Volumiza
The alright "V", B-Boy cypher cat
Can you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.For example?
Can you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.For example?
You haven't left yet.Can you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.
Yeah sure, being a totally sovereign nation again appeals to me. I don't like the fact that we moved from simply being the EEC without consent from the nation.Can you elaborate on those points?
I mean we have had our currency devalued by like 1/4 .... That's not entirely insignificantCan you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.
We haven't even left yet and it's already been bad enough. Even the Tories own projections show leaving under Boris' shitty deal will be extremely harmful to the economy ffs.Can you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.
Those aren't points, that's just opinion, what basis is there for that?Yeah sure, being a totally sovereign nation again appeals to me. I don't like the fact that we moved from simply being the EEC without consent from the nation.
so of all the doom mongering predictions absolutely none of it matches up with the complete shit-show that transpired? That's quite impressive.Can you not remember George Osborne and David Camerons performances towards the end of the debates? It was cringeworthy stuff, warning of financial armageddon. None of which has transpired.
The USA are the biggest single country but as a bloc the EU is far bigger and different types of products which are usually urgent.The US is our biggest export partners by a decent margin so is the distance factor really so profound? I mean we've been importing lamb from New Zealand for over 100 years.
The problem with staying in a customs union or the single market is that we don't become an independent trading nation and the whole thing is utterly pointless, we should have just stayed in the EU in that case because we are staying in effectively only on much worse terms.
The way I see it now is that if Labour can get some legally binding guarantees on Johnson's deal regarding regulatory standards then it should go through.
Do you actually believe that?Yes it would and to a centrist like myself that is mana from heaven mate.
No matter the margins in a democratic process. A win is a win and a loss is a loss.
I make no secret of being a remainer and that makes me fairly unpopular at home at times but I did it for selfish reasons as already stated but that doesn'tmean I wish for ever further union so in those respects I sympathise with the Leave voters.
Exactly that. Because of his stupid antics there is zero trust and hence the Letwin outcome.Yes. People massively understand what the Letwin ammendment achieved and what that means going forward (and why the govt probably won't be allowed to bring a MV today):
Thread here:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
If not for Boris's bluster coming back to bite him Letwin was a bit of a glancing blow for him.
Crikey, this is funso of all the doom mongering predictions absolutely none of it matches up with the complete shit-show that transpired? That's quite impressive.
To remain in the single market you have to accept freedom of movement. From all I heard from leavers and the campaign was to leave it and the biggest gripe was FoM. I'm not sure if this was some confusion by Dan or just him thinking we'll be given some special place in it. I've watched a lot them during 2016 say they'll be willing to take a hit of 5-10 years just so they can leave.
Yet now people like you tell us repeatedly that leaving the single market was always the plan and every who voted leave definitely knew and wanted this.
You're either lying or ignorant.
I do yes.Do you actually believe that?
That is correct, but the Leave campaign spent their entire energies trying to deceive people into believing that was not the case, and that you could Leave without the resultant pain. Thus all the lies about potential scenarios that people who understood the EU properly knew were impossible.To remain in the single market you have to accept freedom of movement. From all I heard from leavers and the campaign was to leave it and the biggest gripe was FoM. I'm not sure if this was some confusion by Dan or just him thinking we'll be given some special place in it. I've watched a lot them during 2016 say they'll be willing to take a hit of 5-10 years just so they can leave.
Leave has always meant leave. The EU is set up in such a way that there's no halfway house soft Brexit. In order to do your own trade deals, end FoM and not be under EU laws you have to leave.
I'm not for leaving by the way. We should revoke A50.
They won't. Other countries know the UK urgently needs new trading partners and they can speculate. The UK will end up importing substandard products from other countries simply because it's more sustainable and will cost less than having the standard quality ones.The USA are the biggest single country but as a bloc the EU is far bigger and different types of products which are usually urgent.
The distance factor is the speed. With the USA you've got a minimum of about three weeks to sort yourself out with the paperwork. NZ you've got three months at least.
Nearly every nation on Earth is in some kind of trading bloc who look out for each other - I have no idea how the UK will rally alone to get any better deals than they currently have with far less influence and appeal.
Agree it's pointless to leave the EU and stay in the CU/SM but then imo all Brexit's will be harmful.
Legally binding would be the ECJ.
So, how do you explain the presence of the opposition in the House of Commons, then? After all, in your winner takes all, say whatever you want and hope you sneak over the line version of democracy the party that won should have dictatorial powers for the five years that they are in charge, shouldn't they?I do yes.
This part is for me the only one that matters in the entire Brexit debate. Do people realize how ridiculous that suggestion is? There isn't an organization, country, company, household, you can be part of, entirely or partially, without being under its rules. All of his entities are legally and/or geographically defined, specific rules will apply to them.To remain in the single market you have to accept freedom of movement. From all I heard from leavers and the campaign was to leave it and the biggest gripe was FoM. I'm not sure if this was some confusion by Dan or just him thinking we'll be given some special place in it. I've watched a lot them during 2016 say they'll be willing to take a hit of 5-10 years just so they can leave.
Leave has always meant leave. The EU is set up in such a way that there's no halfway house soft Brexit. In order to do your own trade deals, end FoM and not be under EU laws you have to leave.
I'm not for leaving by the way. We should revoke A50.
The reason for the division is that no party has had a workable majority since the referendum. Combine that with the fact that our contrarian politics means the opposition would not back any deal brought to Parliament simply because it was negotiated by their opposition and it means perpetual log-jam.You're grouping together half the country under a single label and saying they all would only accept their perfect option. Why? Personally I'm part of that hardcore Remain group that want nothing to do with anything less than revokation, but I'm well aware that a deal that kept the UK in the customs union would attract a large number of 'Remainers'.
This whole thing never needed to divide the country the way it has. Given the extremely close result, the obvious choice was to go for a very soft Brexit that took us out of the EU while retaining very close links. I wouldn't have been happy and the ERG wouldn't have been happy, but I think most people would have just gotten on with it.
The public attitudes now don't reflect the public attitudes of 2016. They have been wildly shaped by the events of the last three years. In 2016 most Leavers weren't supportive of a hard brexit, and most Remainers weren't clamouring for a second referendum or revokation. These huge divisions were caused by Theresa fecking May and her stupid decision to try and hold her party together by keeping the ERG on side.
No that's not a correct interpretation of what I think at all NinjaFletch. Of course I understand the relevance of the opposition but I do believe the result of the 2016 referendum should be enacted before overturning it as I genuinely believe something important will be gone if a national vote is ultimately ignored.So, how do you explain the presence of the opposition in the House of Commons, then? After all, in your winner takes all, say whatever you want and hope you sneak over the line version of democracy the party that won should have dictatorial powers for the five years that they are in charge, shouldn't they?
If you're honest about being a Remainer I'd think carefully about legitimising a winners/losers narrative as if we were talking about a kids football match.
I'm seriously unsure whether they'd let us back in at all. The UK makes life constantly difficult for the EU, but once we were in the benefits for them just about outweighed the cons. If we were actually out though, would they really welcome back in a disruptive country that recently cost them many billions, and which could be expected to keep delivering UKIP MEP's?People say that the EU would force the Euro and Schenghen on us, but I don't think they would.
So you know better than the governments own economic analysis?No that's not a correct interpretation of what I think at all NinjaFletch. Of course I understand the relevance of the opposition but I do believe the result of the 2016 referendum should be enacted before overturning it as I genuinely believe something important will be gone if a national vote is ultimately ignored.
If then, it turns out to be the horror show some believe (I don't think it will be quite that bad personally) then as someone else has pointed out, someone could in the future run on taking us back in. At least we would have tried and respected a vote.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being dishonest though. I've no need to be dishonest.
I really struggle to understand this point of view.I'm in the category of being a remainer but wanting the vote to be honoured. I wasn't 100% happy with the EU but I thought it was better to try and influence from within than leave it altogether. Whatever foul play took place during the campaign is largely irrelavent now unless someone can prove in the courts that criminal behaviour took place of a nature that one its own influenced the vote. Truth is there are many people in the country who for one reason or another were unhappy with either the EU or (more truthfully) the government and saw the vote as away of getting their voices heard.
I run a business and 70% of what we do comes from Airbus and I am majorly concerned about the fallout from this.
However, we have to leave and feel the pain that 90% of posters on this site, including myself, think we are going to feel.
If that turns out to be correct then some party - probably Labour can campaign to take us back in.
People say that the EU would force the Euro and Schenghen on us, but I don't think they would.
Trying to overturn this result is the wrong way.
The Tories will probably win the GE but it would be fatal if they were to win by a landslide.
The way the other parties are acting at the moment would make that a real possibility.
This is the point, the leave campaign lied. Literally constantly.To remain in the single market you have to accept freedom of movement. From all I heard from leavers and the campaign was to leave it and the biggest gripe was FoM. I'm not sure if this was some confusion by Dan or just him thinking we'll be given some special place in it. I've watched a lot them during 2016 say they'll be willing to take a hit of 5-10 years just so they can leave.
Leave has always meant leave. The EU is set up in such a way that there's no halfway house soft Brexit. In order to do your own trade deals, end FoM and not be under EU laws you have to leave.
I'm not for leaving by the way. We should revoke A50.
Because without respecting the first one, why should the results of a second be any more valid? It's this argument I don't get. If we leftand in 10 years time there was another referendum fair enough but on what planet is it acceptable to ignore the results of one and have a second hoping for a different answer (as that is all it is). Where would that one end?The only people who can ignore the previous vote are the people? So which people are being overruled here and how can that be a larger group than ignoring all people by refusing a second referendum?
I'm unsure that you do, because you responded by talking about winners and losers in response to a point about the EU ref not giving a mandate for a hard brexit.No that's not a correct interpretation of what I think at all NinjaFletch. Of course I understand the relevance of the opposition but I do believe the result of the 2016 referendum should be enacted before overturning it as I genuinely believe something important will be gone if a national vote is ultimately ignored.
If then, it turns out to be the horror show some believe (I don't think it will be quite that bad personally) then as someone else has pointed out, someone could in the future run on taking us back in. At least we would have tried and respected a vote.
I'm not sure why you think I'm being dishonest though. I've no need to be dishonest.
The argument falls short, because it implies that people are just being asked the same question again. If that was true then you would be absolutely right. That's not the case however. When the 1st ref happened, people were being asked to vote for a position that at the time was undefined. Leave could have meant any one of a hundred different things. The grown up thing to do now we know what is actually on the table is to confirm that the chosen path is the one people actually wanted. It's not just repetition.Because without respecting the first one, why should the results of a second be any more valid? It's this argument I don't get. If we leftand in 10 years time there was another referendum fair enough but on what planet is it acceptable to ignore the results of one and have a second hoping for a different answer (as that is all it is). Where would that one end?
Can you imagine the chaos if remain won? Can you say remain would give up if Leave won again?
I don't see how its been wrong. It's been a shitshow economically an getting worse. Also the main point your missing is we haven't even left yet.The same way Remainers were being fed hyperbole regarding the economy if the UK voted leave.
But unless I'm living in some parallel universe we haven't ignored the result of the first one, we've spent 3 years negotiating a withdrawal.Because without respecting the first one, why should the results of a second be any more valid? It's this argument I don't get. If we leftand in 10 years time there was another referendum fair enough but on what planet is it acceptable to ignore the results of one and have a second hoping for a different answer (as that is all it is). Where would that one end?
Can you imagine the chaos if remain won? Can you say remain would give up if Leave won again?
Why do people keep bringing up Norway? You can't honour the GFA with a Norway style arrangement.The reason for the division is that no party has had a workable majority since the referendum. Combine that with the fact that our contrarian politics means the opposition would not back any deal brought to Parliament simply because it was negotiated by their opposition and it means perpetual log-jam.
Logically extracting ourselves from the EU was going to be a transitional process taking c. 15 years and the way to do this would be to become Norway, then Switzerland, then Canada whilst being able to negotiate without the time and political pressures we're currently seeing. Naturally if 5 years into the extraction process a new government were elected with a manifesto against further extraction or in fact for re-integration, then we'd do so. If a government was elected on further extraction then we'd continue on that path.
This is the same as all laws of course, you end up with successful parties being right in the centre of the populaces belief systems. Taxation as an example has been similar (as a % of GDP) under all successful governments of the last 20-25 years; meaning we have population consensus on this. Political maneuvering and population consensus would naturally result in all parties after a few elections being comfortable with the status quo on Brexit (whether that be sticking with Norway, Switzerland or Canada would depend on negotiations by the party or parties in power).
That's why Johnson's agreement to have further discussions seems fine to me (as did May's). If Labour win an election they can negotiate the next phase as they choose, if that's further integration then that would be their prerogative. If the Brexit Party won the next election then they would torpedo discussions in favour of the WTO. If the Tories won they would continue on the current path.
remain was on the 2016 ballot paper and it lost. Having it on the next ballot just implies the last vote didn’t really count imo. I can appreciate other opinions but I don’t think there should be another referendum. The WA is there on the table, it’s better than no deal and there’s not enough time or political willpower to start renegotiating. MPs should sign itWhy dont they aprove a deal in the House then do a referendum with 2 options: The Deal or Remain?
If the result of the 1st gets overturned before implementation that is ignoring in my book.But unless I'm living in some parallel universe we haven't ignored the result of the first one, we've spent 3 years negotiating a withdrawal.
The two referendums are not on the same thing is as simply as i can put it. The first was a direction of travel which we've done, the second is to confirm we're happy with the destination. That's not a complex thing to understand so i put it to you that you do perfectly understand it you just don't like it.I've heard.
I'm not intentionally saying no one can change their mind Smores , but also telling 52% of people, 'Sorry, we don't like your answer, have another go' is also wrong and a major reason why the Tories could potentially do so well in a GE.Shouting "it's wrong you can't change your mind you have to respect your 2016 self" at people has got to be one of the worst political arguments I've heard.
Far too sensible.Why dont they aprove a deal in the House then do a referendum with 2 options: The Deal or Remain?
Except that in 2016 People knew what remaining meant. The absolute shit show that has been the last three years clearly shows that no one knew what leaving meant or looked like.remain was on the 2016 ballot paper and it lost. Having it on the next ballot just implies the last vote didn’t really count imo. I can appreciate other opinions but I don’t think there should be another referendum. The WA is there on the table, it’s better than no deal and there’s not enough time or political willpower to start renegotiating. MPs should sign it
I don’t agree. This also implies that this time around everyone voting will be fully aware of what is in the WA which they obviously won’t.Except that in 2016 People knew what remaining meant. The absolute shit show that has been the last three years clearly shows that no one knew what leaving meant or looked like.
So a Referendum of this deal v Remain is perfectly logical.
You see, I disagree. Did the remain campaign make any mention of further EU integration and the steady walk towards full federalism? The possibility of an EU military force? No. Remain was fought on the keeping the Status Quo when in fact this isn't what we will get.Except that in 2016 People knew what remaining meant. The absolute shit show that has been the last three years clearly shows that no one knew what leaving meant or looked like.
So a Referendum of this deal v Remain is perfectly logical.
It was always going to be, because the situation when you're throwing away a wealth of integration and opportunity is inherently shit.Crikey, this is fun
My point remains the same, it needn't have been a shit show. Politicians have made it one.