Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

44 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Ruth Davidson:

 

The question on the Brexit ballot paper asked voters whether the UK should stay or leave the European Union - it did not ask if the country should be divided by different deals for different home nations.

While I recognise the complexity of the current negotiations, no government of the Conservative and Unionist party should countenance any deal that compromises the political, economic or constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.

All sides agree there should be no return to the borders of the past between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Similarly, jeopardising the UK’s own internal market is in no-one’s interest.

If regulatory alignment in a number of specific areas is the requirement for a frictionless border, then the prime minister should conclude this must be on a UK-wide basis.

It does look like no deal would be better than a bad deal, wouldn’t you agree?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Where do you get this from given only about 110 out of 650 backed the amendment to stay in the customs union?

 

You seem to be living in May 2016.

You seem to be bizarrely trying to convince people that votes that are no such thing are votes for a hard Brexit. 

 

Over the last few months you've used this argument whilst I've told you that the government won't accept hard Brexit and will back down on all key points. So far I'm feeling pretty smug.

 

If we ever end up at the point of a hard brexit becoming reality we'll get to find out who's right won't we?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It does look like no deal would be better than a bad deal, wouldn’t you agree?

No. There's no deal that would be as bad as 'no deal'.

Edited 5 December 2017 by Guest

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

No. There's no deal that would be as bad as 'no deal'.

 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You seem to be bizarrely trying to convince people that votes that are no such thing are votes for a hard Brexit. 

 

Over the last few months you've used this argument whilst I've told you that the government won't accept hard Brexit and will back down on all key points. So far I'm feeling pretty smug.

 

If we ever end up at the point of a hard brexit becoming reality we'll get to find out who's right won't we?

Sorry but you have totally lost me here, what are you actually defining as a hard Brexit?

 

I assume a Soft Brexit is staying in the Single Market and Customs Union (something which when proposed was voetd against by the house), I've presumed you meant a hard Brexit is leaving those two.

 

The government intention isn't hard Brexit, it's somewhere in between the two. If they vote down the deal, we get what people like describe as the hardest idea i.e leaving on WTO terms.

 

Have I misread your position?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

Laugh it up. You'll never get to find out 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

Sorry but you have totally lost me here, what are you actually defining as a hard Brexit?

 

I assume a Soft Brexit is staying in the Single Market and Customs Union (something which when proposed was voetd against by the house), I've presumed you meant a hard Brexit is leaving those two.

 

The government intention isn't hard Brexit, it's somewhere in between the two. If they vote down the deal, we get what people like describe as the hardest idea i.e leaving on WTO terms.

 

Have I misread your position?

Given that I've told you that isn't my position on at least fifteen occasions, clearly you have.

 

As I've said previously, my one and only concern is the ability to get tariff free trade. If we achieve that it is the softest realistic Brexit. To get it we won't be able to have the things the hard Brexiteers wanted.

 

On the other side there is hard Brexit which is happy to have no deal rather than have ecj intervention. It's all about 'taking back control' (allegedly). 

 

Over recent months you and your ilk have argued that we shouldn't concede to the EU on paying a Brexit bill or on ecj intervention.

 

In between there is a rainbow of possible brexits.

 

Teresa May is leading negotiations that are far closer to soft Brexit than hard Brexit, however much you try to claim your position isn't where it was before or that this is actually a really hard form of Brexit.

 

The deal struck yesterday (before being unstruck) accepted huge payments to the EU,  ecj having the final say over EU citizens in the UK (though the UK wanted this limited to 5 years whereas the EU wanted it forever - as we've backed down on every other point so I have no doubt we'd have backed down on this one too), part of the UK being kept aligned to EU regulations, and a soft border leaving questions over the ability to monitor immigration. This is a world away from the Brexit you wanted. It looks more like EU-membership-lite.

Edited 5 December 2017 by Guest

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Given that I've told you that isn't my position on at least fifteen occasions, clearly you have.

 

As I've said previously, my one and only concern is the ability to get tariff free trade. If we achieve that it is the softest realistic Brexit.

 

On the other side there is hard Brexit which is happy to have no deal rather than have ecj intervention. It's all about 'taking back control' (allegedly). 

 

Over recent months you and your ilk have argued that we shouldn't concede to the EU on paying a Brexit bill or on ecj intervention.

 

In between there is a rainbow of possible brexits.

 

Teresa May is leading negotiations that are far closer to soft Brexit than hard Brexit, however much you try to claim your position isn't where it was before or that this is actually a really hard form of Brexit.

 

The deal struck yesterday (before being unstruck) accepted huge payments to the EU,  ecj having the final say over EU citizens in the UK (though the UK wanted this limited to 5 years whereas the EU wanted it forever - as we've backed down on every other point so I have no doubt we'd have backed down on this one too), part of the UK being kept aligned to EU regulations, and a soft border leaving questions over the ability to monitor immigration. This is a world away from the Brexit you wanted. It looks more like EU-membership-lite.

What do you think happens when the leave voters feel cheated by this deal? Are you not concerned they may mobilise behind a UKIP or more extreme party to get what they want. If just half of them unified, that would be 8.5 million votes for a party, that could be dangerous. Be careful what you wish for.

[Guest Kopfkino]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What do you think happens when the leave voters feel cheated by this deal? Are you not concerned they may mobilise behind a UKIP or more extreme party to get what they want. If just half of them unified, that would be 8.5 million votes for a party, that could be dangerous. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Once he realises there's 8.5m votes available, man of the people Jezza will save the day with his hokey cokey Brexit and offer the students free chicken nuggets to keep them onside. 

[Fox Ulike]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What do you think happens when the leave voters feel cheated by this deal? Are you not concerned they may mobilise behind a UKIP or more extreme party to get what they want. If just half of them unified, that would be 8.5 million votes for a party, that could be dangerous. Be careful what you wish for.

It’s a good point although I dispute your number of 8.5m.

 

How many people in this country are actually in favour of a hard brexit right now?

 

I’d suggest it was a lot less than that although I haven’t seen any surveys for a while.

[Fox Ulike]

54 minutes ago, toddybad said:

No. There's no deal that would be as bad as 'no deal'.

I think they're the same thing.

 

No deal would put us on WTO terms.

 

So if that's better than a 'bad deal' then that would have to be us agreeing to terms that were worse than WTO.

 

Even Dave Davis isn't that stupid. I hope?

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

It’s a good point although I dispute your number of 8.5m.

 

How many people in this country are actually in favour of a hard brexit right now?

 

I’d suggest it was a lot less than that although I haven’t seen any surveys for a while.

It depends on the deal, I’d say if it was just trade, divorce, customs union etc. You would talking much less but any concessions on freedom of movement and ECJ and you would be pushing that and more.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What do you think happens when the leave voters feel cheated by this deal? Are you not concerned they may mobilise behind a UKIP or more extreme party to get what they want. If just half of them unified, that would be 8.5 million votes for a party, that could be dangerous. Be careful what you wish for.

This is your one and only chance.

Ukip existed when no chance of ever leaving was on the table and had one parliamentarian.

There will be lots of people that feel cheated, that's possibly true, but many others won't. 

I actually would personally like immigration to be rebalanced and the vote alone has cut that by 100,000 but there also had to be recognition that we need quite a few in or business and the public sector will have significant problems. 

You may feel very strongly about what you want from Brexit but have to realise that you are at the extreme end of the rainbow of possibilities. As with most things, a graph of the outcome that will make people happiest on average would probably be a bell curve with the majority somewhere in the middle - closer to my position of having lost the referendum so wanting a close partnership rather than walking away completely.

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

It depends on the deal, I’d say if it was just trade, divorce, customs union etc. You would talking much less but any concessions on freedom of movement and ECJ and you would be pushing that and more.

Very few people actually care about ECJ jurisdiction. But you might be right about freedom of movement.

 

It’s all about the immigrants really. Let’s be honest.

 

I just wish somebody on here would come out and say it!

[ealingfox]

25 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What do you think happens when the leave voters feel cheated by this deal? Are you not concerned they may mobilise behind a UKIP or more extreme party to get what they want. If just half of them unified, that would be 8.5 million votes for a party, that could be dangerous. Be careful what you wish for.

 

It's cute that you think as many as 50% of leave voters voted leave on the basis of expectations of future ECJ intervention and regulatory alignments

 

Edited 5 December 2017 by ealingfox

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Given that I've told you that isn't my position on at least fifteen occasions, clearly you have.

 

As I've said previously, my one and only concern is the ability to get tariff free trade. If we achieve that it is the softest realistic Brexit. To get it we won't be able to have the things the hard Brexiteers wanted.

 

On the other side there is hard Brexit which is happy to have no deal rather than have ecj intervention. It's all about 'taking back control' (allegedly). 

 

Over recent months you and your ilk have argued that we shouldn't concede to the EU on paying a Brexit bill or on ecj intervention.

 

In between there is a rainbow of possible brexits.

 

Teresa May is leading negotiations that are far closer to soft Brexit than hard Brexit, however much you try to claim your position isn't where it was before or that this is actually a really hard form of Brexit.

 

The deal struck yesterday (before being unstruck) accepted huge payments to the EU,  ecj having the final say over EU citizens in the UK (though the UK wanted this limited to 5 years whereas the EU wanted it forever - as we've backed down on every other point so I have no doubt we'd have backed down on this one too), part of the UK being kept aligned to EU regulations, and a soft border leaving questions over the ability to monitor immigration. This is a world away from the Brexit you wanted. It looks more like EU-membership-lite.

Problem is you back Labour and they have changed policy ten times so it is hard to keep up.

 

Tariff free trade I'm happy with from you, we'll see if that can be achieved but in reality that is going to be down to the European Union rather than our government, if they demand we stay in the single market for that then we can't realistically do it.

 

On the last point, there is nothing more patronising that a Remain voter telling a Leave voted what they voted for and whether they should be happy with it, we don't do that to you, people voted for all sorts of reasons and we all have all sorts of different levels of compromise on what we would be prepared to take.

 

As I have said before, I'm waiting to see what the final deal looks like rather than sitting here moaning every week and just believing every brief the EU releases- which incredibly you still seem to be prepared to do despite them getting it totally wrong just 18 odd hours ago.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Very few people actually care about ECJ jurisdiction. But you might be right about freedom of movement.

 

It’s all about the immigrants really. Let’s be honest.

 

I just wish somebody on here would come out and say it!

 

6 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

It's cute that you think as many as 50% of leave voters voted leave on the basis of expectations of future ECJ intervention and regulatory alignments

 

See it’s this kind of arrogance and assumptions that isolated remain in the first. We can just call them racist and put them back in their pen. Hopefully it won’t come to that and we get the hard brexit we all dream of.

[ealingfox]

Just now, Strokes said:

 

See it’s this kind of arrogance and assumptions that isolated remain in the first. We can just call them racist and put them back in their pen. Hopefully it won’t come to that and we get the hard brexit we all dream of.

 

I don't need to go anywhere near that far (which I didnt) for my statement to be true. You know that as well as I do.

[Fox Ulike]

12 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

It's cute that you think as many as 50% of leave voters voted leave on the basis of expectations of future ECJ intervention and regulatory alignments

 

 

As your average Leave voter will tell you: they voted Leave mainly because they objected to the arbitrary nature by which the Court of Justice can determine whether a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Union law. Oh, and  they don’t like brown people.

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Problem is you back Labour and they have changed policy ten times so it is hard to keep up.

 

Tariff free trade I'm happy with from you, we'll see if that can be achieved but in reality that is going to be down to the European Union rather than our government, if they demand we stay in the single market for that then we can't realistically do it.

 

On the last point, there is nothing more patronising that a Remain voter telling a Leave voted what they voted for and whether they should be happy with it, we don't do that to you, people voted for all sorts of reasons and we all have all sorts of different levels of compromise on what we would be prepared to take.

 

As I have said before, I'm waiting to see what the final deal looks like rather than sitting here moaning every week and just believing every brief the EU releases- which incredibly you still seem to be prepared to do despite them getting it totally wrong just 18 odd hours ago.

You've told us many times why you voted and what you wouldn't be happy with 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

See it’s this kind of arrogance and assumptions that isolated remain in the first. We can just call them racist and put them back in their pen. Hopefully it won’t come to that and we get the hard brexit we all dream of.

I know, I'm thankful for it every day, we couldn't have done it without them.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

You've told us many times why you voted and what you wouldn't be happy with 

Of course, but I don't expect to get 100% of the things I demanded you know, this is a negotiation, not a trip to the Supermarket.

 

We all have our red lines and none of those have been crossed yet, I'd be unhappy to see the ECJ have jurisdiction over anyone here from the March 2019, but it wouldn't be a complete deal breaker if it was agreed for a small time.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Very few people actually care about ECJ jurisdiction. But you might be right about freedom of movement.

 

It’s all about the immigrants really. Let’s be honest.

 

I just wish somebody on here would come out and say it!

They only care about ecj jurisdiction when the daily mail tells them that 'hooman rites' have stopped us repatriating 'forunerz'.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

Of course, but I don't expect to get 100% of the things I demanded you know, this is a negotiation, not a trip to the Supermarket.

 

We all have our red lines and none of those have been crossed yet, I'd be unhappy to see the ECJ have jurisdiction over anyone here from the March 2019, but it wouldn't be a complete deal breaker if it was agreed for a small time.

It isn't really a negotiation when one side gets everything they want 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

As your average Leave voter will tell you: they voted Leave mainly because they objected to the arbitrary nature by which the Court of Justice can determine whether a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under Union law. Oh, and  they don’t like brown people.

 

FFS you sound like Will Self.

 

Yeah, it was all those brown people coming into the country from Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria that won it, you aren't even thinking anymore are you?

 

I bet that's why Priti Patel was such a Brexiteer. Brown people.