneess Chakrabati using the terms referenda last night!
I think we can all clearly see what is going on and your air of superiority has crumbled due to the use of actual facts hence you played the man and not the argument as you cannot accept you were wrong despite the obvious evidence.
Its really not that hard to show you for what you are THM
QED,
You see kelvin,,,,,you know the rest.....
You really would need to explain how your claim and what she said are both actually true as they conflict with each other,
you cannot hence we get this instead
You were incorrect deal with it as you see fit but denial is not going to be very convincing
We dont intend to negotiate access to the single market she has said so VERY CLEARLY anythign else is just untrue
QED
I need to read 1984 again I think.
Personally not ready to accept that just because our Leader seeks to control the language we use, that we should obey.
Hard Brexit, Clean Brexit, Clean Break… call it what you will.
Red White & Blue Brexit if your really want to slavishly follow our Leader.
No I posted a much better link than 1984 about 20 pages ago which explains matters quite clearly and why the troll's sad little attacks merely demonstrate a failure to understand the basics of the issues in front of us. Nothing new there and as amusing a self-pawn as always.
But as I said, feel free to use the wrong terminology and continue to get it all mixed up. Your choice.
Going out now, will post the link again in a few hours if necessary. In the meantime, google is your friend...
Stop bloody bickering and let's have a proper discussion. FFS. My kids do this.
Is that a proper FFS? 😉
Hard to have a proper discussion if folk refuse to understand the basics of what is happening.
These complicate our choices on how we intend to negotiate on-going access to the single market.
But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.
You really would need to explain how your claim and what she said are both actually true as they conflict with each other
Looking at your two quotes: one mentions membership, one mentions access.
The first is for full EU members only, the second comes in many different forms (and May is claiming to be able to negotiate a whole new form of access just for us, but has red lines on FoM and ECJ that will seriously limit the negotiations).
[i][ I have attempted to avoid all THM's trigger words and phrases here… kept my language narrow to get past the police ][/i]
Progress....small steps!!
Looking better mol 😉
refuse to understand
This is a passive aggressive statemnt, the kind of which produces bickering.
Maybe you've not made yourself clear? In a friendly discussion people don't throw barbs around like this, they make sure others have understood. Remember you are talking via text only and it's not easy.
That's all I'm going to say for now.
Yes they provide links that explain things clearly and avoid engaging with trolls. Simple
You can decide why/if people refuse to understand. The issues are not the hard bit. In most cases the desire to use incorrect terms e.g., in the market, hard Brexshit is simply a device to create a false narrative
Plus mol, remember you don't have a shadow! 😉
Would be nice to have a proper debate though granted
You can decide why/if people refuse to understand. The issues are not the hard bit. In most cases the desire to use incorrect terms e.g., in the market, hard Brexshit is simply a device to create a false narrative
I'll bite… there are countries that operate in the single market that are not full members… they have to accept rules, FoM and court jurisdiction though. Hard Brexit (pick your own term if you want) is generally used to mean withdrawing from both the single market and customs union, not just giving up EU membership.
Very true. And we are now in the process of determining what model we want and where we're are prepared to compromise in order to (using May's words) "secure the best access to the single market for Britain."
The "Hard Brexshit" (sic) issue only comes into play if the UK and the EU fail to agree. This is not the intended outcome for both sides and would be extreme folly. But, IIRC, it is then that May has said that the default option would be to fall back on WTO*. That would be the worst of the options available in terms of maximising trade and investment but the best in terms of faking control. I would be unhappy if that was the outcome.
As a supporter of full freedom of movement of people my best outcome would be at the other end of the spectrum of options (EEA). This is not as good as where we are now, but it is better than the alternatives. Unfortunately my views on FoM are in the minority, so I will probably be disappointed in the end. But hey, that's democracy at work for you.
* IIRC, the basis of the SC ruling was that triggering A50 was "irrevocable", one reason why an Act was required, so we cannot go back to the status quo if no deal is agreed - Brexshit means Brexshit 😉 . We have lost the best option for ever once A50 is actually triggered.
Nice to hear Tony giving credence to the Remain camp, if he wasn't a such a warmonger and slightly deranged I reckon he'd get a lot of support. Sadly BoJo started spouting horseshite again, but he is a liar and two faced pitiful gonk so no one believes a word he says.
We should rise against Brexshite, glad to be on the correct side.
and would be extreme folly
So it'll never happen, of course....
Back to practicalities chaps - Vauxhall Nissan European Medicines Agency are all likley to disappear along with 50k direct/indirect jobs - however that's the number of EU migrants who were coming to the UK looking for work - so no problem really- it's all ying and yang (unless your the poor sod whose income halves)
It might if both sides screw up
Chances? IMO <15%
But hey, hope for the best, prepare for the worst is my motto
It is really rather simple the membership vs access thing.
1. Membership of the Single market = paid into the single market access fund and agree to allow free movement of workers..... Includes all EU members, Norway* Iceland* and Switzerland* (*with some exceptions!).
2. Access to the single market = every other country in the world.
How free or easy that access is on a sliding scale from WTO through to Some sort of free trade agreement (TTIP, CETA etc) with anything in between, eg, you import our Whisky without tariffs and we will allow your bananas in tariff free* (*made up example).
So technically May has told the truth. We are giving up 1 and will be left with 2. What 2 looks like is a matter of debate and negotiation.
Indeed it's simple - until you get into the detail. That'a mindnumblingly conplex hence we will need a transitional period too.
If we avoid Brexit will Jamie Oliver open his restaurants again?
THM, "hard brexshit" is the [b]automatic[/b] outcome unless and until we manage to negotiate a new trade deal. Which given how long these things tend to take, and that this won't even start in earnest until the leaving terms are settled (eg: rights for existing residents, divorce bill, Irish border situation, etc etc) may be a long time in the future.
[I]Indeed it's simple - until you get into the detail. That'a mindnumblingly conplex hence we will need a transitional period too. [/I]
Agree, but is the transitional period more important than the actual outcome after it - as both will need to be negotiated (at the same time).
I reckon both the detail AND the transitional period will be [b]mindnumblingly complex[/b]
True - thats why we need to get on with it now to avoid....
THM, "hard brexshit" is the automatic outcome unless and until we manage to negotiate a new trade deal. Which given how long these things tend to take, and that this won't even start in earnest until the leaving terms are settled (eg: rights for existing residents, divorce bill, Irish border situation, etc etc) may be a long time in the future.
...if not quite. Things will obviously not stop and some artificial date in the middle of negotiations.
By that time, the EU will probably be engrossed in finding an alternative currency solution anyway so the whole thing will be absurdly complex then!!
Bliar lived up to his name with his speech today. Not up to Trumpian standards but who could that?
And we are now in the process of determining what model we want
No, we are in the process of finding out what May wants and we will have to deal with.
On the contrary, she has been dealt a hand by the voters with the red lines clear - FoM and ECJ etc. so she has to play the hand that has been dealt. If she is a good bridge player she may pull of some finesses. We shall see...
You have to deal with what is in front of you, not what you wish is in front of you. The public focused on FoM and ECJ, they were at the heart of the debate. You can't airbrush history.
Don't remember any of that on my ballot paper.she has been dealt a hand by the voters with the red lines clear - FoM and ECJ etc.
Did you not get the A3 version?
she has been dealt a hand by the voters with the red lines clear - FoM and ECJ
I can't see it as clear, to be honest. I she's using the vote as a mandate for what SHE wants, not trying to figure out what WE want.
Well that's your opinion.
Don't remember any of that on my ballot paper.
That's the problem, the out tick box was like that dr who psychic paper thing that showed you what you wanted to see. 🙁
+1 The Tories (and a few posters on here) must have ****ed themselves dry contemplating how they can shaft the rest of us under the excuse of Brexit.she's using the vote as a mandate for what SHE wants, not trying to figure out what WE want.
Perhaps it's unwise to assume others share your values?
I would imagine she is thinking how the **** do I sort this bllx out?
I don't see as she's made any effort to ask any of us sort of brexit we want though has she?
What are you expecting?
I would expect some sort of debate, perhaps in parliament, perhaps some sort of attempt to find a cross-party consensus. Instead what we have is "brexit means brexit" and red lines invented on the hoof to appease the frothing kippers in the tory party.
So let's consider the evidence:
We have just had a national debate from which the factors that the winners focused on (immigration/FoM, ECJ/fake control, costs of membership) and didn't focus on (benefits of UK membership, minimal cost, economics, workers rights, environment issues etc) became brutally clear.
Do you expect the issues that the winners focused on to be ignored?
We then had Parliamentary debates during which the two main parties demonstrated that they cannot achieve intra-party consensus let alone cross- party consensus (other than respect the outcome) and another party achieved consensus around not respecting the result. Some others simple made mischief
How do expect to achieve consensus from this? What would it look like and how would it be presented in negotiations?
The SC ruled that triggering A50 was irrevocable (although bizarrely this is now being challenged)
So which bit of Brexshit means Brexshit can we ignore? What do you know that the SC judges did not?
Back to the first para, which of May's red lines have been made up rather than being at the core of the lengthy national debate?
FoM ?
Role of ECJ/control?
Which of these has been subsequently made up on the hoof ?