| Brexit - again 09:48 - Jul 17 with 6089 views | Cotty |
I haven't posted about this for months, as there seemed little point, but the manner and pace with which this whole debacle is descending is, I think, worth commenting on.
Firstly, the legality of the campaign.
There is also increasing evidence that Russian money was funnelled into the campaign, in a bid to destabilise the EU and the West.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jun/09/arron-banks-russia-brexit-meeti
In the meantime, the Tory party is cleaving itself in two, demonstrating what we all knew, that May (and to be honest anybody else) is incapable of bringing the two wings of her party together.
And in the background, Anna Soubry appears to be the leader of the opposition.
Jeremy is nowhere to be seen, and in many peoples' eyes, he is complicit with this situation we find ourselves in. Where IS he?
This whole thing is a shambles from top to bottom, it is not democracy in action, it is a country slowly but increasingly quickly committing financial and moral suicide, largely for the benefit of a small number of people with a large amount of wealth, most of whom are swiftly moving that wealth offshore.
Please can someone sensible reassure me that this is all a great idea, and we're going to be doing great, and we haven't at all sh*t all over our children's futures? |  | | |  |
| Brexit - again on 11:04 - Jul 17 with 2365 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 10:58 - Jul 17 by slump |
I'm completely with you on this. I am no political observing heavyweight like some on here but I try to keep abreast of the fundamentals, however I can't keep up what change or nuance is being made to what policy and why, it's a mess.
After my initial disbelief and minor outrage following the leave vote, I have accepted that as a nation we will leave the EU somehow and that will dilute our influence on the world stage further, which in some ways I think will be a good thing. I would prefer more humility and I don't see wealth as solely financial. However what has become apparent is that the divisions that there are in the country are as deep as they are in the perverse political system that we operate (the irony in using this verb is not lost on me).
Wouldn't it be great if, out of this mess, a new political party emerged that simple people like me could believe in? |
I agree wiht you post
However we must not forget that when given the opportunity to change the voting system arose the electorate more orless ignored it.
And when forming a new political party(s) of the centre has been mooted these have failed.
The fact that UKip has been so successful and is again on the rise tells how the British public really think, how much is this down to education or, the lack of?
People like you (&I) are in the minority |  | | |
| Brexit - again on 11:07 - Jul 17 with 2373 views | Guthrum |
| Brexit - again on 10:58 - Jul 17 by slump |
I'm completely with you on this. I am no political observing heavyweight like some on here but I try to keep abreast of the fundamentals, however I can't keep up what change or nuance is being made to what policy and why, it's a mess.
After my initial disbelief and minor outrage following the leave vote, I have accepted that as a nation we will leave the EU somehow and that will dilute our influence on the world stage further, which in some ways I think will be a good thing. I would prefer more humility and I don't see wealth as solely financial. However what has become apparent is that the divisions that there are in the country are as deep as they are in the perverse political system that we operate (the irony in using this verb is not lost on me).
Wouldn't it be great if, out of this mess, a new political party emerged that simple people like me could believe in? |
Essentially (and I've said this many times before) the main political parties are left-overs, reflecting political issues of the last century. We need a radical realignment for the current scenario.
Unfortunately, our political system (particularly funding and tribalism) holds back any chance of that happening. |  |
| |
| Brexit - again on 11:12 - Jul 17 with 2361 views | Guthrum |
| Brexit - again on 11:04 - Jul 17 by No9 |
I agree wiht you post
However we must not forget that when given the opportunity to change the voting system arose the electorate more orless ignored it.
And when forming a new political party(s) of the centre has been mooted these have failed.
The fact that UKip has been so successful and is again on the rise tells how the British public really think, how much is this down to education or, the lack of?
People like you (&I) are in the minority |
The referendum on changing the voting system was doomed from the start, with the only option offered to the public being one of the least satisfactory and most fiddly. There was no real presentation of or advocacy for a change to the system.
Nor, to be fair, were the advantages of party breakup/reorganisation as clear then as they are now. | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 11:34 - Jul 17 with 2341 views | connorscontract |
| Brexit - again on 10:02 - Jul 17 by Swansea_Blue |
In all seriousness, I don't think anyone can provide any reassurances. The vast majority of indicators are that it will be highly destabilising and at the very least hit the country economically.
Being positive about Leave relies on faith. There is a valid ideological argument around having complete control so that we can determine truly global trading/immigration policies, etc. Trouble is that I don't think that's achievable as most FTAs require concessions in some form or another, most often freedom of movement (this is what India wanted when we had preliminary discussions, so we backed away).
We could end up with a watered down Brexit, which is the worse of both worlds- complying to EU rules but with no say, and presumably still the bulk of the cost. Or a clean break, but be unable to deliver the utopian global free trade deals with no strings attached. And then we'd be stuffed.
As I say, it comes down to faith. But there's no evidence to back that faith up yet while nobody knows what's going to happen, as we don't appear to have a workable plan.
Another fine mess the Tories have got us into. |
While I agree that a "watered down Brexit" (Chequers Agreement or something similar) is the worst of both worlds leaving nobody happy, it is the only form of Brexit which can maintain our obligations under The Good Friday Agreement.
One of the Rees-Mogg / ERG amendments which squeaked through yesterday ended the possibility of an "Irish Sea border", that is a customs border which would have allowed an open land border between Eire and NI (as required by The Good Friday Agreement).
Given that the DUP, who currently prop-up the Government, would never have allowed the Irish Sea border option to pass, it was a moot point, but in proposing it Rees-Mogg has undermined the only real point behind the Chequers Agreement, whilst also, ironically, making a "minimal borders anywhere" with the EU much more likely. If the border with Eire is open, with all the regulatory conformity which that will entail, then the border at Dover will be open.
The alternative is to end The Good Friday Agreement.
I've asked many times before, but did any Leave voters vote to end The Good Friday Agreement?
It's a very big deal. Constitutionally it is the bedrock of reform which saw the establishment of the Power Sharing Agreement and devolution of some powers of Government to the NI Executive, and some legislative powers to Stormont.
For the security of our United Kingdom, it enabled the end of a civil war/campaign of violence which saw walls and watchtowers similar to the Berlin Wall dividing cities in NI, brought actual violence and murder to the mainland UK (apart from Wales, but including Scotland) and occupied our (now slashed) Police and Security Services.
For our position internationally, The Good Friday Agreement is a joint agreement with the Government of Eire, an important ally, and achieved with considerable diplomatic assistance from the USA, Canada and the European Union. If we tear up this agreement, what credibility will we have in any other negotiations, as we seek to tour the world creating "bespoke deals"?
So, Leavers, is this what you voted for? [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 11:39]
| | | |
| Brexit - again on 11:45 - Jul 17 with 2306 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 11:12 - Jul 17 by Guthrum |
The referendum on changing the voting system was doomed from the start, with the only option offered to the public being one of the least satisfactory and most fiddly. There was no real presentation of or advocacy for a change to the system.
Nor, to be fair, were the advantages of party breakup/reorganisation as clear then as they are now. |
Many attempts to form new parties of the centre have failed.
How much is this down to lack of education as to how politics work & just plain disinterest because the current system is loaded & flawed? | | | |
| Brexit - again on 11:45 - Jul 17 with 2312 views | Darth_Koont |
Very good read. Thanks for that. |  |
| |
| Brexit - again on 11:51 - Jul 17 with 2291 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 11:34 - Jul 17 by connorscontract |
While I agree that a "watered down Brexit" (Chequers Agreement or something similar) is the worst of both worlds leaving nobody happy, it is the only form of Brexit which can maintain our obligations under The Good Friday Agreement.
One of the Rees-Mogg / ERG amendments which squeaked through yesterday ended the possibility of an "Irish Sea border", that is a customs border which would have allowed an open land border between Eire and NI (as required by The Good Friday Agreement).
Given that the DUP, who currently prop-up the Government, would never have allowed the Irish Sea border option to pass, it was a moot point, but in proposing it Rees-Mogg has undermined the only real point behind the Chequers Agreement, whilst also, ironically, making a "minimal borders anywhere" with the EU much more likely. If the border with Eire is open, with all the regulatory conformity which that will entail, then the border at Dover will be open.
The alternative is to end The Good Friday Agreement.
I've asked many times before, but did any Leave voters vote to end The Good Friday Agreement?
It's a very big deal. Constitutionally it is the bedrock of reform which saw the establishment of the Power Sharing Agreement and devolution of some powers of Government to the NI Executive, and some legislative powers to Stormont.
For the security of our United Kingdom, it enabled the end of a civil war/campaign of violence which saw walls and watchtowers similar to the Berlin Wall dividing cities in NI, brought actual violence and murder to the mainland UK (apart from Wales, but including Scotland) and occupied our (now slashed) Police and Security Services.
For our position internationally, The Good Friday Agreement is a joint agreement with the Government of Eire, an important ally, and achieved with considerable diplomatic assistance from the USA, Canada and the European Union. If we tear up this agreement, what credibility will we have in any other negotiations, as we seek to tour the world creating "bespoke deals"?
So, Leavers, is this what you voted for? [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 11:39]
|
Good post, I believe the 'leavers' voted to stop immigration and they understood very little else.
Many don't see the leavers working this to their own financial gains
& there are more scary things round this no one wants to address. | | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:00 - Jul 17 with 2270 views | Trequartista |
| Brexit - again on 10:09 - Jul 17 by J2BLUE |
There will be another referendum in the end. Parliament can't agree so it will be put to the people again. Remain will win 60-40 IMO. Every day there are new young voters who become eligible. |
Every day, people get older and their views change also.
I don't think you can keep having referendums and then stop having them if one side wins. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brexit - again on 12:00 - Jul 17 with 2273 views | Guthrum |
| Brexit - again on 11:45 - Jul 17 by No9 |
Many attempts to form new parties of the centre have failed.
How much is this down to lack of education as to how politics work & just plain disinterest because the current system is loaded & flawed? |
But also 'parties of the centre' are still working within the same framework of issues, on "left vs right" (just taking a more moderate position). They lack the distinctiveness to stand out.
I'm talking about a completely new paradigm, parties with names like "European Unionists", "Britain Alone" and "Cooperative Trade" (pro-EU, isolationist and moderate), catering to factions less concerned with fundamental economic approach than our position in the world. | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:13 - Jul 17 with 2242 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 12:00 - Jul 17 by Guthrum |
But also 'parties of the centre' are still working within the same framework of issues, on "left vs right" (just taking a more moderate position). They lack the distinctiveness to stand out.
I'm talking about a completely new paradigm, parties with names like "European Unionists", "Britain Alone" and "Cooperative Trade" (pro-EU, isolationist and moderate), catering to factions less concerned with fundamental economic approach than our position in the world. |
New parties, of the centre, (some I have contributed too) have fallen by the wayside.
Only UKip playing the immigration card have done anything, do we have to accept the fact the UK, by & large, is racist?
The racist side of the arguement in parliament, while just below the surface, is doing very well.
Whilst I agree with you that new paradigms are needed I don't see the British veering away from what we have now. I put that down to a serious lack of political education in the country as a whole, something the establishment have long worked on, it is not an accident. | | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:19 - Jul 17 with 2239 views | connorscontract |
| Brexit - again on 12:00 - Jul 17 by Trequartista |
Every day, people get older and their views change also.
I don't think you can keep having referendums and then stop having them if one side wins. |
No, but if:
The winners of an Election broke Electoral Law, then it calls the result into question.
The winners of an Election admitted the day after the vote that their main positive message was a complete lie, then it calls the result into question
The Referendum question is so vague that it leaves everybody saying "Well I know what I voted for" but nobody able to agree with anyone else, then it calls the result into question.
The outcome of negotiations based on the vague Referendum question is a "worst of all worlds Brexit" leaving most of the 51.8% (and all of the 48.2%) unhappy, and a diminishing of sovereignty, then it calls the wisdom of proceeding into question.
Seriously: a Sovereignty-Diminishing, Good Friday Agreement wrecking, Union threatening (Scotland voted overwhelmingly to Remain) Economy-trashing, Brexit with our future hope being "bespoke trade deals" with Trump and China, when we are incapable of negotiating professionally with the rules-based European Union, and you think we shouldn't have a chance to rethink?
Nobody voted for that cluster-fck, apart from Rees-Mogg, because he knew he could get lots of commission from his wealth portfolio clients as he guides them through the process of flying all their capital out of Britain and over to his new company in Dublin.
Unless you would like to make the case for either the Chequers Agreement, or a Hard Brexit with a torn up Good Friday Agreement? [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 12:46]
| | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:31 - Jul 17 with 2226 views | slump |
| Brexit - again on 12:13 - Jul 17 by No9 |
New parties, of the centre, (some I have contributed too) have fallen by the wayside.
Only UKip playing the immigration card have done anything, do we have to accept the fact the UK, by & large, is racist?
The racist side of the arguement in parliament, while just below the surface, is doing very well.
Whilst I agree with you that new paradigms are needed I don't see the British veering away from what we have now. I put that down to a serious lack of political education in the country as a whole, something the establishment have long worked on, it is not an accident. |
I was saying, tongue in cheek, the other day, that if Simon Cowell was to form a party he'd win the national vote. I wonder how far out that is? |  |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:33 - Jul 17 with 2218 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 12:31 - Jul 17 by slump |
I was saying, tongue in cheek, the other day, that if Simon Cowell was to form a party he'd win the national vote. I wonder how far out that is? |
Too close for comfort | | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:34 - Jul 17 with 2219 views | hype313 |
|  |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:36 - Jul 17 with 2210 views | giant_stow |
| Brexit - again on 12:34 - Jul 17 by hype313 |
|
intriguing - someone's lying, but who? |  |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:37 - Jul 17 with 2208 views | Withnail |
| Brexit - again on 12:34 - Jul 17 by hype313 |
|
The whole EC is made up of Pro EU remoaners. What did we expect here?
Remain spent more than Leave on the campaign, but still lost. |  | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:38 - Jul 17 with 2197 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 12:36 - Jul 17 by giant_stow |
intriguing - someone's lying, but who? |
althought hey were supposed to be on the same side Aaron Banks comments about Mr Elliot were illuminating. | | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:43 - Jul 17 with 2185 views | giant_stow |
| Brexit - again on 12:38 - Jul 17 by No9 |
althought hey were supposed to be on the same side Aaron Banks comments about Mr Elliot were illuminating. |
I missed those unfortunately - got a link? | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:45 - Jul 17 with 2173 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 12:43 - Jul 17 by giant_stow |
I missed those unfortunately - got a link? |
I'll see if I can find it | | | |
| Brexit - again on 12:48 - Jul 17 with 2162 views | Darth_Koont |
| Brexit - again on 12:19 - Jul 17 by connorscontract |
No, but if:
The winners of an Election broke Electoral Law, then it calls the result into question.
The winners of an Election admitted the day after the vote that their main positive message was a complete lie, then it calls the result into question
The Referendum question is so vague that it leaves everybody saying "Well I know what I voted for" but nobody able to agree with anyone else, then it calls the result into question.
The outcome of negotiations based on the vague Referendum question is a "worst of all worlds Brexit" leaving most of the 51.8% (and all of the 48.2%) unhappy, and a diminishing of sovereignty, then it calls the wisdom of proceeding into question.
Seriously: a Sovereignty-Diminishing, Good Friday Agreement wrecking, Union threatening (Scotland voted overwhelmingly to Remain) Economy-trashing, Brexit with our future hope being "bespoke trade deals" with Trump and China, when we are incapable of negotiating professionally with the rules-based European Union, and you think we shouldn't have a chance to rethink?
Nobody voted for that cluster-fck, apart from Rees-Mogg, because he knew he could get lots of commission from his wealth portfolio clients as he guides them through the process of flying all their capital out of Britain and over to his new company in Dublin.
Unless you would like to make the case for either the Chequers Agreement, or a Hard Brexit with a torn up Good Friday Agreement? [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 12:46]
|
Well said. | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:51 - Jul 17 with 2150 views | giant_stow |
| Brexit - again on 12:45 - Jul 17 by No9 |
I'll see if I can find it |
sorry mr, I didn't mean to put you to trouble - more if you had it to hand. | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 12:53 - Jul 17 with 2145 views | Trequartista |
| Brexit - again on 12:19 - Jul 17 by connorscontract |
No, but if:
The winners of an Election broke Electoral Law, then it calls the result into question.
The winners of an Election admitted the day after the vote that their main positive message was a complete lie, then it calls the result into question
The Referendum question is so vague that it leaves everybody saying "Well I know what I voted for" but nobody able to agree with anyone else, then it calls the result into question.
The outcome of negotiations based on the vague Referendum question is a "worst of all worlds Brexit" leaving most of the 51.8% (and all of the 48.2%) unhappy, and a diminishing of sovereignty, then it calls the wisdom of proceeding into question.
Seriously: a Sovereignty-Diminishing, Good Friday Agreement wrecking, Union threatening (Scotland voted overwhelmingly to Remain) Economy-trashing, Brexit with our future hope being "bespoke trade deals" with Trump and China, when we are incapable of negotiating professionally with the rules-based European Union, and you think we shouldn't have a chance to rethink?
Nobody voted for that cluster-fck, apart from Rees-Mogg, because he knew he could get lots of commission from his wealth portfolio clients as he guides them through the process of flying all their capital out of Britain and over to his new company in Dublin.
Unless you would like to make the case for either the Chequers Agreement, or a Hard Brexit with a torn up Good Friday Agreement? [Post edited 17 Jul 2018 12:46]
|
It's hard to leave when you have been so entwined in the thing for years, of course, but you have to stick with the decision or there will be civil war. I voted remain, i don't like the eu and the way it is going, but i marginally thought it would be better to stay in, but i'm looking forward to an independent uk. | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 13:16 - Jul 17 with 2117 views | hype313 |
| Brexit - again on 12:43 - Jul 17 by giant_stow |
I missed those unfortunately - got a link? |
I'd be keen to see that too. | |
| |
| Brexit - again on 13:55 - Jul 17 with 2079 views | No9 |
| Brexit - again on 12:43 - Jul 17 by giant_stow |
I missed those unfortunately - got a link? |
There are many but finding the right oen isn't easy = needle in haystack & 2015 /16 etc.
This from the FT gives a flavour but look for Dominic Cummins & Matthew Elliot.
Get into this and it begs a lot of questions about who has been governing the country since 2010 | | | |
| Brexit as a complete feck up reasons number 1823,1824 and 1825 on 14:03 - Jul 17 with 2073 views | unstableblue |
1823 - there are an estimated 300,000-400,000 French nationals living in London, London is France's 5th biggest city by population. They bring high skills, innovation and revenue into this country, they are an essential part of our economy. Macron is now actively wooing to bring these entrepreneurs and skilled labour home. Firstly, why on earth would we want to lose this valuable professional pool? secondly how much feckin money is it going to cost to sort out their paper work to stay or to eject them?
1824 - Trump backs Brexit; now says "man Brexit is so complex I don't know how its ever going to be resolved"
1825 - Slovakia is now beginning to have net migration into their country, because of the bouyant tech and manufacturing sectors, Estonia now leading tech nation... the tide is chaning, we'll have a bloated and econonically ruined population - and now way to eaasily work in nations who are buoyant.
HAVE TO STOP THIS MESS - driven by Tory backbenchers without a money care in the world! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
