DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 .We have had the Referendum, and a million plus people voted leave. That is done and dusted. I would be quite happy to have a second vote given to the people. However, it would have to be a democratic vote. Either, accept the Prime Minister's deal, or no deal at all. Personally, I would hope for the latter, as the current deal is far too soft, and still will allow us to be shoved around by the E.U. A hard Brexit is needed imo. Macron really expects us to allow E.U. fishing in U.K. waters!!! He and his cronies can go and do one. French piece of shi-. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 FISHING THO M8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 23 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said: .We have had the Referendum, and a million plus people voted leave. That is done and dusted. I would be quite happy to have a second vote given to the people. However, it would have to be a democratic vote. Either, accept the Prime Minister's deal, or no deal at all. Personally, I would hope for the latter, as the current deal is far too soft, and still will allow us to be shoved around by the E.U. A hard Brexit is needed imo. Macron really expects us to allow E.U. fishing in U.K. waters!!! He and his cronies can go and do one. French piece of shi-. A million plus voted to stay too so what's your point? And how is a strongarm take it or leave it vote 'democratic'? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 2 hours ago, FoxNotFox said: I think I've said before but I could see a transferable vote being used, though one can't see remainers wanting to make a 2nd choice! Despite having criticisms of the EU, I'd vote Remain again, but don't know which I'd transfer my vote to. Autonomy, guaranteed short-term mayhem & serious medium-term economic damage (No Deal) v. More minor, if pointless short/medium-term damage but no guaranteed autonomy.....tough choice! Mind you, which will a No Dealer prefer, Remain or Vassal State? And which will a May loyalist prefer, No Deal chaos or Remain sell-out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 The Bank of England really doesn't care about its credibility does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 7 minutes ago, SMX11 said: The Bank of England really doesn't care about its credibility does it? Neither does the country it's named after at the moment... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSi13 Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 Oh dear. The Hammond/Treasury estimate is being torn apart so what do the government do? Why of course panic and get Carney to come out and threaten us with the same thermonuclear garbage that we were threatened with prior to the referendum. It's sad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 28 November 2018 Share Posted 28 November 2018 36 minutes ago, SMX11 said: The Bank of England really doesn't care about its credibility does it? The worst thing about it is they make wrong prediction after wrong prediction and still expect everyone to swallow everything they say, Carney has risked his whole reputation just to satisfy the treasury. The way it's neutrality has been compromised has been terrible, are they going to stick their noses in when we have General Elections in the future and tell us not to vote Labour because of the economic cost - it honestly wouldn't surprise me these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WigstonWanderer Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, MattP said: Here's a decent read from Martin Howe QC about why this deal is so bad. Wow, reading through that and assuming that his points are valid, and that I’ve understood them, May’s deal really is the pits isn’t it? Surely neither Brexiteers or Remainers can be in favour? Damn David Cameron for trying to patch up Tory divisions by putting such a simplistic vote to the country! I see no way out of this that keeps democratic credibility, sovereign integrity and the economy all intact. Edited 29 November 2018 by WigstonWanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 I find it amusing but a bit sad that "the people have voted" (regrettably, I voted leave) and therefore that's it, democracy has spoken, we're not to deliberate over the matter again. In practical terms leaving is just so difficult, even if there wasn't a massively divided party propped up by some Northern Irish seats and we had a competent PM I can't imagine negotiations running smoothly. 2 years is too small a window, a remain voter is leading the leave campaign, a leave voter represents a divided party whose supporters largely voted remain, the EU are belligerent, the actual decision was nebulous and the cabinet is incompetent amongst other factors. Really it couldn't have gone much worse whichever side you voted for (aside from some that wanted no deal from the beginning but I can't remember seeing anybody say so in 2016). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 Anyone think we'll see a fit of outrage about how white, male, pale and stale the BoE is like we did with the ERG meeting last week? Thought not, can't think why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lionator Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 No deal would be catastrophic, there's no polishing it, people would die as a result of it, Phillip Hammond basically said so, so did the Bank of England, you'd think these people would know more than say JRM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 7 minutes ago, Lionator said: No deal would be catastrophic, there's no polishing it, people would die as a result of it, Phillip Hammond basically said so, so did the Bank of England, you'd think these people would know more than say JRM. No, the whole world will be queueing up to do a free-trade deal a minute after midnight on the day we leave and the EU needs us more than we need them, remember? Oh, and think of all those lovely unicorns. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzy Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 21 minutes ago, Lionator said: No deal would be catastrophic, there's no polishing it, people would die as a result of it, Phillip Hammond basically said so, so did the Bank of England, you'd think these people would know more than say JRM. Really? Sounds a bit dramatic to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 17 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: Really? Sounds a bit dramatic to me... Dramatics in the politics thread? Best joke you've told all week Izzy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said: Really? Sounds a bit dramatic to me... There is an expectation that No Deal would disrupt complex supply chains for medicines, a large proportion of which are imported from the EU. This is an obvious risk to anyone whose health depends on medication. The Govt has recommended that suppliers stockpile medicines, but this isn't always straightforward due to storage, shelf life and temperature issues. Here's an article by the President of the Pharmaceutical Society: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/prescription-drug-brexit-pharmacy-supply-chains-shortages I'm not suggesting that anyone should be panicking. I'd still hope that No Deal won't happen - or that some provisional agreement can address this, if No Deal looks imminent. That's by no means certain, though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 answer me this - if all of the financial and economic forecasting is scaremongering and 'project fear' then why are they trying so hard to keep impartial legal advice on brexit covered up? i'll take a stab - they are covering up the legal advice because it confirms that the financial and economic forecasting is correct and brexit has nothing to offer that is better than we already have. easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said: answer me this - if all of the financial and economic forecasting is scaremongering and 'project fear' then why are they trying so hard to keep impartial legal advice on brexit covered up? i'll take a stab - they are covering up the legal advice because it confirms that the financial and economic forecasting is correct and brexit has nothing to offer that is better than we already have. easy. Or that is explains that Mrs May's deal doesn't deliver what she claims...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMX11 Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 2 hours ago, Lionator said: No deal would be catastrophic, there's no polishing it, people would die as a result of it, Phillip Hammond basically said so, so did the Bank of England, you'd think these people would know more than say JRM. I'm sorry but stating things like that completely undermines your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Captain... Posted 29 November 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 29 November 2018 I’m still just completely baffled we didn’t just take a Norway or Switzerland deal as the starting point. The model is in place the EU can’t refuse anything and there is no major disruption to our whole economy. It honours the referendum, even if only in name. Gives us breathing space to then break down individual elements of the deal and make it work for us. Then a reassessment 5 years down the line. I think its dosgraceful that Mogg and his cronies have hijacked a binary vote to push their own agenda. Nobody voted on leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ nobody voted on the single market, customs unions, open borders, CFP, CAP... All of that has been put in the mouths of the people by the ERG and others with an agenda. MattP and others may have voted to leave assuming we would leave all of those things but not every leaver did. Some just wanted to protest the EU and leaving, even if only in name, would have been enough. The question was a simplification of one of the most complicated, multi-faceted and divisive questions ever posed in British politics, backed up by lies and self serving politicians vying for the enhancement of their political career not the good of the country. Cameron then has the bloody cheek to F*** off and leave someone else to pick up his mess. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxNotFox Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 (edited) It seems May thinks extending A50 will invalidate her deal and they'll have to start again on a new deal... Quote Asked whether an extension could be made to article 50, the timetable which decrees the UK leave on 29 March next year, to allow time for a referendum, May argued this would invalidate the deal agreed in Brussels on Sunday. ... I wonder what the EU will say about that? Is May just tightening the thumb screws? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/29/extending-article-50-would-invalidate-brexit-deal-says-may Edited 29 November 2018 by FoxNotFox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kopfkino Posted 29 November 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 29 November 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Captain... said: I’m still just completely baffled we didn’t just take a Norway or Switzerland deal as the starting point. The model is in place the EU can’t refuse anything and there is no major disruption to our whole economy. It honours the referendum, even if only in name. Gives us breathing space to then break down individual elements of the deal and make it work for us. Then a reassessment 5 years down the line. False. The EU could have refused both options. They certainly would have, well actually never put it on the table, refused Switzerland. It hates the Swiss deal with tons of bilateral agreements on top of EFTA. It certainly was never on offer to us in quite the same depth. It's somewhere close to where we're heading anyway, just in a simpler way without the perks that come from accepting things like FoM. Same with Norway, the EU could veto our EEA membership, as could Norway, Liechtenstein, and Iceland. Norway certainly had objections to us joining. Certainly wouldn't have been accepted if we used it as a stop-gap mind, this idea we could just rework it to suit us is daft, we could probably have worked with partners to change it but thinking we could break it down and reassess later down the line wasn't an option, it would still take a negotiation period to actually get in and sort customs codes. These 'off the shelf models' aren't quite as easy as people want to believe. But still the best option available. Norway has as much of an influence in the EU as anyone outside France and Germany and we, being much larger, could retain most of the influence we had without the deep political union. But I do agree with the second paragraph. They claim to speak for the people but in no way do they. They don't speak for the median voter, they probably don't speak for the median leave voter. But they were successful at seizing the leave agenda to make it mean having no sort of rational relationship with the EU based on god knows what. I mean they even managed to convince people that in a globalised world where the EU is the regulatory superpower that dropping all ties with it and trading with the whole world on WTO terms was in anyway viable. But their problem is, at no point, despite seizing the agenda, have they been able to articulate any kind of viable plan or had any answers to any of the questions. Them and the people that swallow their shite have such little understanding of the modern world and globalisation, it's sad. As a political faction, they deserve sinking and I wouldn't normally say that. Edited 29 November 2018 by Kopfkino 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 1 hour ago, Kopfkino said: The EU could have refused both options. Maybe they could have done but it would be a lot harder to as precedents have already been set. As I said that would have been the starting point for me, it may not be as easy as I implied but you start there and work towards greater separation, but you have that agreed up front and then chip away at it. It may have exposed our hand, or lack of one, much earlier but it would have given a stability to the negotiations and a reassurance that a disastrous no deal could be avoided. That then becomes the alternative to the deal instead of no deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 4 hours ago, lifted*fox said: answer me this - if all of the financial and economic forecasting is scaremongering and 'project fear' then why are they trying so hard to keep impartial legal advice on brexit covered up? i'll take a stab - they are covering up the legal advice because it confirms that the financial and economic forecasting is correct and brexit has nothing to offer that is better than we already have. easy. Not really - remember Carney and co said that even a leave vote (just the vote, let alone actually leaving) would lead to economic ruin. More or less guaranteed it, in fact. It didn’t. This is why when they come out with this guff again people take it with a pinch of salt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 29 November 2018 Share Posted 29 November 2018 2 minutes ago, Milo said: Not really - remember Carney and co said that even a leave vote (just the vote, let alone actually leaving) would lead to economic ruin. More or less guaranteed it, in fact. It didn’t. This is why when they come out with this guff again people take it with a pinch of salt my original question though - if the deal is so good why are they trying to keep the legal advice hidden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts