The EU have just thrown out May’s Chequers plan, which only yesterday she was telling us was the only alternative to a hard Brexit.
So where are we now?
Seems to me that Mays position in untenable. She’s put all her effort and influence into Chequers and it’s now dead in everyone’s mind except her own. I can seriously see a chance of her stepping down.
I’ve just seen May continuing to defend the chequers plan. She’s so thick that she can’t accept that it is completely dead. Her own party don’t want it. The EU don’t want it. She literally has nowhere to go.
How is it democratic to deny people the chance to change their mind and have another vote?
It's kind of the EU's approach to referendums. We'll keep being democratic until you give us the right answer!
Oh? Which referenda are these that they have done this to?
Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon, Ireland had two goes at each of those in quick succession.
Denmark had to have two goes at the Maastricht Treaty in the space of 12 months.
Can't I even try to introduce a little levity without being asked provide documentary evidence?!
Welcome to this forum...someone will post a link to say those things didn't happen...EU are democratic been told that here for the last 2 years...They do like their BOGOF referendums.
Just watched her press conference. What a car crash! I thought she was going to burst into tears at any point. She is a total embarrassment to the country.
Just watched her press conference. What a car crash! I thought she was going to burst into tears at any point. She is a total embarrassment to the country.
Just watched her press conference. What a car crash! I thought she was going to burst into tears at any point. She is a total embarrassment to the country.
Where now for her and the UK ?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
I am intrigued to know why Remainers regard the idea of a fully integrated EU a scare story. The originators of the EU, Macron and others are simply applying joined up thinking to address the problems faced by the EU in having competing state interest interfere with reaching optimal decisions for the benefit of the EU economy as a whole.
The objectives of full integration are one common monetary policy and one currency, strict budgetary policy allowing low interest rates, low inflation, stable monetary policy, stable exchange rate policy, limited debt and limited volatility in GDP deficit ratios.
What is there not to like? Why are both Remainers and Brexiteers against full integration?
For my part, the economic benefits of full integration are so compelling the objective will never go away. Eventually an opportunity could arise where the non-Euro states are forced to join the Euro as a quid pro quo for avoiding the consequences of a materially negative EU directive. That removes the stopper that currently prevents the next stage of integration being progressed.
If you only look at the economic benefits you will wholeheartedly support full integration. Given the Remainer focus on economic benefits of staying in the EU I am confused why the economic benefits of full integration are rejected out of hand. All the experts confirm they should materialise, so why do Remainers ignore the experts, that's the prerogative of Brexiteers.
Integration will create winners and losers within member states. It is only if you think through the potential accompanying impact on constitutional, political and governmental structures that you might form the conclusion that full integration is unlikely to enhance social cohesion, democratic values and improved accountability of the EU, that you might be have a more circumspect view.
Just watched her press conference. What a car crash! I thought she was going to burst into tears at any point. She is a total embarrassment to the country.
She emphasised at least twice that the UK is preparing for a no deal. So no deal is what will be put to Parliament by the looks of things.
I am intrigued to know why Remainers regard the idea of a fully integrated EU a scare story. The originators of the EU, Macron and others are simply applying joined up thinking to address the problems faced by the EU in having competing state interest interfere with reaching optimal decisions for the benefit of the EU economy as a whole.
The objectives of full integration are one common monetary policy and one currency, strict budgetary policy allowing low interest rates, low inflation, stable monetary policy, stable exchange rate policy, limited debt and limited volatility in GDP deficit ratios.
What is there not to like? Why are both Remainers and Brexiteers against full integration?
For my part, the economic benefits of full integration are so compelling the objective will never go away. Eventually an opportunity could arise where the non-Euro states are forced to join the Euro as a quid pro quo for avoiding the consequences of a materially negative EU directive. That removes the stopper that currently prevents the next stage of integration being progressed.
If you only look at the economic benefits you will wholeheartedly support full integration. Given the Remainer focus on economic benefits of staying in the EU I am confused why the economic benefits of full integration are rejected out of hand. All the experts confirm they should materialise, so why do Remainers ignore the experts, that's the prerogative of Brexiteers.
Integration will create winners and losers within member states. It is only if you think through the potential accompanying impact on constitutional, political and governmental structures that you might form the conclusion that full integration is unlikely to enhance social cohesion, democratic values and improved accountability of the EU, that you might be have a more circumspect view.
I'm for a federal states of Europe so that doesn't phase me.
How is it democratic to deny people the chance to change their mind and have another vote?
It's kind of the EU's approach to referendums. We'll keep being democratic until you give us the right answer!
Oh? Which referenda are these that they have done this to?
Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon, Ireland had two goes at each of those in quick succession.
Denmark had to have two goes at the Maastricht Treaty in the space of 12 months.
Can't I even try to introduce a little levity without being asked provide documentary evidence?!
Welcome to this forum...someone will post a link to say those things didn't happen...EU are democratic been told that here for the last 2 years...They do like their BOGOF referendums.
Those referendums did happen in Ireland.
However it should be noted that we rejected the treaties for specific reasons, got guarantees on those reasons and then voted again.
However, many Irish voters were critical of the Treaty contents, believing that it marginalised smaller states. Others questioned the impact of the Treaty on Irish neutrality. Other sections viewed the leadership of the Union as out of touch and arrogant, with the Treaty offering a perceived chance to 'shock' the European leadership into a greater willingness to listen to its critics.
....
The Irish government, having obtained the Seville Declaration on Ireland's policy of military neutrality from the European Council, decided to have another referendum on the Treaty of Nice on Saturday, 19 October 2002. Two significant qualifications were included in the second proposed amendment, one requiring the consent of the Dáil for enhanced cooperation under the treaty, and another preventing Ireland from joining any EU common defence policy.
Accordingly, the Irish government renegotiated the terms of the Treaty, adding areas where Ireland would have specific exclusions,which could be presented in a second referendum.
You can read the list of changes made to Lisbon as a result of the Irish people rejecting it.
I'm very proud of our response to both treaties. We have a very positive feeling about the EU in general, we see the massive benefit we have received from being in the EU, as we have transitioned to a modern wealthy nation over the past 30 years but at the same time we don't blindly accept decisions made by the EU.
If the EU proposes a change to its structure and there are parts that we don't feel confident about, such as military involvement or a change to our tax rate we stand up and we push back. I think this is a very healthy attitude to have.
Our constitution cannot be changed without a referendum and our position in the EU cannot be materially changed without a change to the constitution. We are a small nation and we understand our place in the world and in Europe.
If anything, these second votes show the clout a small nation like Ireland can have in the EU and they should how democratic the process is.
How is it democratic to deny people the chance to change their mind and have another vote?
It's kind of the EU's approach to referendums. We'll keep being democratic until you give us the right answer!
Oh? Which referenda are these that they have done this to?
Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon, Ireland had two goes at each of those in quick succession.
Denmark had to have two goes at the Maastricht Treaty in the space of 12 months.
Can't I even try to introduce a little levity without being asked provide documentary evidence?!
Welcome to this forum...someone will post a link to say those things didn't happen...EU are democratic been told that here for the last 2 years...They do like their BOGOF referendums.
Don't like to disappoint.
Here's an interesting article on why the second referendums succeeded where the first ones failed.
The salient point being that, "...Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side..."
So in both cases they went back to the EU and sought, and got, further clarification and legal guarantees that addressed the points raised by those in opposition to the relevent treaty. Having done this, they were able to pull the rug out from the anti-treaty campaign and ask the public again but this time in light of everyone now having the full facts and the reassurance.
So, not quite the same as Leavers claims they 'keep running the same vote until they get the answer required'. I'm not aware the guarantees provided have ever been broken by the EU.
How is it democratic to deny people the chance to change their mind and have another vote?
It's kind of the EU's approach to referendums. We'll keep being democratic until you give us the right answer!
Oh? Which referenda are these that they have done this to?
Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon, Ireland had two goes at each of those in quick succession.
Denmark had to have two goes at the Maastricht Treaty in the space of 12 months.
Can't I even try to introduce a little levity without being asked provide documentary evidence?!
Welcome to this forum...someone will post a link to say those things didn't happen...EU are democratic been told that here for the last 2 years...They do like their BOGOF referendums.
Don't like to disappoint.
Here's an interesting article on why the second referendums succeeded where the first ones failed.
The salient point being that, "...Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side..."
So in both cases they went back to the EU and sought, and got, further clarification and legal guarantees that addressed the points raised by those in opposition to the relevent treaty. Having done this, they were able to pull the rug out from the anti-treaty campaign and ask the public again but this time in light of everyone now having the full facts and the reassurance.
So, not quite the same as Leavers claims they 'keep running the same vote until they get the answer required'. I'm not aware the guarantees provided have ever been broken by the EU.
A joke's never as funny when you have to explain it!
I am intrigued to know why Remainers regard the idea of a fully integrated EU a scare story. The originators of the EU, Macron and others are simply applying joined up thinking to address the problems faced by the EU in having competing state interest interfere with reaching optimal decisions for the benefit of the EU economy as a whole.
The objectives of full integration are one common monetary policy and one currency, strict budgetary policy allowing low interest rates, low inflation, stable monetary policy, stable exchange rate policy, limited debt and limited volatility in GDP deficit ratios.
What is there not to like? Why are both Remainers and Brexiteers against full integration?
For my part, the economic benefits of full integration are so compelling the objective will never go away. Eventually an opportunity could arise where the non-Euro states are forced to join the Euro as a quid pro quo for avoiding the consequences of a materially negative EU directive. That removes the stopper that currently prevents the next stage of integration being progressed.
If you only look at the economic benefits you will wholeheartedly support full integration. Given the Remainer focus on economic benefits of staying in the EU I am confused why the economic benefits of full integration are rejected out of hand. All the experts confirm they should materialise, so why do Remainers ignore the experts, that's the prerogative of Brexiteers.
Integration will create winners and losers within member states. It is only if you think through the potential accompanying impact on constitutional, political and governmental structures that you might form the conclusion that full integration is unlikely to enhance social cohesion, democratic values and improved accountability of the EU, that you might be have a more circumspect view.
There is zero evidence of the EU having the inclination to force the Euro on the UK and little chance of the UK deciding to do so. Should the UK decide to do so, then I'm sure it would happen. What you are suggesting as that there may come a time when it is very much in our interests to join. That is unlikely given the flaws in the Euro but that wouldn't suit the crap point you are trying to make. Far better to scare the sort of people who get scared at these sort of issues that it could happen to suit your agenda. We saw a lot of this crap in the referendum whether it be the NHS to Turkey joining.
The fact is, the euro is more likely to collapse that us join it.
You can add it to other lies we were fed that can be demostrated to be untrue:
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan What! The Prime Minister has committed to doing so FFS!
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson What! The claim that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. One problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
But there was an even bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower. Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg What! The UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions. the UK is on the winning side around 90 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity What! Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon. Indeed German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member and. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.
But if you can scare enough people something will happen you can get what you want.
Think he has enough worries at home... He is neck and neck with le pen in the upcoming euro elections. About time the French got on board. His performance is as bad as May's.
How is it democratic to deny people the chance to change their mind and have another vote?
It's kind of the EU's approach to referendums. We'll keep being democratic until you give us the right answer!
Oh? Which referenda are these that they have done this to?
Treaty of Nice and Treaty of Lisbon, Ireland had two goes at each of those in quick succession.
Denmark had to have two goes at the Maastricht Treaty in the space of 12 months.
Can't I even try to introduce a little levity without being asked provide documentary evidence?!
Welcome to this forum...someone will post a link to say those things didn't happen...EU are democratic been told that here for the last 2 years...They do like their BOGOF referendums.
Don't like to disappoint.
Here's an interesting article on why the second referendums succeeded where the first ones failed.
The salient point being that, "...Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side..."
So in both cases they went back to the EU and sought, and got, further clarification and legal guarantees that addressed the points raised by those in opposition to the relevent treaty. Having done this, they were able to pull the rug out from the anti-treaty campaign and ask the public again but this time in light of everyone now having the full facts and the reassurance.
So, not quite the same as Leavers claims they 'keep running the same vote until they get the answer required'. I'm not aware the guarantees provided have ever been broken by the EU.
A joke's never as funny when you have to explain it!
Lol.... Told you... Good job google isn't a penny a minute in that household.
Ha - chequers rejected. One of three things to happen now. The scummy grubby hands of bojo align with the other cretins on the far right of the party and he makes his play. No deal gets put to parliament and parliament panics and begs for an extension period or we just put a stop to the whole thing and this farce comes full circle
Ha - chequers rejected. One of three things to happen now. The scummy grubby hands of bojo align with the other cretins on the far right of the party and he makes his play. No deal gets put to parliament and parliament panics and begs for an extension period or we just put a stop to the whole thing and this farce comes full circle
Put a stop to the whole thing. It was only banter.
I am intrigued to know why Remainers regard the idea of a fully integrated EU a scare story. The originators of the EU, Macron and others are simply applying joined up thinking to address the problems faced by the EU in having competing state interest interfere with reaching optimal decisions for the benefit of the EU economy as a whole.
The objectives of full integration are one common monetary policy and one currency, strict budgetary policy allowing low interest rates, low inflation, stable monetary policy, stable exchange rate policy, limited debt and limited volatility in GDP deficit ratios.
What is there not to like? Why are both Remainers and Brexiteers against full integration?
For my part, the economic benefits of full integration are so compelling the objective will never go away. Eventually an opportunity could arise where the non-Euro states are forced to join the Euro as a quid pro quo for avoiding the consequences of a materially negative EU directive. That removes the stopper that currently prevents the next stage of integration being progressed.
If you only look at the economic benefits you will wholeheartedly support full integration. Given the Remainer focus on economic benefits of staying in the EU I am confused why the economic benefits of full integration are rejected out of hand. All the experts confirm they should materialise, so why do Remainers ignore the experts, that's the prerogative of Brexiteers.
Integration will create winners and losers within member states. It is only if you think through the potential accompanying impact on constitutional, political and governmental structures that you might form the conclusion that full integration is unlikely to enhance social cohesion, democratic values and improved accountability of the EU, that you might be have a more circumspect view.
There will always be some federalists involved with the EU, as were some of those involved with the founding of the EEC. However, until such a time as the member states express a desire for a fully federal European Union , it is just a scare story.
The same is true for a federal EU Army, in no small part due to the positions of Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria. Individual member states may see a value in close cooperation, shared units, even, but that is their sovereign decision.
Until the views of the member states change to 100% support for those ideas, regardless of any federalist beliefs in the Commission, statements saying that the will happen imminently are scaremongering.
The EU have just thrown out May’s Chequers plan, which only yesterday she was telling us was the only alternative to a hard Brexit.
So where are we now?
Hilary Benn said this over a week ago. He is part of a back bench comittee looking at all the Leave options & spoke with Michel Barnier who told him as much then.
Seeing as TM has backed herself into a corner with this I dont know what she thinks will happen. Does she think the EU will simply give in ?? She said yesterday that the "backstop" plan was not an option.
So, as the Chequers deal looks to be dead it seems only fair that the British people should be able to decide between accepting no deal, abandoning the whole shambles or having some sort of customs union compromise.
Very unsurprising that few leavers feel confident enough to put it to the country again, with people now much more informed. Have there been any that have the strength of conviction that the 'will of the people' is still with them? Would be good to see if there are any Leavers that say, yes we can now properly make the argument that we should accept No Deal or at least a soft Brexit and allow the public to decide what they want. As people have pointed out the Irish and Danish second votes were not repeats until they gave the right answer, but modifications on deals after more information and compromises were given. Much more democratic and mature than basing everything on one vote.
The EU have just thrown out May’s Chequers plan, which only yesterday she was telling us was the only alternative to a hard Brexit.
So where are we now?
Hilary Benn said this over a week ago. He is part of a back bench comittee looking at all the Leave options & spoke with Michel Barnier who told him as much then.
Seeing as TM has backed herself into a corner with this I dont know what she thinks will happen. Does she think the EU will simply give in ?? She said yesterday that the "backstop" plan was not an option.
She must know this, but is stalling for time. There will be a different plan that will have enough face saving material in it.
I spent an enjoyable day recently in the company of Innovate UK, who are running several very substantial competitions for funding. All about establishing UK manufacturing in several key areas, including hethcare, energy, transport etc (I'm deliberately being vague). Millions is being invested, with the aim of solving several big issues by getting industry starts ups, SMEs, universities etc to link up. The provisio is that the investment and manufacture and IP stays in the UK. Fantastic. However, brexit was very much the elephant in the room. It only got mentioned once in a "whoops I shouldn't have said it" kind of way.
It's good that this investment is going in, and must be a shame for the people behind the project knowing that plenty of manufacture is going to be lost to some utter stupidity
Comments
I am intrigued to know why Remainers regard the idea of a fully integrated EU a scare story. The originators of the EU, Macron and others are simply applying joined up thinking to address the problems faced by the EU in having competing state interest interfere with reaching optimal decisions for the benefit of the EU economy as a whole.
The objectives of full integration are one common monetary policy and one currency, strict budgetary policy allowing low interest rates, low inflation, stable monetary policy, stable exchange rate policy, limited debt and limited volatility in GDP deficit ratios.
What is there not to like? Why are both Remainers and Brexiteers against full integration?
For my part, the economic benefits of full integration are so compelling the objective will never go away. Eventually an opportunity could arise where the non-Euro states are forced to join the Euro as a quid pro quo for avoiding the consequences of a materially negative EU directive. That removes the stopper that currently prevents the next stage of integration being progressed.
If you only look at the economic benefits you will wholeheartedly support full integration. Given the Remainer focus on economic benefits of staying in the EU I am confused why the economic benefits of full integration are rejected out of hand. All the experts confirm they should materialise, so why do Remainers ignore the experts, that's the prerogative of Brexiteers.
Integration will create winners and losers within member states. It is only if you think through the potential accompanying impact on constitutional, political and governmental structures that you might form the conclusion that full integration is unlikely to enhance social cohesion, democratic values and improved accountability of the EU, that you might be have a more circumspect view.
So no deal is what will be put to Parliament by the looks of things.
However it should be noted that we rejected the treaties for specific reasons, got guarantees on those reasons and then voted again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice#The_Irish_referendums https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#First_Lisbon_referendum You can read the list of changes made to Lisbon as a result of the Irish people rejecting it.
I'm very proud of our response to both treaties. We have a very positive feeling about the EU in general, we see the massive benefit we have received from being in the EU, as we have transitioned to a modern wealthy nation over the past 30 years but at the same time we don't blindly accept decisions made by the EU.
If the EU proposes a change to its structure and there are parts that we don't feel confident about, such as military involvement or a change to our tax rate we stand up and we push back. I think this is a very healthy attitude to have.
Our constitution cannot be changed without a referendum and our position in the EU cannot be materially changed without a change to the constitution. We are a small nation and we understand our place in the world and in Europe.
If anything, these second votes show the clout a small nation like Ireland can have in the EU and they should how democratic the process is.
Here's an interesting article on why the second referendums succeeded where the first ones failed.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2015/10/19/asking-the-public-twice-why-do-voters-change-their-minds-in-second-referendums-on-eu-treaties/
The salient point being that, "...Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side..."
So in both cases they went back to the EU and sought, and got, further clarification and legal guarantees that addressed the points raised by those in opposition to the relevent treaty. Having done this, they were able to pull the rug out from the anti-treaty campaign and ask the public again but this time in light of everyone now having the full facts and the reassurance.
So, not quite the same as Leavers claims they 'keep running the same vote until they get the answer required'. I'm not aware the guarantees provided have ever been broken by the EU.
The fact is, the euro is more likely to collapse that us join it.
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
What! The Prime Minister has committed to doing so FFS!
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson
What! The claim that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. One problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
But there was an even bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower. Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg
What! The UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions. the UK is on the winning side around 90 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity
What! Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon. Indeed German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member and. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.
But if you can scare enough people something will happen you can get what you want.
The same is true for a federal EU Army, in no small part due to the positions of Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria. Individual member states may see a value in close cooperation, shared units, even, but that is their sovereign decision.
Until the views of the member states change to 100% support for those ideas, regardless of any federalist beliefs in the Commission, statements saying that the will happen imminently are scaremongering.
Seeing as TM has backed herself into a corner with this I dont know what she thinks will happen. Does she think the EU will simply give in ?? She said yesterday that the "backstop" plan was not an option.
Very unsurprising that few leavers feel confident enough to put it to the country again, with people now much more informed. Have there been any that have the strength of conviction that the 'will of the people' is still with them? Would be good to see if there are any Leavers that say, yes we can now properly make the argument that we should accept No Deal or at least a soft Brexit and allow the public to decide what they want. As people have pointed out the Irish and Danish second votes were not repeats until they gave the right answer, but modifications on deals after more information and compromises were given. Much more democratic and mature than basing everything on one vote.
It's good that this investment is going in, and must be a shame for the people behind the project knowing that plenty of manufacture is going to be lost to some utter stupidity