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.
An interesting article and a correct one. What really grinds my gears is that the consequences of Brexit were nearly all known by 2018 yet through dogma, lies, unicorns and fantasies, the tories carried on with it.
They were not unaware of the consequences. They were told. They knew, yet onwards they went. Just one small economic yet huge political element was the Northern Ireland protocol. There was no solution bar Customs Union/Single Market. Every option was explored many times over. There was no other option.
That alone should have been enough to stop the madness. But nope - cowardice, heads in the sand, ‘had enough of experts’ ruled the day. Same with the main body of Brexit. The complexities were huge and it was obvious to Gladstone the Treasury cat that there was no upside whatsoever. How could there be?
I was catching up with a mate yesterday. He still believes Brexit wasn’t implemented properly and fully. Had it been, all would be well. Betrayal. I couldn’t be bothered to argue as his view was so far from reality. Still, he does carry the satanic bible and a pack of tarot cards so maybe he’s right.
1
FT article on Brexit on 08:29 - Jan 24 with 1221 views
Can someone look into their crystal ball and tell me when freedom of movement will exist again, via having fully rejoined, or having taken 'Associate Membership'?
Labour say they aren't interested at all but I bet they're talking about it loads already behind closed doors.
Can someone look into their crystal ball and tell me when freedom of movement will exist again, via having fully rejoined, or having taken 'Associate Membership'?
Labour say they aren't interested at all but I bet they're talking about it loads already behind closed doors.
Brexit is something Labour will rightly avoid talking about before the election. Why throw votes away? If they’re serious about correcting some of the damage, or more correctly minimising further damage, it’s one of the first things they should look at.
1
FT article on Brexit on 08:56 - Jan 24 with 1093 views
Can someone look into their crystal ball and tell me when freedom of movement will exist again, via having fully rejoined, or having taken 'Associate Membership'?
Labour say they aren't interested at all but I bet they're talking about it loads already behind closed doors.
Sadly, I think freedom of movement is a very long way off and will only come about by rejoining, or having a status like Switzerland, which accepts free movement of goods, services and people.
EDIT: and capital.
[Post edited 24 Jan 11:14]
0
FT article on Brexit on 09:24 - Jan 24 with 1003 views
An interesting article and a correct one. What really grinds my gears is that the consequences of Brexit were nearly all known by 2018 yet through dogma, lies, unicorns and fantasies, the tories carried on with it.
They were not unaware of the consequences. They were told. They knew, yet onwards they went. Just one small economic yet huge political element was the Northern Ireland protocol. There was no solution bar Customs Union/Single Market. Every option was explored many times over. There was no other option.
That alone should have been enough to stop the madness. But nope - cowardice, heads in the sand, ‘had enough of experts’ ruled the day. Same with the main body of Brexit. The complexities were huge and it was obvious to Gladstone the Treasury cat that there was no upside whatsoever. How could there be?
I was catching up with a mate yesterday. He still believes Brexit wasn’t implemented properly and fully. Had it been, all would be well. Betrayal. I couldn’t be bothered to argue as his view was so far from reality. Still, he does carry the satanic bible and a pack of tarot cards so maybe he’s right.
While I don’t disagree the situation would have been avoided if 60% of Labour held constituencies hadn’t voted to leave.
The leave vote in Ipswich was higher than in Babergh. Stronger leadership from Labour may well have resulted in a closer result. When parliament passes responsibility to the electorate you can’t turn round and say we are going to ignore you as you got it wrong. In referendum terms 52/48 is a clear majority.
The outcome of Brexit negotiations was predictable at the time of the vote. If the EU had made minor concessions the outcome may have been different.
FT article on Brexit on 09:24 - Jan 24 by Pinewoodblue
While I don’t disagree the situation would have been avoided if 60% of Labour held constituencies hadn’t voted to leave.
The leave vote in Ipswich was higher than in Babergh. Stronger leadership from Labour may well have resulted in a closer result. When parliament passes responsibility to the electorate you can’t turn round and say we are going to ignore you as you got it wrong. In referendum terms 52/48 is a clear majority.
The outcome of Brexit negotiations was predictable at the time of the vote. If the EU had made minor concessions the outcome may have been different.
The vote was based on lies and ignorance. I cannot think of a more baseless, substance free vote in history. Neither side understood or knew the implications of Brexit. It took more than 18 months after the vote to understand that. Governments fault - no serious work was allowed to be done on it until 2017.
As for the EU making minor concessions, if that shiny faced, arrogant idiot Cameron had bothered to understand what the EU was and the nature/substance of our relationship with the other countries, he might have done better than running around with his begging bowl and being laughed at.
The EU only got one thing wrong. They failed to realise just how dangerous and stupid Cameron and his mugs were and how gullible the people were. But what were they supposed to do? Cameron begged, they said no. All oily ‘Dave’ needed to do was scuttle away and pick a better, more coherent fight another day.
We had substantial leverage back then and he’d have got what he wanted from the EU eventually had he worked on it. But hard work was never a feature of the lizard party and threatening to shoot yourself in the head if somebody else doesn’t give you what you want isn’t the smartest tactic either.
1
FT article on Brexit on 10:03 - Jan 24 with 907 views
FT article on Brexit on 09:52 - Jan 24 by Churchman
The vote was based on lies and ignorance. I cannot think of a more baseless, substance free vote in history. Neither side understood or knew the implications of Brexit. It took more than 18 months after the vote to understand that. Governments fault - no serious work was allowed to be done on it until 2017.
As for the EU making minor concessions, if that shiny faced, arrogant idiot Cameron had bothered to understand what the EU was and the nature/substance of our relationship with the other countries, he might have done better than running around with his begging bowl and being laughed at.
The EU only got one thing wrong. They failed to realise just how dangerous and stupid Cameron and his mugs were and how gullible the people were. But what were they supposed to do? Cameron begged, they said no. All oily ‘Dave’ needed to do was scuttle away and pick a better, more coherent fight another day.
We had substantial leverage back then and he’d have got what he wanted from the EU eventually had he worked on it. But hard work was never a feature of the lizard party and threatening to shoot yourself in the head if somebody else doesn’t give you what you want isn’t the smartest tactic either.
If Starmer had been leading the Labour Party back in 2016 the result would have been different as it would have been if anyone other than Corbyn had been leader.
I still don’t fully understand how Corbyn managed to win. He was only on the ballot as a sop to the left. Know quite a few Labour activists who switched to Corbyn.
FT article on Brexit on 10:03 - Jan 24 by Pinewoodblue
If Starmer had been leading the Labour Party back in 2016 the result would have been different as it would have been if anyone other than Corbyn had been leader.
I still don’t fully understand how Corbyn managed to win. He was only on the ballot as a sop to the left. Know quite a few Labour activists who switched to Corbyn.
Don't care much about Labour, just enjoying living in the utopia that Daniel Hannah predicted:
Sadly, I think freedom of movement is a very long way off and will only come about by rejoining, or having a status like Switzerland, which accepts free movement of goods, services and people.
EDIT: and capital.
[Post edited 24 Jan 11:14]
At the risk of being pendantic there are limitations on services in regards to Switzerland (I can’t speak for goods). Rather than freedom of services as per Norway via EEA membership, Switzerland have an extensive and complex series of agreements with the EU (much like Britain post Brexit).
On a wider note, Labour should be putting EEA membership on the table. It would give us back seamless trade but without the ‘toxic’ political side of the EU. Even the most hardened Brexiteers must now realise the damage it’s caused to supply chains, and amplified the inflationary crisis.
0
FT article on Brexit on 11:52 - Jan 24 with 737 views
At the risk of being pendantic there are limitations on services in regards to Switzerland (I can’t speak for goods). Rather than freedom of services as per Norway via EEA membership, Switzerland have an extensive and complex series of agreements with the EU (much like Britain post Brexit).
On a wider note, Labour should be putting EEA membership on the table. It would give us back seamless trade but without the ‘toxic’ political side of the EU. Even the most hardened Brexiteers must now realise the damage it’s caused to supply chains, and amplified the inflationary crisis.
Not pedantic at all. I suppose you could say that Norway has something equivalent to EU membership once removed, and Switzerland twice removed, but both are far closer than I think will be possible for many years when it comes to the UK, thus ruling out freedom of movement.
And I have a feeling the EU have indicated that they would not really approve in future of the sort of arrangement that Switzerland has, so as you say EEA membership appears to be the only route short of full membership, but I have a feeling (and I may be wrong) that it doesn't involve much influence on EU regulations and directives.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
