This announcement today changes nothing as far as I am concerned. I knew Labour stood for a soft Brexit and that has just been formalised a bit for anybody trying to be difficult and pretending that wasn't clear. There is a clear majority in the polls suggesting the British people have a preference for a soft Brexit. But some old git from Essex may say, I KNOW WHAT I VOTED FOR! Yes you might do, you racist old fool, but most of the people who voted had no idea beyond the in and out question and the lying campaign from both sides was to blame!
What makes me laugh is all this, Osborne and Cameron told us leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union so whilst we told you not to believe a word they said, we insist you believe that bit. And of course whilst we told you to believe us, we didn't want you to believe those of us who suggested leaving would not mean losing access to the customs union and single market. You know the ones, the people who kept telling us the EU would be so desperate for a deal that they would give us everything we wanted!
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Whereas the game plan for the leavers is............
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
Which coloured Unicorn does the public want, Blue one, Purple One, Red One, and what happens when the public find out its a donkey with a dildo superglued to its head
Which coloured Unicorn does the public want, Blue one, Purple One, Red One, and what happens when the public find out its a donkey with a dildo superglued to its head
Which coloured Unicorn does the public want, Blue one, Purple One, Red One, and what happens when the public find out its a donkey with a dildo superglued to its head
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
I believe that some Remainers only voted remain because Cameron said that the economy would collapse after the referendum and the Tories would bring in a punishment budget. So both official campaigns distorted the truth and they probably cancelled each other out.
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
I believe that some Remainers only voted remain because Cameron said that the economy would collapse after the referendum and the Tories would bring in a punishment budget. So both official campaigns distorted the truth and they probably cancelled each other out.
Remainers' lies were bigger than the Leavers' - no they weren't, Leavers told the biggest whoppers. F*cking pantomine script - look behind you!!
So the whole referendum campaign was based on lies that the electorate then swallowed and used to justify their vote either way?
Wonderful example of democracy at work - the result of which you would deny people any backtracking on those false premises. The will of the people my arse.
Leave promised that there would be more money for public services, less immigration and at absolutely no cost to the economy. That is a fucking HUGE lie, and will unwind in a horrible way.
What Corbyn has done here is what I have been predicting. He has thrown a bone to the arch Tory remainers or 'mutineers'. This has significantly strengthened their position and they will be looking for deals that the government will find hard to give.
Labour's problem is the Brexit supporting MPs within its own camp. I think this is a dangerous time for the government and it could be Labour MPs that save it. It should be close either way!
What Corbyn has done here is what I have been predicting. He has thrown a bone to the arch Tory remainers or 'mutineers'. This has significantly strengthened their position and they will be looking for deals that the government will find hard to give.
Labour's problem is the Brexit supporting MPs within its own camp. I think this is a dangerous time for the government and it could be Labour MP that saves it. It should be close either way!
There's only 6 max, and Hoey and Field are probably the most committed to the cause, the others will see it as an opportunity to seriously weaken May even further, and maybe collapse the government.
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
I believe that some Remainers only voted remain because Cameron said that the economy would collapse after the referendum and the Tories would bring in a punishment budget. So both official campaigns distorted the truth and they probably cancelled each other out.
The campaigns might have cancelled each other out, but the leave vote won. So whatever remain claimed doesn't matter any more does it? What we have now is a situation where brexiters have to deliver on their promises. So far they have shown great skill in not having a clue, when will all of you leavers start putting in an extra 350 million pounds per week into the NHS? Seven days after the formal exit of the UK?
What Corbyn has done here is what I have been predicting. He has thrown a bone to the arch Tory remainers or 'mutineers'. This has significantly strengthened their position and they will be looking for deals that the government will find hard to give.
Labour's problem is the Brexit supporting MPs within its own camp. I think this is a dangerous time for the government and it could be Labour MP that saves it. It should be close either way!
There's only 6 max, and Hoey and Field are probably the most committed to the cause, the others will see it as an opportunity to seriously weaken May even further, and maybe collapse the government.
What Corbyn has done here is what I have been predicting. He has thrown a bone to the arch Tory remainers or 'mutineers'. This has significantly strengthened their position and they will be looking for deals that the government will find hard to give.
Labour's problem is the Brexit supporting MPs within its own camp. I think this is a dangerous time for the government and it could be Labour MP that saves it. It should be close either way!
There's only 6 max, and Hoey and Field are probably the most committed to the cause, the others will see it as an opportunity to seriously weaken May even further, and maybe collapse the government.
Sadly for O'Toole's analysis, progressive, pro EU Social Democracy is in decline across Europe and with no sign of recovering. An important aspect of why this has happened is that they have aligned themselves so closely to the EU project-which is unpopular in many sections of the historically Social Democrat white working class across Europe. But let us not let reality get in the way of wishful thinking.
The social democratic construct has always been an alliance between middle classes and white working class. There might be theoretical differences between democratic socialist and social democrat but the pragmatic articulation via a manifesto and actual deeds tends to resolve.
The Alt-right have snaffled up to 15% in the polls across Europe and that has been taken directly from progressive democrats - and the reasons are well understood. Globalisation, stagnation of ordinary wages, and neoliberal approach to deregulation and privatisation. The white working class have had no benefits from the boost in GDP since no attention has gone on productivity. Outsourcing is always quicker and cheaper.
Throughout this thread you and I have recognised the source of the anger and energy supporting a leave vote. The last generation of social democrats such as Clegg and Blair are part of the cause so they really should take a back seat.
And as the centre has been hollowed out in UK politics (as it has in N.Ireland) we are dealing in high energy, high risk scenarios where the winner takes all. So yes the PD vote in Italy and the SPD in Germany is down but there is a populist left in both Spain and France.
More importantly western European centre left parties are in decline but Labour in the UK is polling above 40% for nine months now. And if the Tories screw up Brexit, Labour will win the next election. Given all the angles, how can the Tories not screw it up?!
One amazing thing about the UK is that the Tories, split top to bottom , are ahead of Labour in a lot of polls despite their incompetence. It seems highly unlikely that Corbyn can carry a majority in a straight fight with the Tories, given his own party is as split as the Tories. Their should be a realignment, probably along pro or anti-EU lines-but our system legislates against this kind of thing.
Just for once I agree with you.
From what I have heard of Corbyn's big statement today it sounds absolutely pathetic. Cake and eat it shit. Repeating Johnson's discredited £350m claim. Showing he doesn't understand what a customs union actually is. How are people like me expected to gladly vote for him? Chuka Umunna, no problem, bring him on.
Best wait and see what he actually says. From the briefings it all sounds pretty pragmatic to me.
Mind you giving up cheap footwear, dodgy US chicken and milk or eating cake. Bit of a dilemma
Listening to Barry Gardiner this morning it sounds like the soft Brexit fantasy has gripped the Labour leadership.
So still brexit then
Only if you think people voted to stay under the aegis of the ECJ and have continued freedom of movement-opposition to which are the only two things that probably united the 52%.
But therein lies the problem - you clearly know why you voted to leave and have also made it clear that hard Brexit is what you want. But nobody knows why others voted to Leave the European Union (the question). Clearly (not probably) if we are no longer members of the European Union following Brexit then the will of the people will have been satisfied as per the wording of the referendum that you so doggedly claim was democracy at work.
Yes Remainers and Leavers both lied during the referendum campaign but the whole shebang was flawed from the outset.
Remain in the European Union - clear consequence of the outcome, the status quo. Leave the European Union - consequence? f*ck knows.
The future outcome of the status quo - f*ck knows - the EU controls The future outcome of not the status quo - f*ck knows - the UK controls
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Remainers don't care what f*ck knows looks like, as long as the EU is in control. Brexiteers don't care what f*ck knows looks like as long as the UK is in control.
Why do Remainers make it so complicated.
As @seth plum pointed out, with the status quo option the UK has control, because it is a member of the EU - and it does share interests with other member states.
And, if anything, because of the way the EU operates and its negotiating power, the UK has more control as part of the grouping than it will have by itself.
Misquoting Mark Carney, outside of the EU, the UK will be reliant on the kindness of strangers, and will be much more a supplicant in any trading negotiations than it has been as an EU member state.
IMHO, the UK is losing control, not gaining it, via Brexit.
The UK is entirely supplicant to the EU under the status quo. Being outside the EU and negotiating a new trading relationship does not mean we are "supplicant". You might argue we are in a weaker bargaining position, but it does not mean we are supplicant, we have the choice to take it or leave it, unlike EU member states, all of whom are supplicant to the EU as an institution.
The control we are losing, I guess is control of the UK to: 1. use its veto as a member state 2. be outvoted where majority decisions prevail 3. propose legislation the UK wants to see enacted and rely on finding allies to support it. 4. be bound by legislation the UK would never have chosen to enact 5. be supplicant to the an EU trade deal the EU might struggle to accomplish in 10 years of seeking a consensus recognising interests of other states in goods and services entirely irrelevant to the UK
The control gained by not being a supplicant of the EU is 1. control of the UK to legislate on matters it chooses to in order to optimise trading relationships with the EU 2. control of the UK to legislate on matters in the UK's interests which the EU might not choose to legislate on. 3. control to negotiate trade relationships with whom it wishes, on terms it chooses that do not have to recognise irrelevant interests of other states in goods and services the UK neither supplies nor imports.
But hey, the EU democratic institution is head and shoulders above our Parliamentary democracy, why would we not want Parliament to be supplicant in all but name to the EU and keep our "controls".
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
I believe that some Remainers only voted remain because Cameron said that the economy would collapse after the referendum and the Tories would bring in a punishment budget. So both official campaigns distorted the truth and they probably cancelled each other out.
Firstly, Cameron wasn't part of any official campaign, so his lies aren't lies from the official remain campaign.
Secondly, Cameron said he'd enact Article 50 the day after the vote, which he didn't do. Therefore any predictions Osbourne made based on article 50 being enacted the next day are completely worthless. For some reason Leavers keep saying Osbourne's predictions were wrong when they know full well they were based on a set of circumstances that never happened.
Thirdly, the next day the pound dropped by double digits and has since recovered to around 9% less than it was the day before the vote. That is a financial disaster that has made every single one of us poorer. Why do you think the inflation rate has gone from under half a percent in the month before the referendum to over 3% now? It's double the German inflation rate, more than double the French inflation rate.
Fourth, any warning made before the referendum were just that, warnings. They were a "here's what could happen", some of it happened, some didn't. That doesn't make the warnings any less valid. When you see a warning sign on a electricity sub-station that says "Danger of death" do you say to your mates "Well nobody died today, so that sign's rubbish, just scaremongering, project fear!".
What Corbyn has done here is what I have been predicting. He has thrown a bone to the arch Tory remainers or 'mutineers'. This has significantly strengthened their position and they will be looking for deals that the government will find hard to give.
Labour's problem is the Brexit supporting MPs within its own camp. I think this is a dangerous time for the government and it could be Labour MP that saves it. It should be close either way!
There's only 6 max, and Hoey and Field are probably the most committed to the cause, the others will see it as an opportunity to seriously weaken May even further, and maybe collapse the government.
6 is quite a lot in this context.
Think they'll be more Tories back the amendment
I hope so - it will be the first domino that needs pushing to bring this government down and save the country from the disaster they are steering us towards.
As a bit of a Corbyn supporter I don't agree with the sentiment, but I am minded of what Heseltine said on the subject. Any mess a Labour goverment makes of things we can fix in the next parliament - it is what has been happening for years. But the mess of leaving the EU can't be fixed. The next question is how many Tories take that view. I have been told there are quite a few, but the government will be doing all they can to keep the weaker ones onside. Interesting days, but the game has started.
Sadly for O'Toole's analysis, progressive, pro EU Social Democracy is in decline across Europe and with no sign of recovering. An important aspect of why this has happened is that they have aligned themselves so closely to the EU project-which is unpopular in many sections of the historically Social Democrat white working class across Europe. But let us not let reality get in the way of wishful thinking.
Reality? Are you claiming command of the concept of reality? Are you defining what is political and social reality across Europe? Quite a claim if you are.
OK Seth, happy to bow to your superior knowledge. Which Social Democratic parties are doing well in mainland Europe? In Germany the SPD is now down to a level with the far right, in Italy they are about to be beaten, in Spain they are losing support, in Holland they lost out badly.
But I am sure you can let me know which ones are doing well.
Your mistake is conflating a reduced level of support for a party with the assumption that it's because their voters have all moved to some extremist anti-EU position.
I notice that the word "France" was notably lacking from your list, and as for Holland, you might want to read carefully about the make up of the myriad parties that now have representation in Parliament. In my experience it has always been a mistake to assume the Dutch are "just like us" simply because both are great trading nations and former colonialists. With Spain I am sure @CharltonMadrid will be along to provide a reasoned and informed viewpoint. As for Italy it has always been a political basket case. If I were able to rewrite the history of the EU going back to the early 60s, I would rewrite those fuckers out of it.
The traditional Social Democratic party in Spain (the PSOE) have certainly lost a lot of support over the last years but so have the ruling PP Conservatives who are now in a coalition with the rising centre to centre right Citizens party. The latter are basically the Spanish equivalent of Macron and his party, pro-Europe but wanting to modernise it, and tipped to win the next election. They and the left wing party Podemos have basically broken the long term two party system that have shared power since Franco's death and the return to democracy in 1978. Podemos have slipped back a bit though, mainly due to infighting and links to Venezuela which makes people very suspicious of them. Really all the parties are very much pro-EU because they recognise Spain is part of Europe and they have already had their years of isolationism from the 1930s to the 70s and don't want to return to it.
Generally the picture here is of a need for change but in all my years here I have never seen any real anti-EU sentiment apart from the very small anarchist or far-right groups that do a parade but have barely any following. The EU is just a part of life and people don't see it as some kind of authoritative figure that is suppressing them or something. The Spanish are very anti-authoritarian generally and the regions are often wary of control by central government so they would not have any issue in calling out the EU if they felt it was somehow taking away their rights or sovereignty. People want change but that means an end to corruption and nepotism. In complete contrast I guess to many in the UK the EU is actually seen as something 'clean', modern and efficient which I guess is due to the poor state historically of politics here. I think most people in Spain would rather put their trust in the EU than their own politicians.
I think finally it is important to note that when people on here or elsewhere predict the demise of the EU they need to understand that actually being part of it for many countries is something people are proud of, often due to their own experience of real oppression in living memory. So when people in Spain or in other European countries see the UK leaving as they want to be 'free' you can imagine why they would find that very strange.
Sadly for O'Toole's analysis, progressive, pro EU Social Democracy is in decline across Europe and with no sign of recovering. An important aspect of why this has happened is that they have aligned themselves so closely to the EU project-which is unpopular in many sections of the historically Social Democrat white working class across Europe. But let us not let reality get in the way of wishful thinking.
The social democratic construct has always been an alliance between middle classes and white working class. There might be theoretical differences between democratic socialist and social democrat but the pragmatic articulation via a manifesto and actual deeds tends to resolvOutsourcing is always quicker and cheaper.
Throughout this thread you and I have recognised the source of the anger and energy supporting a leave vote. The last generation of social democrats such as Clegg and Blair are part of the cause so they really should take a back seat.
And as the centre has been hollowed out in UK politics (as it has in N.Ireland) we are dealing in high energy, high risk scenarios where the winner takes all. So yes the PD vote in Italy and the SPD in Germany is down but there is a populist left in both Spain and France.
More importantly western European centre left parties are in decline but Labour in the UK is polling above 40% for nine months now. And if the Tories screw up Brexit, Labour will win the next election. Given all the an this kind of thing.
Just for once I agree with you.
From what I have heard of Corbyn's big statement today it sounds absolutely pathetic. Cake and eat it shit. Repeating Johnson's discredited £350m claim. Showing he doesn't understand what a customs union actually is. How are people like me expected to gladly vote for him? Chuka Umunna, no problem, bring him on.
Best wait and see what he actually says. From the briefings it all sounds pretty pragmatic to me.
Mind you giving up cheap footwear, dodgy US chicken and milk or eating cake. Bit of a dilemma
Listening to Barry Gardiner this morning it sounds like the soft Brexit fantasy has gripped the Labour leadership.
So still brexit then
Only if you think people voted to stay under the aegis of the ECJ and have continued freedom of movement-opposition to which are the only two things that probably united the 52%.
But therein lies the problem - you clearly know why you voted to leave and have also made it clear that hard Brexit is what you want. But nobody knows why others voted to Leave the European Union (the question). Clearly (not probably) if we are no longer members of the European Union following Brexit then the will of the people will have been satisfied as per the wording of the referendum that you so doggedly claim was democracy at work.
Yes Remainers and Leavers both lied during the referendum campaign but the whole shebang was flawed from the outset.
Remain in the European Union - clear consequence of the outcome, the status quo. Leave the European Union - consequence? f*ck knows.
The future outcome of the status quo - f*ck knows - the EU controls The future outcome of not the status quo - f*ck knows - the UK controls
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Remainers don't care what f*ck knows looks like, as long as the EU is in control. Brexiteers don't care what f*ck knows looks like as long as the UK is in control.
Why do Remainers make it so complicated.
As @seth plum pointed out, with the status quo option the UK has control, because it is a member of the EU - and it does share interests with other member states.
And, if anything, because of the way the EU operates and its negotiating power, the UK has more control as part of the grouping than it will have by itself.
Misquoting Mark Carney, outside of the EU, the UK will be reliant on the kindness of strangers, and will be much more a supplicant in any trading negotiations than it has been as an EU member state.
IMHO, the UK is losing control, not gaining it, via Brexit.
The UK is entirely supplicant to the EU under the status quo. Being outside the EU and negotiating a new trading relationship does not mean we are "supplicant". You might argue we are in a weaker bargaining position, but it does not mean we are supplicant, we have the choice to take it or leave it, unlike EU member states, all of whom are supplicant to the EU as an institution.
The control we are losing, I guess is control of the UK to: 1. use its veto as a member state 2. be outvoted where majority decisions prevail 3. propose legislation the UK wants to see enacted and rely on finding allies to support it. 4. be bound by legislation the UK would never have chosen to enact 5. be supplicant to the an EU trade deal the EU might struggle to accomplish in 10 years of seeking a consensus recognising interests of other states in goods and services entirely irrelevant to the UK
The control gained by not being a supplicant of the EU is 1. control of the UK to legislate on matters it chooses to in order to optimise trading relationships with the EU 2. control of the UK to legislate on matters in the UK's interests which the EU might not choose to legislate on. 3. control to negotiate trade relationships with whom it wishes, on terms it chooses that do not have to recognise irrelevant interests of other states in goods and services the UK neither supplies nor imports.
But hey, the EU democratic institution is head and shoulders above our Parliamentary democracy, why would we not want Parliament to be supplicant in all but name to the EU and keep our "controls".
On your last point, although I suspect you meant it sarcastically, the EU as a democratic institution is head and shoulders above the UK's supposed 'democracy'. I would add in that in my observation of the negotiations so far, those acting for the EU are head and shoulders above those acting for the UK. They continually ask that the UK states it's position, whilst being steadfast and consistent in maintaining it's own position. To use the food analogy, the EU has been consistent in saying it's structure won't allow the UK to cherry pick, but many in the UK want to have their cake and eat it, presumably with a cherry on top. You have mentioned the UK veto, so at least in that you recognise that up to now the UK has been a participant in EU behaviour, and if a supplicant, then it is as a supplicant to it's own wishes reached in a collaborative system. Just to put a bit of detail on this, can you give an example where the UK is bound by legislation it would never have chosen to enact, bearing in mind that the UK would have participated in establishing such legislation, even if outvoted eventually? My overall point, and I know you disagree, is that the UK has never been a supplicant, but a participant. Anyway perhaps these points are errm pointless, because your side won the vote. As I repeat ad nauseam, your side has to make whatever that victory might mean happen.
But he still expects tariff free access to the single market. And acknowledges that it is essential to the future of both the UK and EU economies. Sometimes I think I am living in a parallel universe where I don't get to see and hear everything that everyone else sees and hears. From the outset the EU27 have said there is no tariff free access to the SM without accepting the obligations that everyone else has to. They have not moved one iota on this. Are the EU27 having behind the scenes conversations with UK politicians from both parties where they are suggesting the EU might be flexible on this point?
I think you are dead right. Neither the EU or any of its leaders has said anything other than membership of the CU or SM requires accepting the ECJ and the four freedoms.
I think we have to understand that because the majority of MPs want to remain, both parties are moving slowly towards a position which makes no sense to anyone, to accept the rules while having no say in them, in order to then be able to say that we may as well stay. Then when the EU says no, the parties will say, well we tried our best and we got nothing so we will have to stay.
This has been the game plan for clever Remainers, like Peter Mandelson, since day one after the referendum. The rest, including soft leavers have been drawn along by the promise of 'soft Brexit' which never existed. It was always either leave or stay.
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
Membership of the single market and customs union was not on the ballot paper and both campaigns were inconsistent to the point of being disingenuous on these matters. That was nearly two years ago. Now in 2018 the UK has the chance to define Brexit. Not the Daily Mail on its own, nor Rees Mogg et al but our sovereign Parliament.
And the reason IDS, the Mail and Johnson are howling at Corbyn today is because they know that they have been floored by the announcement of Labour policy on the Customs Union. Not only does the electorate support remaining in the CU but there is also a working majority in Parliament. And the DUP appear somewhat snookered for they will surely struggle to support May in leaving the CU? The Ulster Unionist Party and the two main parties from the nationalist tradition, Sinn Fein and the SDLP support the CU.
The coalition of chaos is in danger of falling apart because the objectives of different groups are mutually exclusive. And the outcome simply doesn't ring true with statements from the EU27. They even briefed against phase one within days of agreeing it! The ERG and the DUP have a very different agenda to traditional Conservatives, let alone the Remain Tories. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long but at least it is in good time to consider the options throughout the rest of this year. As posted repeatedly, less than 1/3 of the electorate believe in a hard Brexit.
Time for the majority to take back control, starting with the CU debate. Once that "chapter" is discussed and perhaps closed, we move on with rational debate and legitimate lobbying along with democratic votes in our Parliament. We cannot expect the EU27 to make any comment on Corbyn for that would be an interference in our domestic politics. But it won't be a surprise if Labour have releases prepared in response to the next announcements by M.Barnier.
Keir Starmer is a QC and is thus measured and precise. Gove and Johnson are a couple of hacks from the Mail and Telegraph. The result is headlines and editorials like this one from Osborne in the Evening Standard
I think Corbyn has played a blinder today. Labour appear to have produced a measured, reasonable, sensible and workable option to the intractable issues of tariffs on goods within the EU and the requirement (or otherwise) of a fixed, hard border. This is in stark contrast to the Government, whose position ("no membership of the Customs Union") is both inflexible and unworkable.
People may complain that membership of the Customs Union prevents the UK from negotiating its own trade deals. In response, those people should be asked whether the UK Government gives any impression of being capable of doing so.
There may also be complaints - by Brexit voters, mainly - that membership of the Customs Union while being outside EU membership means that we cannot influence the rules which govern the Customs Union. Those people should be asked an even simpler question: did you vote "leave" in order to have more or less say in the EU's rules?
Labour will also be better placed in negotiations because the EU will feel that the government responsible for the mess falling will be this country's pound of flesh. This card was always going to be played at some point. I have been saying so for a while. I wrote the paras below a week ago in the what does Labour need to change thread and have been saying similar before that.
I thought the Labour position was to respect the referendum result, but negotiate as soft a Brexit as possible. Meaning being more flexible on things such as free movement allowing free borders and to help secure/negotiate a decent trade deal. Also, they are looking for a longer transition period for business stability. There are disagreements on the detail. Some say this technically means leaving the single market and others argue it shouldn't. But if the agreement is broadly similar whatever you want to call it? Does it matter.
Now people may not like it, but it is a position. Labour has a similar problem to the Tories in nature, but far less amplified. That is that it has some ardent Europeans who feel the party should be campaigning to kill Brexit. The problem is Corbyn is not the EUs greatest fan. He does believe we are better off in it but also sees the neo-liberal direction it has taken as a negative. Labour hascore voters in the North of England who are very pro Brexit and voters in the south who are pro Remain. like the Tories, it has to tread a path - but its path - which isn't going to please everybody - is to go for the less extreme Brexit.
I am a remainer -but not a rabid one - I think it is stupid taking an action that is very likely to make you worse off. But if a soft Brexit is negotiated along the lines of what Norway have - the impact of Brexit would be softer - so I understand why people say Labour doesn't have a firm position, but surely they have a direction and the final position will be determined by two things -firstly the election that gives them power - if it demonstrates a strong remain trend within the electorate all bets would be off - but if not, then the difference will be a Brexit negotiated by a more flexible government.
Quite frankly I am stunned by some of the comments about Labour's new policy.
All this hinges on us being in a customs union that will also give us freedom to negotiate with other countries in our own.
Had the government announced this wish, you lot would have been very quick to point out that the EU 27 (holding all the aces) have told us this won't be allowed. So how come it would if we have a communist government?
If course Corbyn knows he won't be in power so once again can claim whatever he wants and is likely to be planning on winning the next general election once Brexit has been finalised. He clearly doesn't want to deal with it before.
Quite frankly I am stunned by some of the comments about Labour's new policy.
All this hinges on us being in a customs union that will also give us freedom to negotiate with other countries in our own.
Had the government announced this wish, you lot would have been very quick to point out that the EU 27 (holding all the aces) have told us this won't be allowed. So how come it would if we have a communist government?
If course Corbyn knows he won't be in power so once again can claim whatever he wants and is likely to be planning on winning the next general election once Brexit has been finalised. He clearly doesn't want to deal with it before.
Unless I've got it wrong that isn't what he was saying.
He wants a comprehensive Customs Union between the EU and the UK and he wants to work with and have a say in any new deals the EU does with other countries/trading blocks. He was most certainly not saying he wanted carte blanche to do separate trade deals with other countries that just involved the UK. Big difference.
Besides, why would for example China want to do a deal with the UK that was better for the UK than any deal they negotiate with the 27?
I think you are making this a little simplistic. Labour have not got the same lines in the sand and therefore could gain some concessions the current government can't.
Comments
What makes me laugh is all this, Osborne and Cameron told us leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union so whilst we told you not to believe a word they said, we insist you believe that bit. And of course whilst we told you to believe us, we didn't want you to believe those of us who suggested leaving would not mean losing access to the customs union and single market. You know the ones, the people who kept telling us the EU would be so desperate for a deal that they would give us everything we wanted!
Like when leavers said we could stay in the single market? The leave campaign didn't play by the 'leave' or 'stay' maxim that you apparently believe was the deal.
'Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway or Switzerland? Really? They're rich'. Farage.
There's a video in that link of similar quotes.
Just because you were so apparently enlightened, i believe at least some of the 52% were taken in by 'the promise of soft brexit' because 'soft' brexiteers like mssrs Farage and Hannan said so.
So the whole referendum campaign was based on lies that the electorate then swallowed and used to justify their vote either way?
Wonderful example of democracy at work - the result of which you would deny people any backtracking on those false premises. The will of the people my arse.
Labour's problem is the Brexit supporting MPs within its own camp. I think this is a dangerous time for the government and it could be Labour MPs that save it. It should be close either way!
So whatever remain claimed doesn't matter any more does it? What we have now is a situation where brexiters have to deliver on their promises.
So far they have shown great skill in not having a clue, when will all of you leavers start putting in an extra 350 million pounds per week into the NHS? Seven days after the formal exit of the UK?
The control we are losing, I guess is control of the UK to:
1. use its veto as a member state
2. be outvoted where majority decisions prevail
3. propose legislation the UK wants to see enacted and rely on finding allies to support it.
4. be bound by legislation the UK would never have chosen to enact
5. be supplicant to the an EU trade deal the EU might struggle to accomplish in 10 years of seeking a consensus recognising interests of other states in goods and services entirely irrelevant to the UK
The control gained by not being a supplicant of the EU is
1. control of the UK to legislate on matters it chooses to in order to optimise trading relationships with the EU
2. control of the UK to legislate on matters in the UK's interests which the EU might not choose to legislate on.
3. control to negotiate trade relationships with whom it wishes, on terms it chooses that do not have to recognise irrelevant interests of other states in goods and services the UK neither supplies nor imports.
But hey, the EU democratic institution is head and shoulders above our Parliamentary democracy, why would we not want Parliament to be supplicant in all but name to the EU and keep our "controls".
Secondly, Cameron said he'd enact Article 50 the day after the vote, which he didn't do. Therefore any predictions Osbourne made based on article 50 being enacted the next day are completely worthless. For some reason Leavers keep saying Osbourne's predictions were wrong when they know full well they were based on a set of circumstances that never happened.
Thirdly, the next day the pound dropped by double digits and has since recovered to around 9% less than it was the day before the vote. That is a financial disaster that has made every single one of us poorer. Why do you think the inflation rate has gone from under half a percent in the month before the referendum to over 3% now? It's double the German inflation rate, more than double the French inflation rate.
Fourth, any warning made before the referendum were just that, warnings. They were a "here's what could happen", some of it happened, some didn't. That doesn't make the warnings any less valid. When you see a warning sign on a electricity sub-station that says "Danger of death" do you say to your mates "Well nobody died today, so that sign's rubbish, just scaremongering, project fear!".
As a bit of a Corbyn supporter I don't agree with the sentiment, but I am minded of what Heseltine said on the subject. Any mess a Labour goverment makes of things we can fix in the next parliament - it is what has been happening for years. But the mess of leaving the EU can't be fixed. The next question is how many Tories take that view. I have been told there are quite a few, but the government will be doing all they can to keep the weaker ones onside. Interesting days, but the game has started.
Generally the picture here is of a need for change but in all my years here I have never seen any real anti-EU sentiment apart from the very small anarchist or far-right groups that do a parade but have barely any following. The EU is just a part of life and people don't see it as some kind of authoritative figure that is suppressing them or something. The Spanish are very anti-authoritarian generally and the regions are often wary of control by central government so they would not have any issue in calling out the EU if they felt it was somehow taking away their rights or sovereignty. People want change but that means an end to corruption and nepotism. In complete contrast I guess to many in the UK the EU is actually seen as something 'clean', modern and efficient which I guess is due to the poor state historically of politics here. I think most people in Spain would rather put their trust in the EU than their own politicians.
I think finally it is important to note that when people on here or elsewhere predict the demise of the EU they need to understand that actually being part of it for many countries is something people are proud of, often due to their own experience of real oppression in living memory. So when people in Spain or in other European countries see the UK leaving as they want to be 'free' you can imagine why they would find that very strange.
And the reason IDS, the Mail and Johnson are howling at Corbyn today is because they know that they have been floored by the announcement of Labour policy on the Customs Union. Not only does the electorate support remaining in the CU but there is also a working majority in Parliament. And the DUP appear somewhat snookered for they will surely struggle to support May in leaving the CU? The Ulster Unionist Party and the two main parties from the nationalist tradition, Sinn Fein and the SDLP support the CU.
The coalition of chaos is in danger of falling apart because the objectives of different groups are mutually exclusive. And the outcome simply doesn't ring true with statements from the EU27. They even briefed against phase one within days of agreeing it! The ERG and the DUP have a very different agenda to traditional Conservatives, let alone the Remain Tories. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long but at least it is in good time to consider the options throughout the rest of this year. As posted repeatedly, less than 1/3 of the electorate believe in a hard Brexit.
Time for the majority to take back control, starting with the CU debate. Once that "chapter" is discussed and perhaps closed, we move on with rational debate and legitimate lobbying along with democratic votes in our Parliament. We cannot expect the EU27 to make any comment on Corbyn for that would be an interference in our domestic politics. But it won't be a surprise if Labour have releases prepared in response to the next announcements by M.Barnier.
Keir Starmer is a QC and is thus measured and precise. Gove and Johnson are a couple of hacks from the Mail and Telegraph. The result is headlines and editorials like this one from Osborne in the Evening Standard
People may complain that membership of the Customs Union prevents the UK from negotiating its own trade deals. In response, those people should be asked whether the UK Government gives any impression of being capable of doing so.
There may also be complaints - by Brexit voters, mainly - that membership of the Customs Union while being outside EU membership means that we cannot influence the rules which govern the Customs Union. Those people should be asked an even simpler question: did you vote "leave" in order to have more or less say in the EU's rules?
I thought the Labour position was to respect the referendum result, but negotiate as soft a Brexit as possible. Meaning being more flexible on things such as free movement allowing free borders and to help secure/negotiate a decent trade deal. Also, they are looking for a longer transition period for business stability. There are disagreements on the detail. Some say this technically means leaving the single market and others argue it shouldn't. But if the agreement is broadly similar whatever you want to call it? Does it matter.
Now people may not like it, but it is a position. Labour has a similar problem to the Tories in nature, but far less amplified. That is that it has some ardent Europeans who feel the party should be campaigning to kill Brexit. The problem is Corbyn is not the EUs greatest fan. He does believe we are better off in it but also sees the neo-liberal direction it has taken as a negative. Labour hascore voters in the North of England who are very pro Brexit and voters in the south who are pro Remain. like the Tories, it has to tread a path - but its path - which isn't going to please everybody - is to go for the less extreme Brexit.
I am a remainer -but not a rabid one - I think it is stupid taking an action that is very likely to make you worse off. But if a soft Brexit is negotiated along the lines of what Norway have - the impact of Brexit would be softer - so I understand why people say Labour doesn't have a firm position, but surely they have a direction and the final position will be determined by two things -firstly the election that gives them power - if it demonstrates a strong remain trend within the electorate all bets would be off - but if not, then the difference will be a Brexit negotiated by a more flexible government.
All this hinges on us being in a customs union that will also give us freedom to negotiate with other countries in our own.
Had the government announced this wish, you lot would have been very quick to point out that the EU 27 (holding all the aces) have told us this won't be allowed. So how come it would if we have a communist government?
If course Corbyn knows he won't be in power so once again can claim whatever he wants and is likely to be planning on winning the next general election once Brexit has been finalised. He clearly doesn't want to deal with it before.
He wants a comprehensive Customs Union between the EU and the UK and he wants to work with and have a say in any new deals the EU does with other countries/trading blocks. He was most certainly not saying he wanted carte blanche to do separate trade deals with other countries that just involved the UK. Big difference.
Besides, why would for example China want to do a deal with the UK that was better for the UK than any deal they negotiate with the 27?
Now, we've got all that now of course.