Wrapped in this post is some reality in my view. I wouldn't use the phrase 'what the EU is prepared to give' so much as 'what the EU is'. For 43 years the UK has participated in shaping the EU and knows full well what it is, and what it is allowed to 'give' as it were. What has indeed been crystal clear from the start is the nature of the EU and unsurprisingly they have maintained that nature and not been chameleon like, like the shifting nature of the incompetent UK. Indeed the UK has tried to disguise it's incompetence at every turn on every issue by calling it 'negotiations', but it is the EU one has to turn to if anybody wants to know where they stand. I must be the only poster frustrated by this term 'hard', be it brexit or the border. The concept of a soft brexit or border is meaningless it seems to me, and going down that road leads into a new morass of interpretations and 'solutions'. One reliable and consistent feature of this whole malarkey has been the very admirable nature of the EU, and they seem to simply be waiting for the UK to realise you can't have your cake and eat it too however much of a tantrum it throws.
I don't think that you are alone.
Any Brexit, in my opinion, will be hard enough, because I think it will have a negative impact on the UK and the EU. And, to be honest, any border will be a hard border, because, being outside the Single Market and Customs Union will require new or increased people and trade controls, which will have to involve infrastructure of some sort on the UK's borders. I don't see how there can be a frictionless solution, when the nature of being outside the EU requires that there will be an end to the current arangements. However, I do believe that there are better and worse Brexits for the UK, and, for me, the best Brexit is membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I'd be less annoyed about the whole Brexit thing, though not by much I will admit, if HMG, and other leading "lights" of the UK's apparent chosen path, admitted to the people of the UK that there are inherent contradictions in various things that they say that they want, and to explain that, in a process of negotiation, it is unlikely that either side will get everything that they want.
Above all, I'd like some fecking detail about how it is that they believe that they can address the potential problems that have been highlighted. It's not enough to blather on about tehnological solutions that may be availble in the future. Brexit is almost in the here and now, even if only intended as interim solutions, a responsible Government would be putting in place the structures necessary to manage the process of leaving the EU (no matter what form of exit is planned, there will be a need for greater infrastructure to cope with th changes that Brexit will bring). Just saying that you would like a certain outcome does not make that outcome happen.
I'm not so sure that the UK actually knows what the EU is, or at least, its leading politicians don't seem to. For me, the notion, in both the Labour and Conservative appoaches to Brexit, that full access to the Single Market can be achieved without agreeing the four freedoms is delusional. In this, I fear that there is a continuation of David Cameron's misunderstanding of the foundations of the European Union in his "negotiations". They have been a central component of the EEC/EC/EU since the Treaty of Rome, and will not be simply cast aside in order to suit the UK, especially when the UK will no longer be a member state - it is the sort of thing that would require Treaty change, agreed by all the member states, and is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
For what it is worth, I think that Brexit has been really quite damaging in Northern Ireland, at a time when politics is, in any event, seeming to become more polarised. Many people, on the Nationalist side, who might have been willing to describe themselves as Northern Irish are much more likely to self-identify as Irish. The Good Friday Agreement helped create a middle ground in society, if not necessarily in political representation (though Sinn Fein and the DUP had been making moves to colonise the centre). In contrast, Brexit appears to be creating an open cast mine on this valuable property.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
Not according to all the Brexiteers it hasn't. I think we should term them as cake and eat it merchants!
Yet you're happy for Corbyn to do that exact same thing?
Corbyn and Labour have moved to support membership of the Customs Union. They would like a say in new FTAs but that is clearly up for negotiation. Their position is an entirely legitimate one for the opposition to take. One can call it opportunist and populist but at the same time it is logical and popular. Basic common sense compared to the ramblings of Fox and Johnson.
Some want Labour to go further vis a vis the single market but the next move is May's speech on Friday.
I thought the Labour position was to seek membership of a customs union, rather than the custeoms union, a big disctinction, I think. Do they not also want to be able to negotiate their own trade agreements with those countries where the EU do not have one?
Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
#games #nicetry #answerthebloodyquestion
You play the game of doing your best to derail it
No. There is a difference between playing the game you mention and not wanting to play your games. The way in which you approach others, with sly little digs to try and get them to engage in your game of superiority, is quite an ugly thing to see/watch.
I choose to take no part in it. If that irks you and leads you to make wild assumptions and level accusations against me then you carry on. It affects me not.
I am not sure what "game" I am playing by asking you what you thought about one of the most important and clear -eyed speeches on Brexit that has been delivered for some time. It's central to what the thread is about, FFS. As for your other remarks, I would only point out that it was you who "approached" my -clearly frivolous - comment, and not the other way round. If you don't like being dug, don't dig.
What a thought provoking composition. Thank you for putting it up. It most certainly gives food for thought on a myriad of issues and the political fall out between mainstream parties and the electorate.
Said fall out, I believe, has also happened due to the historical landscape of only having a two party system. I think people have been crying out for alternatives for years, even decades. Unfortunately a number of those people grabbed hold of the first beacon of light that was given to them, no matter how far removed from their current political beliefs that party was. So long as there was some common territory/ground then that was enough for them to dip their toe in to that particular party's world. As time went on these people felt as if they were being attacked by those with differing views (the centre lurchers that also found a new voice decrying anyone that didn't subscribe to this new, relatively wishy-washy and high on delegative leadership and responsibility, political vision) and it only served to embolden and strengthen their resolve and, in some cases, pushed them further away from their previously held positions and in to a more marginalised/unsavoury standpoint.
Is it worth reading parts 1-3?
Your question has pushed me to read 2 & 3 before answering and it most certainly is worth skimming. What the editors have done is find four or five political scientists / philosophers who predicted populism, Brexit and Trump before it happened. They talk of the Trilemma between globalisation, democracy and sovereignty - you can have just two out of three unless compromise is made. And that is exactly the debate we are having in the UK in 2018 over a soft and hard Brexit. For we can have a Customs Union and Single Market but not much say over the rules if we go with Norway.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". What we have here is Millwall and Charlton fans discussing ideas and events. Occasionally the conversation hits a low but so what. There are enough people here from all sides, and enough with personal connections to Ireland to make this quite illuminating. (For those who don't know my wife's family is from County Claire and she was brought up in Limerick)
As posted before the centre left is somewhat troubled and have been since the crash. On Sunday we will see the outcome of Italian elections plus the SPD membership vote on whether to go into coalition with Merkel. The result of those two decisions will surely affect the ability of Macron and others to lead a drive towards Eurozone Mk2. And that in turn will have the same discussions about economic benefits, gini coefficient and the democratic deficit plus sovereignty of course.
The part of the puzzle I don't understand is the effects of QE - i.e., the ability of nations or the eurozone to print money. When you add that to new technologies such as blockchain and crypto currencies (run by states and not faceless individuals) then we are moving rapidly into uncharted waters which surely require new approaches to philosophy and the political economy.
I'll try and set aside the time to read parts 1 through 3.
I'm not so sure I agree totally with Roosevelt when she said that "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". Reason being that so much happens at an individual level that you can't just lump it in with being small minded. That's another lazy way of trying to marginalise people that think differently to you.
All that said, again, thanks for putting the link up.
Getting back to the point of the thread, what are your views on Sir John Major's speech? Among other things, he doesn't seem as sanguine as you about the state of the economy...
Where have I made any comment, positive or negative, on the state of the economy?
Stop trying to be too clever.
Well I took your comment to me this morning to be a counter that the U.K. Is doing perfectly well because it has 4.4% unemployment rate. It is certainly true that you very rarely make any comment that offers a clear unambiguous personal opinion on anything. I am simply inviting you to do so now, since Sir John Major's speech is the Brexit talking point of the day.
#games #nicetry #answerthebloodyquestion
You play the game of doing your best to derail it
No. There is a difference between playing the game you mention and not wanting to play your games. The way in which you approach others, with sly little digs to try and get them to engage in your game of superiority, is quite an ugly thing to see/watch.
I choose to take no part in it. If that irks you and leads you to make wild assumptions and level accusations against me then you carry on. It affects me not.
I am not sure what "game" I am playing by asking you what you thought about one of the most important and clear -eyed speeches on Brexit that has been delivered for some time. It's central to what the thread is about, FFS. As for your other remarks, I would only point out that it was you who "approached" my -clearly frivolous - comment, and not the other way round. If you don't like being dug, don't dig.
I think you're more than aware. The man doth protest too much.
Anyway, are we any closer to getting to the bottom of whether or not you changed the question I was answering? Or was it just an innocent mistake due to not having read the previous posts that led to my answer?
As for not liking being dug at, I don't mind. I don't mind at all. I always have a large fly-swat to hand.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
It does not matter what Corbyn or May want-it is what the EU is prepared to give that matters. They will not allow the UK to flout the four freedoms. That has been crystal clear from the start.
Not according to all the Brexiteers it hasn't. I think we should term them as cake and eat it merchants!
Yet you're happy for Corbyn to do that exact same thing?
Corbyn and Labour have moved to support membership of the Customs Union. They would like a say in new FTAs but that is clearly up for negotiation. Their position is an entirely legitimate one for the opposition to take. One can call it opportunist and populist but at the same time it is logical and popular. Basic common sense compared to the ramblings of Fox and Johnson.
Some want Labour to go further vis a vis the single market but the next move is May's speech on Friday.
I thought the Labour position was to seek membership of a customs union, rather than the custeoms union, a big disctinction, I think. Do they not also want to be able to negotiate their own trade agreements with those countries where the EU do not have one?
Yes, there is a distinction between a customs union and the customs union but we cannot be sure what "a customs union" entails. However it is possible to predict that the EU might simply offer membership of the CU as they simply do not have the time nor the inclination to come up with variations. This report from the BBC has two key quotes - my reading is that Labour wants a say in new deals, not for theUK to negotiate on its own.
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Again you seem to promote the idea that "The EU" is controlled by supra-national little green men. Of course it is a political project. Politics changes direction. Even if it were true that Germany dictates the entire direction of the EU (and Macron might have something to say about that, not to mention the mad Poles), you yourself were wanting to cite the changing political landscape in Germany in your post yesterday. Blair was quite rightly saying that there is a changing attitude to immigration across Europe - including in Germany; you cited the relative strength of the AfD yourself. I don't like Blair because of the values that emerged from him over the years but as a global politician there remain few more competent and I would not be at all surprised if he gets a ready audience for his proposal.
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
The plan to annex Northern Ireland? Are you sure? The EU has said as a third backstop option, based on what the UK agreed to, that there would be common arrangements on the whole island of Ireland. In other words following up an idea put forward by the UK. Not a plan for annexation. It is up to to UK to suggest the detail as to how the first two options might work. The EU is being patient and accommodating, but it might feel to them like trying to house train the UK puppy.
Reply to Seth I agree with almost everything you say here. I heard Blair on the radio this morning saying that he is going to ask the EU to change its immigration policies to allow the UK to stay in.
Whether he is sincere or not, he also does not seem to understand that the EU is a political as well as an economic project. Its end goal is a federal Europe, however long and tortuous that journey may be. It will not change its direction to suit the requirements of any one of its members, except the most important one-Germany.
As long as Germany is on board with the project the 4 freedoms will be inviolable and countries that want to be part of it have to accept that. The 'negotiations' are delusional, demoralising and potentially dangerous, as we can see with the EU's plan to annex Northern Ireland if they cannot get their way.
Again you seem to promote the idea that "The EU" is controlled by supra-national little green men. Of course it is a political project. Politics changes direction. Even if it were true that Germany dictates the entire direction of the EU (and Macron might have something to say about that, not to mention the mad Poles), you yourself were wanting to cite the changing political landscape in Germany in your post yesterday. Blair was quite rightly saying that there is a changing attitude to immigration across Europe - including in Germany; you cited the relative strength of the AfD yourself. I don't like Blair because of the values that emerged from him over the years but as a global politician there remain few more competent and I would not be at all surprised if he gets a ready audience for his proposal.
If you would like a bet on the EU abandoning the free movement of people in the next 5 years I would be willing to take it. It would be a win win for me as I want it abandoned.
!If you're living in a third world country, living by a river and getting eaten by crocadiles then your f**ked!... it's the zero of zero and zero is a magnet... but maybe those people are happy than those living in a gated community?" Fantastic - thanks for sharing.
As per your question yesterday, part of the solution is the welfare state - brought together in the 1940s but perhaps the parameters need revisiting. The NHS and social care is screaming out for more resources but that's mostly for the over 50s. So what about training, fulfilment and basic incomes for the 80-90% of working age who aren't making big money?
Tusk has said that there can be no frictionless border between the ROI and NI without there being membership of THE Customs Union and Single Market. The DUP won’t allow NI having any separate status than that of the rest of the UK. The government are intent on leaving both the CU and SM.
Seems to me that we have finally arrived at an impasse that can be navigated. It’s a red line for both. One in ideology and the other because they are hamstrung by their own parties internal split with a Prime Minister unable to lead.
How much further can we travel towards the exit door before the House of Commons take responsibility and force a change in direction before it’s too late.
There's a difference between saying it and believing it. Most of what the government says I doubt even they believe is true.
I agree entirely there, however, it's not impossible to see how it could be the first step towards annexing NI. If the government didn't like that, the idiots shouldn't have agreed to it in the first place.
Let's ignore the conspiracy theory that the EU is plotting to break up the United Kingdom for a second and just look at that claim...
"The EU is trying to annex Northern Ireland"
The EU is not a country, it owns no sovereign land nor an army. How in the fucking hell can it annex Northern Ireland? The Vatican City is in a better position to annex Northern Ireland for crying out loud. At least it fits the basic criteria of being able to do so.
What a thought provoking composition. Thank you for putting it up. It most certainly gives food for thought on a myriad of issues and the political fall out between mainstream parties and the electorate.
Said fall out, I believe, has also happened due to the historical landscape of only having a two party system. I think people have been crying out for alternatives for years, even decades. Unfortunately a number of those people grabbed hold of the first beacon of light that was given to them, no matter how far removed from their current political beliefs that party was. So long as there was some common territory/ground then that was enough for them to dip their toe in to that particular party's world. As time went on these people felt as if they were being attacked by those with differing views (the centre lurchers that also found a new voice decrying anyone that didn't subscribe to this new, relatively wishy-washy and high on delegative leadership and responsibility, political vision) and it only served to embolden and strengthen their resolve and, in some cases, pushed them further away from their previously held positions and in to a more marginalised/unsavoury standpoint.
Is it worth reading parts 1-3?
Your question has pushed me to read 2 & 3 before answering and it most certainly is worth skimming. What the editors have done is find four or five political scientists / philosophers who predicted populism, Brexit and Trump before it happened. They talk of the Trilemma between globalisation, democracy and sovereignty - you can have just two out of three unless compromise is made. And that is exactly the debate we are having in the UK in 2018 over a soft and hard Brexit. For we can have a Customs Union and Single Market but not much say over the rules if we go with Norway.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". What we have here is Millwall and Charlton fans discussing ideas and events. Occasionally the conversation hits a low but so what. There are enough people here from all sides, and enough with personal connections to Ireland to make this quite illuminating. (For those who don't know my wife's family is from County Claire and she was brought up in Limerick)
As posted before the centre left is somewhat troubled and have been since the crash. On Sunday we will see the outcome of Italian elections plus the SPD membership vote on whether to go into coalition with Merkel. The result of those two decisions will surely affect the ability of Macron and others to lead a drive towards Eurozone Mk2. And that in turn will have the same discussions about economic benefits, gini coefficient and the democratic deficit plus sovereignty of course.
The part of the puzzle I don't understand is the effects of QE - i.e., the ability of nations or the eurozone to print money. When you add that to new technologies such as blockchain and crypto currencies (run by states and not faceless individuals) then we are moving rapidly into uncharted waters which surely require new approaches to philosophy and the political economy.
I'll try and set aside the time to read parts 1 through 3.
I'm not so sure I agree totally with Roosevelt when she said that "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". Reason being that so much happens at an individual level that you can't just lump it in with being small minded. That's another lazy way of trying to marginalise people that think differently to you.
All that said, again, thanks for putting the link up.
This is not to trivialized the lived experience, far from it. And the whole point is that the metropolitan elites became detached from all of the individuals in regions which voted by a landslide for leave. No this is about those who tend to attack individuals playing the man not the ball or seek to justify a point of view based upon what thier mother / sister / brother in law said the other night. For sure we have a wide variety of social contacts but my point is that one can link a view from an individual to an event, a concept and an overview of society.
You have shared those videos, many share articles, and I have shared surveys from this site showing views on Customs Union etc. If one doesn't take in the bigger picture then it is oh so easy for remainers to blame the leave voters and/or box them up as little Englanders etc.
In one of the many universes on the Ireland question perhaps May is very pissed off having to get into bed with the DUP, because given the cavalier approach of many brexit politicians I can see them wishing an Irish Sea border solution could happen, despite May's protestations at PMQ's yesterday.
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
Apparently there's another interpretation of what Southbank means when he says, "... I was a soft Leaver until the referendum...", as he did recently, before explaining that the EU's approach has moved him to the hardest of Brexits possible.
Now of course there's only one version.
Wrong again-I was always in favour of completely leaving the EU, but it was not top of my concerns. Now I am still in favour of completely leaving the EU and it is top of my concerns. Got it now?
Not really tbh. What I do get is that if I were using any adjective to describe my initial approach to Brexit I think I'd avoid using a term like, "soft", which has very clear connotations in this context. Even taking you at your word; indifferent about, unmoved by, apathetic about, uninterested in, dispassionate about and plenty more adjectives might have been more appropriate than "soft"...it's all academic of course but indicative of Leavers changing the narrative to suit the circumstances.
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
There may be a way for the UK to leave the EU, not remain in the CU/SM, regain full control of its borders and fully control immigration, as well as maintain the GFA and a frictionless border with Ireland without imposing an internal border in the UK or without threatening the breakup of the UK.
However, it is up to those for whom this is a red line (Farage, JRM etc.) to actually propose a solution that fulfils these criteria. As useful as it is for these far-right pundits to whip up their followers into a jingoistic frenzy and label anyone who deviates from the hardest, most damaging of Brexits as a traitor, what would be more useful is if anyone this far on the right of the spectrum who is demanding this hard Brexit actually had a workable solution to the issue?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But there are different ways of leaving the EU. The chap who made the comment on the form needs to understand that there is what people call a soft Brexit and what people call a hard Brexit. It isn't that difficult and the ballot did not stipulate either. Corbyn's statement did not change the party's position on Brexit, just clarified that the Labour party wants a soft Brexit. As do a significant number of Tory MPs.
Look at all the polls and that is what a clear majority of the public want. Oh but I forgot, hard Brexiters only pretend to want democracy. I will agree that a clear majority of those who voted for Brexit probably wanted a hard one. But when you consider the 48% who voted to remain and almost certainly would prefer the damage limitation of a soft Brexit alongside the Brexiters who wanted it, it should be no surprise the polls are telling us that.
The flaw in your argument is that there is no such thing as a 'soft' Brexit-as the EU is making clear all the time. It is one or the other. Only fantasists amongst the Tories and Labour are kidding themselves that it is.
Are you being serious? Of course there is - remaining in a customs Union is a big part of a soft Brexit. Ask yourself a simple question - Are Norway in the EU? Otherwise what is all the fuss about?
But of course there is a soft Brexit otherwise nobody who wants a hard Brexit will be bothered by what Corbyn said this week. His position is to leave the EU!
Apparently there's another interpretation of what Southbank means when he says, "... I was a soft Leaver until the referendum...", as he did recently, before explaining that the EU's approach has moved him to the hardest of Brexits possible.
Now of course there's only one version.
Wrong again-I was always in favour of completely leaving the EU, but it was not top of my concerns. Now I am still in favour of completely leaving the EU and it is top of my concerns. Got it now?
Not really tbh. What I do get is that if I were using any adjective to describe my initial approach to Brexit I think I'd avoid using a term like, "soft", which has very clear connotations in this context. Even taking you at your word; indifferent about, unmoved by, apathetic about, uninterested in, dispassionate about and plenty more adjectives might have been more appropriate than "soft"...it's all academic of course but indicative of Leavers changing the narrative to suit the circumstances.
You are right... I should not have used the word 'soft'
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
An Irish Sea border would be the end of the UK, an absolutely terrible idea.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled - the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised - the UK would not become fractured - our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
Whuch would mean staying under ECJ control and accepting freedom of movement. How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?
Given this was proposed multiple times by the official Leave campaigns and all prominent Brexiters then those in the 17.4million either agreed or they weren't paying attention.
Comments
Any Brexit, in my opinion, will be hard enough, because I think it will have a negative impact on the UK and the EU. And, to be honest, any border will be a hard border, because, being outside the Single Market and Customs Union will require new or increased people and trade controls, which will have to involve infrastructure of some sort on the UK's borders. I don't see how there can be a frictionless solution, when the nature of being outside the EU requires that there will be an end to the current arangements. However, I do believe that there are better and worse Brexits for the UK, and, for me, the best Brexit is membership of the Single Market and Customs Union.
I'd be less annoyed about the whole Brexit thing, though not by much I will admit, if HMG, and other leading "lights" of the UK's apparent chosen path, admitted to the people of the UK that there are inherent contradictions in various things that they say that they want, and to explain that, in a process of negotiation, it is unlikely that either side will get everything that they want.
Above all, I'd like some fecking detail about how it is that they believe that they can address the potential problems that have been highlighted. It's not enough to blather on about tehnological solutions that may be availble in the future. Brexit is almost in the here and now, even if only intended as interim solutions, a responsible Government would be putting in place the structures necessary to manage the process of leaving the EU (no matter what form of exit is planned, there will be a need for greater infrastructure to cope with th changes that Brexit will bring). Just saying that you would like a certain outcome does not make that outcome happen.
I'm not so sure that the UK actually knows what the EU is, or at least, its leading politicians don't seem to. For me, the notion, in both the Labour and Conservative appoaches to Brexit, that full access to the Single Market can be achieved without agreeing the four freedoms is delusional. In this, I fear that there is a continuation of David Cameron's misunderstanding of the foundations of the European Union in his "negotiations". They have been a central component of the EEC/EC/EU since the Treaty of Rome, and will not be simply cast aside in order to suit the UK, especially when the UK will no longer be a member state - it is the sort of thing that would require Treaty change, agreed by all the member states, and is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
For what it is worth, I think that Brexit has been really quite damaging in Northern Ireland, at a time when politics is, in any event, seeming to become more polarised. Many people, on the Nationalist side, who might have been willing to describe themselves as Northern Irish are much more likely to self-identify as Irish. The Good Friday Agreement helped create a middle ground in society, if not necessarily in political representation (though Sinn Fein and the DUP had been making moves to colonise the centre). In contrast, Brexit appears to be creating an open cast mine on this valuable property.
I thought the Labour position was to seek membership of a customs union, rather than the custeoms union, a big disctinction, I think. Do they not also want to be able to negotiate their own trade agreements with those countries where the EU do not have one?
What an incredibly stupid man.
Says it all really.
I'm not so sure I agree totally with Roosevelt when she said that "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events and small minds discuss people". Reason being that so much happens at an individual level that you can't just lump it in with being small minded. That's another lazy way of trying to marginalise people that think differently to you.
All that said, again, thanks for putting the link up.
Anyway, are we any closer to getting to the bottom of whether or not you changed the question I was answering? Or was it just an innocent mistake due to not having read the previous posts that led to my answer?
As for not liking being dug at, I don't mind. I don't mind at all. I always have a large fly-swat to hand.
Are you sure?
The EU has said as a third backstop option, based on what the UK agreed to, that there would be common arrangements on the whole island of Ireland.
In other words following up an idea put forward by the UK. Not a plan for annexation.
It is up to to UK to suggest the detail as to how the first two options might work.
The EU is being patient and accommodating, but it might feel to them like trying to house train the UK puppy.
Seriously who actually believes this shit?
As per your question yesterday, part of the solution is the welfare state - brought together in the 1940s but perhaps the parameters need revisiting. The NHS and social care is screaming out for more resources but that's mostly for the over 50s. So what about training, fulfilment and basic incomes for the 80-90% of working age who aren't making big money?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/eu-publishes-plan-to-keep-northern-ireland-in-customs-union
Seems to me that we have finally arrived at an impasse that can be navigated. It’s a red line for both. One in ideology and the other because they are hamstrung by their own parties internal split with a Prime Minister unable to lead.
How much further can we travel towards the exit door before the House of Commons take responsibility and force a change in direction before it’s too late.
Looking at that link @seriously_red - your reading of the situation is probably right.
Clowns, the lot of 'em.
"The EU is trying to annex Northern Ireland"
The EU is not a country, it owns no sovereign land nor an army. How in the fucking hell can it annex Northern Ireland? The Vatican City is in a better position to annex Northern Ireland for crying out loud. At least it fits the basic criteria of being able to do so.
You have shared those videos, many share articles, and I have shared surveys from this site showing views on Customs Union etc. If one doesn't take in the bigger picture then it is oh so easy for remainers to blame the leave voters and/or box them up as little Englanders etc.
The correct answer to all of this is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union and the Single Market with all that it entails. If we were to do this;
- the democratic mandate to leave the EU would be fulfilled
- the good Friday agreement would not be jeapordised
- the UK would not become fractured
- our economy would be protected
Taking the CU & SM off the table before negotiations had even begun was probably the second stupidest thing May has done in this whole shambles (triggering article 50 before she had a clue what she was doing is probably number 1).
However, it is up to those for whom this is a red line (Farage, JRM etc.) to actually propose a solution that fulfils these criteria. As useful as it is for these far-right pundits to whip up their followers into a jingoistic frenzy and label anyone who deviates from the hardest, most damaging of Brexits as a traitor, what would be more useful is if anyone this far on the right of the spectrum who is demanding this hard Brexit actually had a workable solution to the issue?
I should not have used the word 'soft'
How many of the 17.4 million thought that woud be the result of leaving the EU do you think?