Swinson said she backed a referendum on leaving the EU, she then said she backed a second referendum, she now wants to revoke the initial referendum she supported, reneging on her promise of a second referendum. She campaigned on a manifesto that supported scrapping tuition fees. She voted to treble them. I wouldn't rely on anything she says.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Has anyone got anything concrete here Smores? On the face of it, I believe that the Benn Bill makes it easier for the EU to hold their position on the current withdrawal agreement and insist nothing can be changed.
And this is why I find myself politically homeless right now. Boris? Jeremy? Jo? Serisouly? They're our 3 options?
No but the rest of us can't think of anyway this theory works. I've yet to hear any actual substance to it beyond fluffy concepts. If it's a valid concept it shouldn't be that hard to arrive at examples.
From your answer it seems like you believe the EU might drop the backstop from the withdrawal agreement if they're scared of no deal?
No, I don't believe for one second they'll drop the backstop but I believe Boris, if he wants a deal (there's nothing to suggest he does though), should be working flat out to find a workable alternative.
On this I agree with the EU, we voted to leave, we sort it out.
Well said.
Fair play that’s the worlds biggest strawman. Where have I said anything about no dealers not needing to compromise or anything of that ilk? What have I said about the Benn act? I have mentioned Benn once and it was to say Johnson was being a nob calling it the surrender act.
To clarify, we should’ve voted for the WA when we had the chance. Did you mean to add quotes from about 6 other posters because I don’t really disagree with anything you have said.
Why is he even allowed to be in there in that state?The backstop will have to be there as it is essentially a mechanism to carry over the International treaty of the Good Friday agreement. Most English people seem to be forgetting this isn't some little backroom deal sorted out between the DUP and Sinn Feinn that we can turn our back on. It's an international treaty that ended a war that was signed by the British and Irish governments but also further ratified by the EU, America and the United nations.
The ONLY latitude within the backstop is where you apply the necessary customs and safety checks. Given they CAN'T be between Northern Ireland and the Republic then they either exist in the Irish Sea (something the DUP is dead against) or the UK is tied to remain in a full customs and trade agreement with the EU, meaning we would not be able to make further trade agreements without EU agreement.
This isn't a game of Chicken - we are not in direct head on collision with the EU. They have 27 other nations with which to trade internally and the whole "no deal threat" scenario is based on the arrogant idea that keeping the UK sweet is worth more to the EU than keeping Ireland happy. The flaw in this argument is that the EU would disintegrate if it was seen to favour the UK over one of it's smaller member states. It also doesn't want to be seen as an organisation that flouts international treaties.
Brexiteers and the ERG seem to not realise that the UK already has a horrendous reputation historically as treaty breakers, second only to the Americans as riding roughshod over international law. They seem to think that we can get away with this sort of behaviour once again and fantasise of becoming a bold Buccaneering Nation once again!
The reality was however we developed an empire by monetising a venal slave trade, commited acts of piracy and theft and created counter insurgencies to destabilise other countries and then dominate and control them through acts of brutality, negligence and cruelty. The brexiteers need to realise that the English are despised in many countries and won't be trusted.
The shenanigans that Boris is trying is not skilled negotiation...it's just the same old bull the English have tried before and it is not going to fly in the modern world.
Pretty much agree with this. However I don't think the Tories will want WTO. Canada ++ will be what we get. I also don't feel that getting to a FTA like that will be as protracted as many people think. Unlike Canada the UK has been a member of the block for 45 years, it shouldn't be too much of an ask to align regulations and agree customs arrangements.
Whatever is agreed in the WA for NI will probably remain in place but will be reformed over time to better fit with the FTA.
I think that is how it will be politically and economically but to the person in the street I don't reckon that it will feel all that different.
If we can get there then maybe there will be something to build on.
I am resigned to leaving now. Softer the better. But arguing against it is starting to look ridiculous.
Oh i forgot in my list of road to naziville stories that the government are also advertising pro-brexit propoganda in our schools. Yay
Im minded to agree with all bit the bolded part...
i work with governments and what we do is often aligned with trade deals (and financing huge infra schemes for governments)... I know a lot of the people who are likley to be asked to work on a deal from the UK side and they all tell me the same thing
Typically trade deals are complex but collaberative - i.e. you are seeking to align regulations and remove barriers to promote more trade and economic benefits.
this will from a technical point of view in theory be easier in that regualations are aligned and there are no barriers... but politically this brings major problems in that almost certainly there will be areas that one side seeks to protect (financial services, or fishing rights for example) and the trade off will be that the other side feels compelled to also put up some protection... and this can escalate very quickly into tit for tat tarifs and barriers and suddenly the atmosphere becomes very confrontational
If this starts in an environment without a W.A. and there are outstanding issues over finances and ireland etc they all tell me that its going to be an extremely slow process (and even with a W.A. they tell me that a good deal for both parties will be almost if not actually impossible to negotiate in the W.A. timeframe)
Im sure if we take a bad enough deal something can be done and if the economics of WTO are harmful we might have to... equally if a combo of brexit / conservatives win I could even see them prioratising a deal with the USA before they even start an EU negotiation - a stupid decision I feel economically but politically justifiable in terms of striking new deals around the world etc.
Yeah apologies, I misread @Volumiza 's post as being yours. I've edited my original post to show that.
fair enough. Was about to go back to bedWhat's the story with the little hobgoblin? Is he ill or drunk?
Ah, I see.
In the real world you’d get suspended or fired for being drunk at work
This game of chicken has been a disgrace, no doubt.
I voted to remain but I genuinely think the referendum should be respected. I think I was one of the few in the country that thought TM's deal was ok, delivered on most of the points of Brexit while keeping in close regulatory and trade alignment during a transition period and was a good compromise for both leave and remain groups.
On this point I totally agree. The governments position on this has been a complete demolition ball!
If you are referring to any of my posts with this then I have clearly stated compromise is needed from BOTH sides. Remainers should accept the result of the largest democratic process in this country's history and the Brexiteers need to accept it could never be as hardline as some were and still are aiming for. We are still European even if the majority wanted to be free of further integration.
To be fair, this has been the position of BOTH sides and why we are still in this massivley damaging and embarrassing situation.
I'm not sure any, or many reasonable people who voted for Brexit, and there are millions, aren't aware of this Diarm.
One of the main frustrations of Brexiteers, certainly the ones I know, family and friends, feel that we (the people) weren't asked whether we wanted to sign up to anything other than a free trade agreement. I think all over Europe, the electorate should have been given the say throughout the formation of what is now the EU.
Edit: as an addition, my partner is Greek. Her family, that still live over there, have had their lives and business made very difficult by being part of the EU. The EU is not a good fit for everybody no matter its intentions.
I've been saying this for a long time as some will know. I think we're at a point where a good few MPs wish they had backed it, and would now given the chance, suitably rebranded as you say. Corbyn and McDonnell should have given a free vote on it in the first place instead of playing election games, considering they had themselves backed honouring the referendum in two elections and backed the withdrawal act in parliament.
The problem is that there aren't many solutions. And those that are possible have all been rejected already.
If people would act sensibly, and stop the "we're going to invent some magical solution" or "the EU are going to cave in because of German car manufacturers" or "we can have the same benefits outside the EU as inside the EU". These are all complete rubbish and just stoking up the divisions in the public even more.
And you know that if there was a referendum the same tripe will be spouted by all the different parties/factions in their campaigns.
It doesn't need to be "equivalent" as that's a subjective term. Who decides what's equivalent? Would you be comfortable with pressure groups achieving a UK ban of criticism of the Netanyahu regime under the guise of eliminating anti-Semitism?
Any attack on free speech is an attack on civil liberties.
We don't which is outrageous and it's being eroded all the time. Whether under the guise of anti-racism (see the criticism Momentum have gotten for genuinely fair criticisms), or by specific government policy.
The level of debate is determined by the effectiveness of said debate. The greater chance something has of winning the more it'll be used. This is the case in every election or referendum.
Telling one side of the argument to do something that's counterproductive to their cause would by definition be a rigged democratic exercise.
My point has never been that it's less democratic by design (although their is an argument for that)... My point is it's less democratic because of its size.The fact is that the electorate of each EU country gets to vote for their politicians who govern for them. It has been clear to the voters what they have been intending to do in respect of the EU and even now the electorate of each EU member state can vote for a political party who wants out of the EU. In other words, Brussels is no more or less democratic than Westminster. Well actually, at least most EU member states have proportional representation in their country so I wouldn’t want to say the EU is quite as undemocratic as that...
The EU is less democratic for the same reason a world government would be less democratic.
The alternative for me is democracy on a more local level. The more local something is the smaller the likelihood of corruption.
Think of a global government in comparison with a government of a town of 500. The chances of a huge global company successfully lobbying the former is huge and obvious. The cost is comparatively small compared with the potential benefits (a small change in policy would have huge financial ramifications). The cost to lobby the government of a population of 500 would outweigh the benefits in the vast majority of situations. The cost to lobby a government of 1 person becomes a simple trade transaction between two people.
The smaller the government the smaller the chance of corruption. That's why the EU is always going to be less democratic.
I think Farage and Johnson are idiots. I voted leave in spite of them, not because of them.
"F*ck shaking hands - get back to your own country."
Cancel brexit and vote Labour.
Do you remember when Cameron and May stood in front of no.10 after their election wins, and spoke of fixing inequality and the imbalances within our country? Well, anyone who believed them, or even gave them the benefit of the doubt, clearly hasn't been paying attention to the way the tories have sold off and destroyed our country.
So if the status quo means the continued tory rule, then no, it probably won't get any better whichever way brexit goes.
A tory government released from the shackles of the eu is their wet dream. Goodbye workers rights. Goodbye nhs. Hello tax breaks for the rich.
Got it in one.
Does anyone really think that Boris or JRM and their right wing mates actually give a sh1t about ordinary people....
Because if you do then keep talking the tablets, assuming they will be available after we crash out.
I was being polite really. It's a terrible argument on par with 30m Turks landing on our streets(with less xenophobia).
What would be more difficult to leave in the future? Think about that point for a minute. Are you basically saying that we would have more advantages from being within the EU so it would be even more damaging to leave? Because that's certainly how it seems.
If you’re of the opinion that things are getting worse then why would you wait longer to get out? It’s not that hard to grasp is it? The more time passes the more integrated into the EU we become.
I partially agree with your first point about layers obscuring democracy but size also means that policy becomes less extreme and more representational. The US federal and state laws are a good example of that but the EU environmental laws too where individual governments are too close to push them through. You will not solve climate change with localised politics.
As for corruption i really don't get how you've arrived at that. Nothing in our politics shows that to be the case as far as I'm aware. The idea that you can lobby the EU easier than MPs or local officials is a bit absurd, collective responsibility is designed to erode such corruption. Is there some specific EU corruption you're rallying against?
That's very simple to answer.
Things are not getting worse for us because of the EU.
In your most humble opinion which I tend to agree with
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
With the Benn act, assuming Boris complies and requests the extension (whilst presumably in the background saying ignore this, they made me do it), what happens if say France reject the extension? Do we end up with no deal and Brexit on Oct 31st? Or are we then likely to see the return of May’s deal which will presumably then get support as no deal looms large? Technically he’s obeyed the law by asking for the extension, doesn’t mean they have to give it though. They must be getting as fed up with it as the rest of us.
If France reject then yes it’s a no-deal. But it’s worth remembering that no matter what Boris says in the background, the EU are perfectly aware he’s running a minority government with no majority of any kind, and that a general election is coming very soon. They’ve also been having discussions with the opposition parties.
I’d be astonished if they don’t roll the dice one more time and see how the GE turns out. They don’t really have anything to lose from a few more months delay as long as it’s sorted before next summers budget talks.
Moot point. The EU will grant the extension.
Do you not think the referendum HAS been respected? The main driving force behind it has spent three years doing their best to adhere to it, a process which only seemed to highlight difficulties and reasons why it should not be respected. Feels to me like respecting the referendum has turned into flogging a dead horse.