By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I like her but she is coming across as unhinged. Chuck them out of the party for wanting a hard Brexit. Which, as Mr Corbyn has pointed out, is what the majority voted for.
The whole situation has become so polarised and ideological, there are few people actually talking sense any more.
Many of the more hard-line Leavers appear so terrified at seeing their tenuously-won victory snatched from their grasp that they're willing to say and accept almost anything to go for the most extreme exit possible and denigrate their opponents.
Those at the other end are indulging in the wildest fantasies about being rescued by (Leaver) Corbyn and leaking whatever they can lay their hands on.
Pragmatism and actually concentrating on finding, then progressing a solution to this situation we've landed ourselves in have all gone out of the window.
To be fair to May and Davis, they seem to be trying to follow a more practical line amid the maelstrom, altho are forced to appease the more howling elements of their party to stop it disintegrating and face mocking from an opposition who agree with them in principle but are intent on playing tribal games.
They're not real tories on 11:00 - Feb 6 by GlasgowBlue
I like her but she is coming across as unhinged. Chuck them out of the party for wanting a hard Brexit. Which, as Mr Corbyn has pointed out, is what the majority voted for.
When did the majority vote for a hard Brexit?
Those words weren't on the ballot paper in the Referendum. Neither was a deliberately non-negotiated exit in either the Conservative or Labour 2017 manifestoes.
They're not real tories on 11:03 - Feb 6 by Guthrum
When did the majority vote for a hard Brexit?
Those words weren't on the ballot paper in the Referendum. Neither was a deliberately non-negotiated exit in either the Conservative or Labour 2017 manifestoes.
Hard Brexit means leaving the single market and customs union, and an ability to make our own trade deals with non EU countries.. Can I link you all sides making it very clear that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market when I get to the office?
They're not real tories on 11:00 - Feb 6 by GlasgowBlue
I like her but she is coming across as unhinged. Chuck them out of the party for wanting a hard Brexit. Which, as Mr Corbyn has pointed out, is what the majority voted for.
He's wrong too. Nowhere on the ballot sheet did it give any indication of the type of deal that would be struck on exit. I don't understand how you could believe that all 52% wanted a hardline Brexit. I firmly believe a majority of voters, then and now, at least want us to explore the options of having "access" to the single market. Having this as a red line at the start of negotiations is insane, and is only in place to appease certain sections of the Tory party (and certain members of the front bench on the other side of the house). I wonder what the negotiation position would've been if May had got her majority of 100... I suspect it would've been different!
0
They're not real tories on 11:15 - Feb 6 with 7583 views
They're not real tories on 11:05 - Feb 6 by GlasgowBlue
Hard Brexit means leaving the single market and customs union, and an ability to make our own trade deals with non EU countries.. Can I link you all sides making it very clear that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market when I get to the office?
Ah, now that's a different definition to Hard Brexit than I understood, which was a sharp break with reversion to WTO rules. No transition, no prearranged or legacy deals, no potential membership of the EEA.
What you mean is Complete Negotiated Brexit, or CNB.
We need to develop a larger and more nuanced vocabulary for an issue as complex as leaving the European Union. "Hard" and "Soft" are becoming as meaningless as "Left" and "Right" in politics.
I hadn't got the impression you were that much of a hard-liner, from discussions in the run-up to the Referendum.
He's wrong too. Nowhere on the ballot sheet did it give any indication of the type of deal that would be struck on exit. I don't understand how you could believe that all 52% wanted a hardline Brexit. I firmly believe a majority of voters, then and now, at least want us to explore the options of having "access" to the single market. Having this as a red line at the start of negotiations is insane, and is only in place to appease certain sections of the Tory party (and certain members of the front bench on the other side of the house). I wonder what the negotiation position would've been if May had got her majority of 100... I suspect it would've been different!
I strongly suspect it would have been far more moderate than it is (or has to be made to seem) now. I believe that both May and Davies are more inclined towards a pragmatic solution based on economic calculations.
They're not real tories on 11:18 - Feb 6 by Guthrum
I strongly suspect it would have been far more moderate than it is (or has to be made to seem) now. I believe that both May and Davies are more inclined towards a pragmatic solution based on economic calculations.
I'm not sure how you can believe that, considering he wasn't bothered about making the calculations in the first place, even going to the lengths of lying about their existence! Any sensible decision based on an economic case will only lead to one result - withdrawal of the article 50 declaration. I have barely an iota of faith that he has any clue as to what he is doing. Turns up drunk quite a lot too apparently. That's reassuring isn't it?
I'm not sure how you can believe that, considering he wasn't bothered about making the calculations in the first place, even going to the lengths of lying about their existence! Any sensible decision based on an economic case will only lead to one result - withdrawal of the article 50 declaration. I have barely an iota of faith that he has any clue as to what he is doing. Turns up drunk quite a lot too apparently. That's reassuring isn't it?
I didn't say Davis was competent. Merely not as ideologically entrenched as Johnson, Rees-Mogg and co.
I'm not sure how you can believe that, considering he wasn't bothered about making the calculations in the first place, even going to the lengths of lying about their existence! Any sensible decision based on an economic case will only lead to one result - withdrawal of the article 50 declaration. I have barely an iota of faith that he has any clue as to what he is doing. Turns up drunk quite a lot too apparently. That's reassuring isn't it?
I'd probably be drunk quite a lot if I had to do his job in that environment, with no right answers and inevitable failure* at the end. He may even lose his seat in the next election (has happened before to unpopular ministers).
* There's going to be whole host of dissatisfied and angry people, whatever the outcome.
They're not real tories on 11:15 - Feb 6 by Guthrum
Ah, now that's a different definition to Hard Brexit than I understood, which was a sharp break with reversion to WTO rules. No transition, no prearranged or legacy deals, no potential membership of the EEA.
What you mean is Complete Negotiated Brexit, or CNB.
We need to develop a larger and more nuanced vocabulary for an issue as complex as leaving the European Union. "Hard" and "Soft" are becoming as meaningless as "Left" and "Right" in politics.
I hadn't got the impression you were that much of a hard-liner, from discussions in the run-up to the Referendum.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2018 11:26]
You are beginning to sound a bit like an expert here, and we voted to not have any of those
1
They're not real tories on 12:26 - Feb 6 with 7463 views
They're not real tories on 11:33 - Feb 6 by Guthrum
I'd probably be drunk quite a lot if I had to do his job in that environment, with no right answers and inevitable failure* at the end. He may even lose his seat in the next election (has happened before to unpopular ministers).
* There's going to be whole host of dissatisfied and angry people, whatever the outcome.
Very true, on all points made here!
0
They're not real tories on 12:40 - Feb 6 with 7440 views
They're not real tories on 11:15 - Feb 6 by Guthrum
Ah, now that's a different definition to Hard Brexit than I understood, which was a sharp break with reversion to WTO rules. No transition, no prearranged or legacy deals, no potential membership of the EEA.
What you mean is Complete Negotiated Brexit, or CNB.
We need to develop a larger and more nuanced vocabulary for an issue as complex as leaving the European Union. "Hard" and "Soft" are becoming as meaningless as "Left" and "Right" in politics.
I hadn't got the impression you were that much of a hard-liner, from discussions in the run-up to the Referendum.
[Post edited 6 Feb 2018 11:26]
Yes. By “Hard Brexit” I mean leaving the single market and customs union. The three main points of the Leave campaign were control of our borders, negotiating free trade deals with countries such as China, Australia, Canada, the USA etc. and sovereignty.
You cannot be a member of the single market and negotiate your own bi lateral trade deals. You cannot control your borders if you a member of the single market as you have to accept freedom of movement. And you cannot have full sovereignty whilst under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Both Junker and Tusk said during the campaign that you cannot be a member of the single market without accepting the three pillars of the EU.
Both the leave campaign and the remain campaign were also very clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market.
I wasn't a particularly hard line Brexiteer in the run up to the referendum. In honesty I would have preferred to have remained in a reformed EU. But the EU showed no willingness to even consider reform. Cameron was humiliated when he asked for very few concessions to bring back to the voters. I'm also of the opinion that freedom of movement is a slap in the face of the tens of thousands of non EU migrants who would like to come to the UK and contribute to our future. The door is shut on skilled non EU migrants whilst anyone from the EU, skilled or unskilled, can enter the UK. That has lead to a drive down in low paid unskilled jobs.
Now we have voted to leave I think it would be ridiculous to re enter the single market on worse terms than we already have, such as a type Norway deal. It's either a clean negotiated break with the bright future of negotiating deals around the world or it's all been a waste of time and we may as well stay in.
Of course in any negotiation we have to be able to say that we would fall back on TWO rules. Then again we do more than half of our trade under that system. It's not armegedon.
He's wrong too. Nowhere on the ballot sheet did it give any indication of the type of deal that would be struck on exit. I don't understand how you could believe that all 52% wanted a hardline Brexit. I firmly believe a majority of voters, then and now, at least want us to explore the options of having "access" to the single market. Having this as a red line at the start of negotiations is insane, and is only in place to appease certain sections of the Tory party (and certain members of the front bench on the other side of the house). I wonder what the negotiation position would've been if May had got her majority of 100... I suspect it would've been different!
I'd say that there was a better chance of what is known as hard Brexit had May got her big majority.
They're not real tories on 11:00 - Feb 6 by Guthrum
The whole situation has become so polarised and ideological, there are few people actually talking sense any more.
Many of the more hard-line Leavers appear so terrified at seeing their tenuously-won victory snatched from their grasp that they're willing to say and accept almost anything to go for the most extreme exit possible and denigrate their opponents.
Those at the other end are indulging in the wildest fantasies about being rescued by (Leaver) Corbyn and leaking whatever they can lay their hands on.
Pragmatism and actually concentrating on finding, then progressing a solution to this situation we've landed ourselves in have all gone out of the window.
To be fair to May and Davis, they seem to be trying to follow a more practical line amid the maelstrom, altho are forced to appease the more howling elements of their party to stop it disintegrating and face mocking from an opposition who agree with them in principle but are intent on playing tribal games.
They're not real tories on 12:40 - Feb 6 by GlasgowBlue
Yes. By “Hard Brexit” I mean leaving the single market and customs union. The three main points of the Leave campaign were control of our borders, negotiating free trade deals with countries such as China, Australia, Canada, the USA etc. and sovereignty.
You cannot be a member of the single market and negotiate your own bi lateral trade deals. You cannot control your borders if you a member of the single market as you have to accept freedom of movement. And you cannot have full sovereignty whilst under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Both Junker and Tusk said during the campaign that you cannot be a member of the single market without accepting the three pillars of the EU.
Both the leave campaign and the remain campaign were also very clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market.
I wasn't a particularly hard line Brexiteer in the run up to the referendum. In honesty I would have preferred to have remained in a reformed EU. But the EU showed no willingness to even consider reform. Cameron was humiliated when he asked for very few concessions to bring back to the voters. I'm also of the opinion that freedom of movement is a slap in the face of the tens of thousands of non EU migrants who would like to come to the UK and contribute to our future. The door is shut on skilled non EU migrants whilst anyone from the EU, skilled or unskilled, can enter the UK. That has lead to a drive down in low paid unskilled jobs.
Now we have voted to leave I think it would be ridiculous to re enter the single market on worse terms than we already have, such as a type Norway deal. It's either a clean negotiated break with the bright future of negotiating deals around the world or it's all been a waste of time and we may as well stay in.
Of course in any negotiation we have to be able to say that we would fall back on TWO rules. Then again we do more than half of our trade under that system. It's not armegedon.
Point of order: it's entirely possible to be in the single market AND negotiate trade deals, it's exactly what Norway do.
In any case, why would we want to negotiate our own, rather than have the increased clout of an economic bloc of 743M people which has two of the world's largest economies as members?
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
They're not real tories on 11:00 - Feb 6 by GlasgowBlue
I like her but she is coming across as unhinged. Chuck them out of the party for wanting a hard Brexit. Which, as Mr Corbyn has pointed out, is what the majority voted for.
The majority voted for brexit, but how do we know how many wanted a hard or soft brexit.
Edit: I came in late, I see this has all been discussed above.
They're not real tories on 13:59 - Feb 6 by BlueBadger
Point of order: it's entirely possible to be in the single market AND negotiate trade deals, it's exactly what Norway do.
In any case, why would we want to negotiate our own, rather than have the increased clout of an economic bloc of 743M people which has two of the world's largest economies as members?
Only through EFTA. It's a bit like Man United wanting to leave the Premier League and going to play in the SPL.
Regarding your final paragraph. The EU is notoriously slow at agreeing trade deals. Each country has their own particular interests to preserve which often puts a spanner in the works.
He's wrong too. Nowhere on the ballot sheet did it give any indication of the type of deal that would be struck on exit. I don't understand how you could believe that all 52% wanted a hardline Brexit. I firmly believe a majority of voters, then and now, at least want us to explore the options of having "access" to the single market. Having this as a red line at the start of negotiations is insane, and is only in place to appease certain sections of the Tory party (and certain members of the front bench on the other side of the house). I wonder what the negotiation position would've been if May had got her majority of 100... I suspect it would've been different!
Nobody in their right mind voting 'leave the European Union' would think that after this occurred we would still be in the European single market.
The Paz Man
0
They're not real tories on 14:41 - Feb 6 with 7292 views
They're not real tories on 14:13 - Feb 6 by GlasgowBlue
Only through EFTA. It's a bit like Man United wanting to leave the Premier League and going to play in the SPL.
Regarding your final paragraph. The EU is notoriously slow at agreeing trade deals. Each country has their own particular interests to preserve which often puts a spanner in the works.
EVERY country is notoriously slow at agreeing trade deals. That's why it's such a terrifically bad idea to take all of our current deals and flush them down the toilet without even thinking about somehow fishing them out of the bowl.
2
They're not real tories on 15:43 - Feb 6 with 7208 views
EVERY country is notoriously slow at agreeing trade deals. That's why it's such a terrifically bad idea to take all of our current deals and flush them down the toilet without even thinking about somehow fishing them out of the bowl.
I think there is another consideration as well.
Implicit in the Brexit argument, seems to be that the Trade Deals that the EU have done, can be bettered.
E.g. when we leave we are free of the EU shackles and can do are own trade deals.
OK.
As an example. Germany exports more to China than we do, by quite a margin.
It seems a reasonable question to ask of a Government that wants to negotiate trade deals, questions along the lines of:
What will you do better, that we can't do today? What is it about our future trade deal with China, that will makes us perform better. What are the targets for improvement? What is the necessary improvement target to justify not being part of a EU trade area? Why is it not possible to do the things that Germany has done to date?
Clearly being part of the EU doesn't prevent trade with countries, and doesn't stop EU countries growing their trade.
Therefore unless there is a tangible and measurable benefit of a UK specific deal vs an existing EU deal, then it seems to me arguments about trade, are dogmatic, rather than informed and pragmatic.
2
They're not real tories on 15:51 - Feb 6 with 7204 views
EVERY country is notoriously slow at agreeing trade deals. That's why it's such a terrifically bad idea to take all of our current deals and flush them down the toilet without even thinking about somehow fishing them out of the bowl.
The EU with its 27 countries all with vested interests are known as the slowest trad deal negotiators.
And who is suggesting that the U.K. takes all of our current deals and flush them down the toilet? I understood the governments position was that we Grandfather the current deals we have.
They're not real tories on 15:43 - Feb 6 by eireblue
I think there is another consideration as well.
Implicit in the Brexit argument, seems to be that the Trade Deals that the EU have done, can be bettered.
E.g. when we leave we are free of the EU shackles and can do are own trade deals.
OK.
As an example. Germany exports more to China than we do, by quite a margin.
It seems a reasonable question to ask of a Government that wants to negotiate trade deals, questions along the lines of:
What will you do better, that we can't do today? What is it about our future trade deal with China, that will makes us perform better. What are the targets for improvement? What is the necessary improvement target to justify not being part of a EU trade area? Why is it not possible to do the things that Germany has done to date?
Clearly being part of the EU doesn't prevent trade with countries, and doesn't stop EU countries growing their trade.
Therefore unless there is a tangible and measurable benefit of a UK specific deal vs an existing EU deal, then it seems to me arguments about trade, are dogmatic, rather than informed and pragmatic.
The trade deals argument is just a cover for xenophobia, as are most arguments for Brexit.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
