Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The influence of the EU on Britain.

1493494496498499607

Comments

  • I want us to be a problematic member :)
  • No politician is going to stick their head above the parapet and drive towards a no Brexit. It just won’t happen. Regardless of recent polls the country is still very split and large swathes still support the leave vote and feel that anything other than following the outcome of the referendum is a betrayal.

    I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.

  • K

    I think it is tactical - if May goes, he is well placed to take over from her with a foot in all camps. I didn't expect him to resign.

    Instructions from his mentor Mr Murdoch.
  • There is one important question for me as a remainer. That is, would parliament stop a no deal Brexit if May takes this to the wire as it looks like she is doing or trying to do? If you believe the answer to that question is yes, events could be positive, as when the deal is rejected, parliament would have to force another vote or even kick Brexit into touch. However, if you do not believe Parliament will stop a no deal Brexit, or even think it may not be able to, it is probably best to support May's deal.

    Seeing as it is a ridiculous deal that is nothing to nobody, maybe now is the time for remainers of all parties to grow a pair and work out how no deal will be stopped.

    There would be an even bigger majority in the house to stop a no deal than to vote against this deal. But it would appear there is no legal process for Parliament to stop a no deal - there would be a vote but it would be a neutral vote and not binding on the Government.

    That said, it would be almost unthinkable for any Government to refuse to accept the outcome of a vote to block a no deal. But in the absence of any acceptable deal the only way to stop crashing out would be to ask the EU to extend the 2 year Article 50 condition.
  • No politician is going to stick their head above the parapet and drive towards a no Brexit. It just won’t happen. Regardless of recent polls the country is still very split and large swathes still support the leave vote and feel that anything other than following the outcome of the referendum is a betrayal.

    I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.

    The lib dems will as it is party policy but they are so small a party now and have little significance. Maybe the SNP and PC too although I'm not up to speed on their policy.

    Plenty of remainer MPs in both main parties are happy to call for it but usually via another vote.

  • edited November 2018

    No politician is going to stick their head above the parapet and drive towards a no Brexit. It just won’t happen. Regardless of recent polls the country is still very split and large swathes still support the leave vote and feel that anything other than following the outcome of the referendum is a betrayal.

    I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.

    The lib dems will as it is party policy but they are so small a party now and have little significance. Maybe the SNP and PC too although I'm not up to speed on their policy.

    Plenty of remainer MPs in both main parties are happy to call for it but usually via another vote.

    Agree with this. The Lib Dem’s are the only ones as far as I’m aware saying they would stop Brexit but I excluded them from the equation for the reason you cite.

    I also am sure there are a majority of MP’s of all flavours who would support a call for a no deal but would they be willing to risk their seat if like many they come from a constituency that voted leave. Getting to the point of no deal will be a very big sell and I still can’t see it happening. Not in the timeframe anyway.

    Should May be ousted and replaced and or the deal is voted down and or there is a general election then I suppose we are in uncharted waters but this deal and May are far from dead ducks as far as I can see.
  • If only it was real - although in private I doubt his thoughts are too dissimilar!
  • I want us to be a problematic member :)

    Like we have been since we joined then...
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited November 2018
    micks1950 said:

    One for @micks1950 and his carefully marshalled reading of opinion polls and what they might indicate re next steps:

    Thanks Prague

    The full results of this latest Yougov poll conducted for The People's Vote Campaign are here:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wywx6pr4gx/PVResults_181115_Snap_w.pdf

    While 'What UK Thinks'' Poll Tracker on the same question since the 2016 referendum (which includes this latest Yougov poll) are here:

    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

    Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.

    What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,

    The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.

    And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).

    But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
    Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system.
    -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would
    -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.

    The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.

  • I think we might not be far from Labour, inc. Corbyn (he tends to like to do his own thing, exempt from party policy), coming out in favour of a 2nd referendum once they’ve realised that a GE is definitely not on the cards.
  • Prime Minister Gove

    Not sure I could survive that.
  • Southbank said:

    micks1950 said:

    One for @micks1950 and his carefully marshalled reading of opinion polls and what they might indicate re next steps:

    Thanks Prague

    The full results of this latest Yougov poll conducted for The People's Vote Campaign are here:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wywx6pr4gx/PVResults_181115_Snap_w.pdf

    While 'What UK Thinks'' Poll Tracker on the same question since the 2016 referendum (which includes this latest Yougov poll) are here:

    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/

    Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.

    What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,

    The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.

    And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).

    But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
    Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system.
    -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would
    -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.

    The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.

    The comments coming from the EU27 seem to make clear that they have compromised as far as they can with regard to the exit agreement. So, even if there was the time for renegotiation, there is unlikely to be the room.

    However, what has to be stressed, and seems to be missing from the arguments of both Labour and eejits like the ERG, is that the proposed deal in question is not, to mangle the well known quote, the end or even the beginning of the end of trade negotiations, but the end of the beginning.

    It is a possible means of allowing the breathing space in which the UK and EU27 can engage in the difficult negotiations on the arrangements for their future relationship.

    In Ireland, comparisons are being made with Michael Collins' argument that the agreement that led to the creation of the Irish Free State did not make the Irish free, but provided the freedom to achieve freedom.

    The agreement that Theresa May is proposing is not intended to be the Brexit end state, but the opportunity to allow HMG achieve it via further negotiation.
  • Mansfield MP, Ben Bradley another (believed to be 20 now) to hand in a no confidence letter to the 1922 committee.

    His twin has raised a glass to that.

  • I said months ago, we should have another vote, because it was a complete and utter shambles and we were not going to get anything like the Brexit that was promised.

    If there were 3 options to -

    A Remain

    B Accept May's deal

    C No deal

    Then surely the approximate 50% Brexit vote would be split, leaving Remain to win comfortably.
  • Gove not resigning

    As everyone already knows he has zero integrity what could he possibly gain by trying to pretend all of a sudden he has?

    Hey Boris, Rabb, any ideas?
  • Sponsored links:


  • In case anyone cannot get enough of the interpretation of the proposed agreement: https://instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/draft-brexit-withdrawal-agreement-november.
  • I said months ago, we should have another vote, because it was a complete and utter shambles and we were not going to get anything like the Brexit that was promised.

    If there were 3 options to -

    A Remain

    B Accept May's deal

    C No deal

    Then surely the approximate 50% Brexit vote would be split, leaving Remain to win comfortably.

    Easily solved - one way is to give remainers the opportunity to have a second preference if their vote loses (between May's or No Brexit). Then that transfers to the leave options.
  • once you open pandoras box its not easy to put its all back in again, perhaps a sensible would have been to build 2 referendums in as part of the process in the first place. We have been given the decision making process because parliament couldn't decide, but its then been yanked back again, and guess what, they still cant decide..
  • I think its a straight vote Mays deal or Remain, Parliament wont support a no deal
  • razil said:

    I think its a straight vote Mays deal or Remain, Parliament wont support a no deal

    But if Parliament shoots down May’s deal in the next couple of weeks, which it will, then that would be null and void with no need to consider it any further. Then we would be left with two clear choices - remain or leave with no defined deal.
  • razil said:

    I think its a straight vote Mays deal or Remain, Parliament wont support a no deal

    I think the point and purpose of a people's vote is to look at every defined option and to instruct parliament as to which option they must proceed with. In part, because, however damaging no-deal would be, there are some people who support it, and some people who support the people who support it. If it's put on the ballot and killed off by the electorate, it can't be brought back to life whatever the mewling pencil, bloviating blond or Pound-Shop Mosley say or think. (And, if those descriptions of Rees-Mogg, Johnson and Farage seem slightly harsh, I apologise: they're not meant to be "slightly" harsh).
  • If what you can offer may not be what people voted for, it might be deemed reasonable to check they are ok with it. Democratic even! Even more so when people who voted leave were promised how easy it would all be - and it clearly hasn't been. Not sure anybody could disagree with that, So maybe a sorry we made such a pig's ear of it, this is the best we can get - do you want it or shall we forget all about it is the only sensible option?
  • edited November 2018

    bobmunro said:

    Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick'
    With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned

    Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror
    Letters Page:
    'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves.
    so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one
    of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'

    Serious food for thought!

    Serious food for thought? Bollox.

    Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.

    Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result.
    The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
    As others have said, your statement about the French is incorrect. Your ire might be more reasonably directed against the stance taken by Israel, https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/23/israel-sold-weapons-to-argentina-at-height-of-falklands-war-reve/, and the Israeli decision to provide support to the Argentinian Junta during the conflict probably did cost British lives.

    With regard to Ireland, as a member of the EEC, which implemented wide-ranging sanctions against Argentina, blocking all Argentinian exports to the EEC, for invading the Falklands (https://nytimes.com/1982/04/11/world/europeans-ending-argentine-imports-in-falkland-crisis.html) in contrast to the USA's more limited reaction (https://nytimes.com/1982/05/01/us/us-sides-with-britian-falkland-crisis-ordering-sanctions-against-argentines.html), any ongoing trade will only have been what the sanctions regime will have allowed.

    And, as someone who cares passionately about the Falkland Islands, not doubt you support their wish for the UK to remain in the Single Market (https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-falklands-islands-single-market-trade-eu-fishing-loligo-squid-government-a8347696.html).
    Israel isn't in the EU
    I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts.
    Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
    Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.

    Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
    I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
    Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:

    If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?

    Today i learned a military dictatorship is utterly blameless in attacking another nation.
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!