As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
OK, so here are a few views.
We all see/here what supports our own entrenched views far easier than those views we oppose.
I have said before that I have never liked the idea of being in the EU, the EC or the EEC. Despite 2016 being the first meaningful vote I have ever been allowed on the matter, I was still unsure just how I was going to cast my vote a day or two before the referendum as I was trying to weigh up the pros and cons. We were never given any facts, just opinions, bias and lies from both sides. We have far more information about the process than we did before the referendum but we still don't have solid facts about how we are going to leave so we can't know what will happen as a result.
What I get bombarded with is a huge amount of gloom and doom from social media and the mainstream media too. These are still just opinions and bias. If you start from a basic premise that Brexit is going to be a disaster then it isn't surprising that your findings will bare this out. There are a distinct lack of articles showing any balance at all, one side makes biased or exaggerated claims and this is then countered by the opposite biased or exaggerated claims to try and change people's minds. It isn't working, particularly when the writer/speaker insults the other side. Everybody just gets the hump and refuses to listen to the other side's legitimate points. Bizarrely, the only personality I can recall hearing speak in a balanced way on Brexit is Martin Lewis.
The LSE claimed that mass immigration hadn't lowered indigenous wages, I can only think that their research centred on sectors that were less prone to the adverse affects of uncontrolled immigration. We heard on this forum from people who had direct experience in the building industry of their income being driven down by new competition. Why would experts be believed when people's own experiences proved this report to be wrong? It also claimed that mass immigration had no adverse affect on social housing. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse
Immigration is undoubtedly a good thing for the UK overall and indeed the immigrants but it has to be controlled and not used to avoid necessary investment in modernising UK businesses by lazy employers. This is helping to drive down our productivity and wages in some sectors.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward.
I actually don't have a problem with BMW moving their planned maintenance of their factory to coincide with the the beginning of Brexit, this makes business sense. Of course the timing is based on politics rather than business but it does highlight that much of UK business is getting more and more desperate to know what is going to happen going forward so that they can make plans. The lack of any sense of what the outcome of the negotiations is the real issue for businesses and EU immigrants alike, once a firm agreement is made, everyone can move forward.
I am politically homeless as I see no party that speaks for me and no politician likely to come through that inspires me. I think that I would like a new central party but one based on giving us Brexit, not thwarting it. PR would help deal with many issues, maybe creating others but I would want to see it introduced then the nutters taking over the Labour Party can do so and all the Blairites can so their own thing etc.
No doubt some Brexit politician with the usual shit for brains will pop up later and claim it is just more scaremongering!
No, blackmail actually
Or perhaps one of the most influential car makers on the planet setting out to protect the interests of its shareholders in the face of being threatened by perhaps the biggest shooting ones own feet fest the world of business has ever seen. If the one month closure also has the effect of one across the bows of this lunatic project then I’m sure we all see that as an added benefit.
As I said,blackmail...That you approve of apparently. Great to be a Remainer welcoming workers being laid off.
I will dig a little deeper into your assumption. Correct me if I am wrong by the way, but you seem to be suggesting that German BMW/Mini are somehow blackmailing the UK by threatening to halt production in the UK the day after formal brexit. It seems to follow that if blackmail holds a threat, then the threat is that stopping production will be damaging in some way, to the UK. (If you don't see it as damaging then it is no biggie is it, or certainly as big as 'blackmail'?). So if blackmail is to exert some kind of influence, force change, or force action what do you believe BMW to be blackmailing the UK into? Into saying 'oh feck, BMW don't like it, we must call brexit off!' Or are BMW after some other result? Is what they do their own business, the same as what the UK does is it's own business? How are two entities going about their business be said to be one entity blackmailing another? Are you saying that BMW must, under some kind of compulsion, continue to have production? If so what kind of compulsion, legal? Moral? Financial? There is no blackmail going on because no demands are being set out by BMW. Unless you actually know what is written on BMW's 'or else' note.
I am saying that a German company that does not want us to leave the EU is threatening to lay British workers off when we do. If that is not blackmail what is?
Except for the fact that they are not threatening to lay off workers, so that what you are saying is inaccurate, you could almost be right.
What BMW are doing is attempting to read the runes and manage risk.
There is no certainty about what the UK Government wants from the current negotiations, and even less about whether, if the Conservative Party Conference can indicate backing for the PM, the EU would agree (I have my doubts, but there you go).
In this climate, and with little evidence that HMG have established the contingency plans that would ensure no dislocation in the event of a chaotic hard Brexit, BMW are trying to limit the potential damage to their business - which, if anything, is an attempt to preserve employment in the UK. What they have done is moved their annual 4 week shut down, a common German motor manufacturer event, normally in August time, because they have every reason to expect a disruption to their just in time supply chain. They are doing this in the hope, if not necessarily expectation, that there are adults in the room in Government, and that the immediate shock to the border processes will be quickly addressed, and some stop gap solution be implemented to prevent UK manufacturing going tits up.
Their only other option (to weather the immediate stresses of a chaotic Brexit) is to strain every sinew over the next six months to successfully invent time travel, go back in time, purchase lands, get planning permission and build storage facilities for parts, etc.
If you want blackmail, the BMW announcement is the wrong place to look, it's not even a mildly worded threat. What it is is what industry warned about over a year ago, that they would have to consider contingency plans if the Government did not make progress in talks. I am sure BMW would be delighted to hear that a brilliant exit deal (including a political agreement about the nature of any future trading relationship) will be left by Santa under the tree in No. 10, but they cannot trust that it will happen, just as they cannot trust soundbites that masquerade as policy achievements.
Please don't contaminate Southbank's imagination with fact. I doubt he even bothered to read the statement from BMW - he just saw the headline and thought blackmail it is. If it was a UK manufacturer reliant on parts from the EU then they would have done the same thing.
He wants to see it as blackmail and that's the only way he will see it.
I've got to say Telly Tubby that's an impressive looking response. Thank you. I've had a few gins this evening so I'll refrain from commenting on any specifics at the moment. I'll give this the concentration it deserves when I've got less booze in me.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
No doubt some Brexit politician with the usual shit for brains will pop up later and claim it is just more scaremongering!
No, blackmail actually
Or perhaps one of the most influential car makers on the planet setting out to protect the interests of its shareholders in the face of being threatened by perhaps the biggest shooting ones own feet fest the world of business has ever seen. If the one month closure also has the effect of one across the bows of this lunatic project then I’m sure we all see that as an added benefit.
As I said,blackmail...That you approve of apparently. Great to be a Remainer welcoming workers being laid off.
I will dig a little deeper into your assumption. Correct me if I am wrong by the way, but you seem to be suggesting that German BMW/Mini are somehow blackmailing the UK by threatening to halt production in the UK the day after formal brexit. It seems to follow that if blackmail holds a threat, then the threat is that stopping production will be damaging in some way, to the UK. (If you don't see it as damaging then it is no biggie is it, or certainly as big as 'blackmail'?). So if blackmail is to exert some kind of influence, force change, or force action what do you believe BMW to be blackmailing the UK into? Into saying 'oh feck, BMW don't like it, we must call brexit off!' Or are BMW after some other result? Is what they do their own business, the same as what the UK does is it's own business? How are two entities going about their business be said to be one entity blackmailing another? Are you saying that BMW must, under some kind of compulsion, continue to have production? If so what kind of compulsion, legal? Moral? Financial? There is no blackmail going on because no demands are being set out by BMW. Unless you actually know what is written on BMW's 'or else' note.
I am saying that a German company that does not want us to leave the EU is threatening to lay British workers off when we do. If that is not blackmail what is?
They will be one of many who will hide behind brexit as a means of moving, shutting down and laying off, They know it too but dont have the bollocks to admit it. The other day some were talking about Jaguar and Land Rover, Indian owned run by a German...hardly remember them whining about steel workers jobs when the Indians were messing it up.
Does it matter if they 'admit' what you say they won't admit anyway? You say they will blame business decisions on brexit, when really they are business decisions based on something else, but so what? Are you attempting to say that brexit is fine and dandy and fundamentally robust but failing businesses are using it as an excuse, an excuse to cover up...to cover up what?
I am glad you understood as your oppo didn't...I have said it before and I will say it again, some businesses will hide behind brexit to bury bad news, and you lot will do the same....when you see how many businesses collapse go into administration each year, you only seem to be concerned with those effected in your view by brexit.
We all see/here what supports our own entrenched views far easier than those views we oppose.
I have said before that I have never liked the idea of being in the EU, the EC or the EEC. Despite 2016 being the first meaningful vote I have ever been allowed on the matter, I was still unsure just how I was going to cast my vote a day or two before the referendum as I was trying to weigh up the pros and cons. We were never given any facts, just opinions, bias and lies from both sides. We have far more information about the process than we did before the referendum but we still don't have solid facts about how we are going to leave so we can't know what will happen as a result.
What I get bombarded with is a huge amount of gloom and doom from social media and the mainstream media too. These are still just opinions and bias. If you start from a basic premise that Brexit is going to be a disaster then it isn't surprising that your findings will bare this out. There are a distinct lack of articles showing any balance at all, one side makes biased or exaggerated claims and this is then countered by the opposite biased or exaggerated claims to try and change people's minds. It isn't working, particularly when the writer/speaker insults the other side. Everybody just gets the hump and refuses to listen to the other side's legitimate points. Bizarrely, the only personality I can recall hearing speak in a balanced way on Brexit is Martin Lewis.
The LSE claimed that mass immigration hadn't lowered indigenous wages, I can only think that their research centred on sectors that were less prone to the adverse affects of uncontrolled immigration. We heard on this forum from people who had direct experience in the building industry of their income being driven down by new competition. Why would experts be believed when people's own experiences proved this report to be wrong? It also claimed that mass immigration had no adverse affect on social housing. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse
Immigration is undoubtedly a good thing for the UK overall and indeed the immigrants but it has to be controlled and not used to avoid necessary investment in modernising UK businesses by lazy employers. This is helping to drive down our productivity and wages in some sectors.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward.
I actually don't have a problem with BMW moving their planned maintenance of their factory to coincide with the the beginning of Brexit, this makes business sense. Of course the timing is based on politics rather than business but it does highlight that much of UK business is getting more and more desperate to know what is going to happen going forward so that they can make plans. The lack of any sense of what the outcome of the negotiations is the real issue for businesses and EU immigrants alike, once a firm agreement is made, everyone can move forward.
I am politically homeless as I see no party that speaks for me and no politician likely to come through that inspires me. I think that I would like a new central party but one based on giving us Brexit, not thwarting it. PR would help deal with many issues, maybe creating others but I would want to see it introduced then the nutters taking over the Labour Party can do so and all the Blairites can so their own thing etc.
For what it's worth, I'd recommend looking at the European press, if you want mainstream media outlets mentioning the harm to the EU27.
Why, even The Irish Times has an English language version....
There are regular warnings of harm to the EU, including those emanating from the Commission, but the feeling is that the level of harm is not so great to all 27 (it could fairly well knacker some businesses in Ireland) that it is worth undermining its founding principles (which, in my view is the single greatest flaw in the Brexiter conceit, because that cannot happen without Treaty change, and that just is not on the cards).
In contrast to you, @TellyTubby I am convinced that the EU, EC and EEC has, IMHO, been brilliant for Northern Ireland, and not just in terms of money (it has just as much been about providing shared space and a neutral arena of co-existence, something which Theresa May is not helping - everyone assumes that a Conservative PM will be a Unionist, but that doesn't mean she has to give a speech to that effect in Belfast, the "honest broker" role taken in the early 1990s and confirmed in the Belfast Agreement is being significantly undermined). Personally, I do not think it is a coincidence that Brexit and the political crisis here are happening at the same time.
Mind you, if you want to be politically homeless, feel free to move over here any time you want, a political environment where a party solely created to legalise cannabis use can sometimes seem the only sane option in a sea of rival national identities and a fetishised addiction to flegs will soon make you dream of the delights of Corbyn and May...
Jesus Christ! it is becoming clearer by the day that the Brexiteer politicians are as dumb and moronic as the Brexit voters!
And some wonder why there is no balance to these debates. Going to ignore this comment too @cabbles ? I'm sorry but this sort of keyboard warrior shit really pushes my buttons.
Why can't you just accept that some people have a view that's not the same as your's? You might then help the world to be a better place.
What's stopping you bringing some balance to the discussion then? I would definitely welcome some positive input from Leavers that's based on fact and not wishful thinking and rhetoric.
Look at today's output from Leavers for example. I posted an official study pointing out (again) that, far from being a drain on society as is perceived Leave wisdom, EU immigration has a positive financial impact overall. The response? Nothing. Not a single reply acknowledging that one of the supposed biggest reasons behind Leavers concerns seems to be based on nothing more than misleading, alarmist headlines in the press and the likes of Farage and Johnson stiring it up. FFS we are changing the whole nature of the country off the back of those voters who were led to believe EU immigrants were the cause of many of societies ills.
Instead what we get is a link to a fairly offensive opinion piece and targeted hatchet job spouting pretty much every Leaver clichè about Remain voters being lead by self interested elites. Presumably we also had no idea what we were voting for either? As a Remainer I find that as insulting as anything others post lumping Leavers together as thickos...
The average EU migrant doesn't contribute as much in taxes, NI etc than what I do, hence why I never replied to it. I am sure if I was bothered I could have found a source to counter act that argument.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
Maybe. But I would love to see a situation where the people get to decide, rather than the EU deciding what's best for the UK, and the PM forced to paper over chasms in her party. If we leave on the basis you describe, I would suggest it would be very far from a done deal.
We all see/here what supports our own entrenched views far easier than those views we oppose.
I have said before that I have never liked the idea of being in the EU, the EC or the EEC. Despite 2016 being the first meaningful vote I have ever been allowed on the matter, I was still unsure just how I was going to cast my vote a day or two before the referendum as I was trying to weigh up the pros and cons. We were never given any facts, just opinions, bias and lies from both sides. We have far more information about the process than we did before the referendum but we still don't have solid facts about how we are going to leave so we can't know what will happen as a result.
What I get bombarded with is a huge amount of gloom and doom from social media and the mainstream media too. These are still just opinions and bias. If you start from a basic premise that Brexit is going to be a disaster then it isn't surprising that your findings will bare this out. There are a distinct lack of articles showing any balance at all, one side makes biased or exaggerated claims and this is then countered by the opposite biased or exaggerated claims to try and change people's minds. It isn't working, particularly when the writer/speaker insults the other side. Everybody just gets the hump and refuses to listen to the other side's legitimate points. Bizarrely, the only personality I can recall hearing speak in a balanced way on Brexit is Martin Lewis.
The LSE claimed that mass immigration hadn't lowered indigenous wages, I can only think that their research centred on sectors that were less prone to the adverse affects of uncontrolled immigration. We heard on this forum from people who had direct experience in the building industry of their income being driven down by new competition. Why would experts be believed when people's own experiences proved this report to be wrong? It also claimed that mass immigration had no adverse affect on social housing. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse
Immigration is undoubtedly a good thing for the UK overall and indeed the immigrants but it has to be controlled and not used to avoid necessary investment in modernising UK businesses by lazy employers. This is helping to drive down our productivity and wages in some sectors.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward.
I actually don't have a problem with BMW moving their planned maintenance of their factory to coincide with the the beginning of Brexit, this makes business sense. Of course the timing is based on politics rather than business but it does highlight that much of UK business is getting more and more desperate to know what is going to happen going forward so that they can make plans. The lack of any sense of what the outcome of the negotiations is the real issue for businesses and EU immigrants alike, once a firm agreement is made, everyone can move forward.
I am politically homeless as I see no party that speaks for me and no politician likely to come through that inspires me. I think that I would like a new central party but one based on giving us Brexit, not thwarting it. PR would help deal with many issues, maybe creating others but I would want to see it introduced then the nutters taking over the Labour Party can do so and all the Blairites can so their own thing etc.
For what it's worth, I'd recommend looking at the European press, if you want mainstream media outlets mentioning the harm to the EU27.
Why, even The Irish Times has an English language version....
There are regular warnings of harm to the EU, including those emanating from the Commission, but the feeling is that the level of harm is not so great to all 27 (it could fairly well knacker some businesses in Ireland) that it is worth undermining its founding principles (which, in my view is the single greatest flaw in the Brexiter conceit, because that cannot happen without Treaty change, and that just is not on the cards).
In contrast to you, @TellyTubby I am convinced that the EU, EC and EEC has, IMHO, been brilliant for Northern Ireland, and not just in terms of money (it has just as much been about providing shared space and a neutral arena of co-existence, something which Theresa May is not helping - everyone assumes that a Conservative PM will be a Unionist, but that doesn't mean she has to give a speech to that effect in Belfast, the "honest broker" role taken in the early 1990s and confirmed in the Belfast Agreement is being significantly undermined). Personally, I do not think it is a coincidence that Brexit and the political crisis here are happening at the same time.
Mind you, if you want to be politically homeless, feel free to move over here any time you want, a political environment where a party solely created to legalise cannabis use can sometimes seem the only sane option in a sea of rival national identities and a fetishised addiction to flegs will soon make you dream of the delights of Corbyn and May...
Thanks for the suggestion. I am not surprised that the press outside of the UK could be more balanced. They don't have the same interest in trying to influence their target audience to change their minds.
I don't want to be politically homeless believe me. As an atheist I just scratch my head over why anyone gets so serious over religion. I could never live in the USA for that reason.
Look up my favourite website facts4eu.org, click on the septs hot brexit news in the top left hand column and scroll down to "the backing the single market section" very interesting reading...For the first time tomorrow I will tune in to JOB on LBC to see what he has to say about it.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
Except that the EU27 are highly unlikely to agree an Agreement that will meet Gove's hopes.
Also, while the EU27 will be quite happy to seek agreed wording for the legally binding, "all-weather", Irish border backstop (as they have since last December, when the UK agreed to the backstop) they cannot agree to the HMG idea that the UK as a whole be included.
Don't get me wrong, they want a deal, it is self-evidently better than none, but for all Dominic Raab's bluster, they are unlikely to feel that he is right to say the ball is in their court.
They are quite clear what kind of political and economic relationships are possible, given the UK position, and a political statement about the future would be (relatively) straightforward but the exit deal has to be agreed first.
TT. A couple of points. What lies were told by the remoaners? BoE chief Carney reckons we are already £40bn worse off. Rees-Mogg's ERG bullshitters claim an £80bn boost over 5 years despite him claiming £135bn last year yet elsewhere he admits it may take 50 years to see any benefits. Is this trickle-down from the profits his hedge fund will make post Brexit? Even Farage is back-tracking. How many of the 52% voted for a hard or no Brexit? Will of the people, my arse!
TT. A couple of points. What lies were told by the remoaners? BoE chief Carney reckons we are already £40bn worse off. Rees-Mogg's ERG bullshitters claim an £80bn boost over 5 years despite him claiming £135bn last year yet elsewhere he admits it may take 50 years to see any benefits. Is this trickle-down from the profits his hedge fund will make post Brexit? Even Farage is back-tracking. How many of the 52% voted for a hard or no Brexit? Will of the people, my arse!
HG this has been addressed lots of times. It is in fact wrong to say that it was only the leave campaign that lied. Wasn't it the government claiming that we will be out of the single market and the customs union? I shouldnt need to remind you of George Osbourne scare mongering. No wonder Osbourne and Cameron are no longer in politics.
Jesus Christ! it is becoming clearer by the day that the Brexiteer politicians are as dumb and moronic as the Brexit voters!
And some wonder why there is no balance to these debates. Going to ignore this comment too @cabbles ? I'm sorry but this sort of keyboard warrior shit really pushes my buttons.
Why can't you just accept that some people have a view that's not the same as your's? You might then help the world to be a better place.
What's stopping you bringing some balance to the discussion then? I would definitely welcome some positive input from Leavers that's based on fact and not wishful thinking and rhetoric.
Look at today's output from Leavers for example. I posted an official study pointing out (again) that, far from being a drain on society as is perceived Leave wisdom, EU immigration has a positive financial impact overall. The response? Nothing. Not a single reply acknowledging that one of the supposed biggest reasons behind Leavers concerns seems to be based on nothing more than misleading, alarmist headlines in the press and the likes of Farage and Johnson stiring it up. FFS we are changing the whole nature of the country off the back of those voters who were led to believe EU immigrants were the cause of many of societies ills.
Instead what we get is a link to a fairly offensive opinion piece and targeted hatchet job spouting pretty much every Leaver clichè about Remain voters being lead by self interested elites. Presumably we also had no idea what we were voting for either? As a Remainer I find that as insulting as anything others post lumping Leavers together as thickos...
The average EU migrant doesn't contribute as much in taxes, NI etc than what I do, hence why I never replied to it. I am sure if I was bothered I could have found a source to counter act that argument.
I have never seen a study showing immigrants as a whole are anything other than net contributors to society in terms of taxes and NI. The fact you can't be bothered to look for one (even though you are sure it exists) says more about your argument than anything else.
It's averages of course and there will be immigrants that contribute less than you and immigrants that contribute more than you. Let's expand your argument - I would hazard a guess that I contribute multiples of what you do in taxes - when are you leaving?
You are exasperated that "Remainers" keep espousing their "entrenched views". They generally do so because they see very clearly the negative effect of Brexit on their own lives. I won't bang on about my personal situation, let's just say that I expect to receive an invoice today from a lawyer regarding my Czech (EU) citizenship application, as an example.
It is however very difficult to pin down "entrenched Leavers" on how they expect their own lives to be improved. I still have an image in my mind of @Southbank walking down Floyd Road singing "I got my sovereignty back" (except that I can't scan that into any known footie song. Probably that is symbolic).
Before the referendum I repeatedly asked leavers for three examples of how our EU membership negatively affects their own lives. I have vague feeling that you were one of the few (possibly the only) who managed an answer with concrete examples related to their own lives. I think it was related to where you live, if I recall. So let's move forward and update the question.
Could you please give me ideally three, and ideally very concrete, examples of how you now expect your own personal life to be improved as a result of Brexit?
Jesus Christ! it is becoming clearer by the day that the Brexiteer politicians are as dumb and moronic as the Brexit voters!
And some wonder why there is no balance to these debates. Going to ignore this comment too @cabbles ? I'm sorry but this sort of keyboard warrior shit really pushes my buttons.
Why can't you just accept that some people have a view that's not the same as your's? You might then help the world to be a better place.
What's stopping you bringing some balance to the discussion then? I would definitely welcome some positive input from Leavers that's based on fact and not wishful thinking and rhetoric.
Look at today's output from Leavers for example. I posted an official study pointing out (again) that, far from being a drain on society as is perceived Leave wisdom, EU immigration has a positive financial impact overall. The response? Nothing. Not a single reply acknowledging that one of the supposed biggest reasons behind Leavers concerns seems to be based on nothing more than misleading, alarmist headlines in the press and the likes of Farage and Johnson stiring it up. FFS we are changing the whole nature of the country off the back of those voters who were led to believe EU immigrants were the cause of many of societies ills.
Instead what we get is a link to a fairly offensive opinion piece and targeted hatchet job spouting pretty much every Leaver clichè about Remain voters being lead by self interested elites. Presumably we also had no idea what we were voting for either? As a Remainer I find that as insulting as anything others post lumping Leavers together as thickos...
The average EU migrant doesn't contribute as much in taxes, NI etc than what I do, hence why I never replied to it. I am sure if I was bothered I could have found a source to counter act that argument.
I have never seen a study showing immigrants as a whole are anything other than net contributors to society in terms of taxes and NI. The fact you can't be bothered to look for one (even though you are sure it exists) says more about your argument than anything else.
It's averages of course and there will be immigrants that contribute less than you and immigrants that contribute more than you. Let's expand your argument - I would hazard a guess that I contribute multiples of what you do in taxes - when are you leaving?
That last line was an LOL on a packed train, cheers Bob
Gove wants to leave and he has the intelligence to understand the best way to do that is to leave on softer terms and use that as a stepping stone. Whilst I am definitely no fan of his, it is surely the logical position if you are a Brexiter. Why jump off the cliff when you have absolutely no idea what is at the bottom, when you can jump onto a ledge and get where you want to go more carefully.
The desire to leave totally and completely is a journey of faith. Why risk the future prosperity of the country? It seems too late for it now, but had we left on a Norway type deal, we would have left with a bit of a cushion. A no deal Brexit will, I believe, lead to a far greater chance of no Brexit. I suppose it may be the instinct of many of the Brexiters to take risks. The problem is, I can't see any of this uniting the country. I think that is important and it is why we need a second vote on the deal. And hope that whatever the conclusion of such a vote, the result is conclusive.
It is nothing more than asking people, are you sure? Why can they not be trusted to answer yes or no given that things are clearer now. Not clear but clearer!
You are exasperated that "Remainers" keep espousing their "entrenched views". They generally do so because they see very clearly the negative effect of Brexit on their own lives. I won't bang on about my personal situation, let's just say that I expect to receive an invoice today from a lawyer regarding my Czech (EU) citizenship application, as an example.
It is however very difficult to pin down "entrenched Leavers" on how they expect their own lives to be improved. I still have an image in my mind of @Southbank walking down Floyd Road singing "I got my sovereignty back" (except that I can't scan that into any known footie song. Probably that is symbolic).
Before the referendum I repeatedly asked leavers for three examples of how our EU membership negatively affects their own lives. I have vague feeling that you were one of the few (possibly the only) who managed an answer with concrete examples related to their own lives. I think it was related to where you live, if I recall. So let's move forward and update the question.
Could you please give me ideally three, and ideally very concrete, examples of how you now expect your own personal life to be improved as a result of Brexit?
I know you have asked this before PA and it is reasonable. It's not possible to say what any of us can expect going forward as none of us know what will be negotiated.
It is also wrong to personalise everything. I think that the UK will be forced into the Euro if we stay in, I don't think this will be good for the UK.
We will undoubtedly be part of an EU army going forward, that might have prevented the disastrous invasion of Iraq, it might not but I think a cooperative approach such as common ammunition makes sense but I have yet to hear any argument at all in favour of an EU army let alone a compelling one.
It is the stated goal of the EU to drive toward ever closer political ties. I don't want this and I guess many of the EU citizens will kick back in the coming years.
It's what I think will be best for the long term future of the UK not necessarily for me personally, although I look forward to us repopulating the Devon countryside with unicorns once we are out.
I expected to wake up this morning to read that the Irish border problem had been solved as suggested by @Southbank. It seems that reports suggest that Barnier is still suggesting the Irish Sea backstop, but to be run technologically for goods. I don't see that idea as being a solution but maybe I will be surprised. Interestingly this latest initiative, if that's what it is, was moved by the EU, but I don't think the EU was blackmailed into it by BMW.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
That could well be a scenario but it does have to get through Parliament and that might not be quite as easy as you are suggesting. Not every Tory loon will fall into line and it’s hard to see the backstop being acceptable to the DUP. Labour will see any vote a chance to get an election and would be mad to vote with the government. On that basis I think May winning a parliamentary vote are at best 40/60
You are exasperated that "Remainers" keep espousing their "entrenched views". They generally do so because they see very clearly the negative effect of Brexit on their own lives. I won't bang on about my personal situation, let's just say that I expect to receive an invoice today from a lawyer regarding my Czech (EU) citizenship application, as an example.
It is however very difficult to pin down "entrenched Leavers" on how they expect their own lives to be improved. I still have an image in my mind of @Southbank walking down Floyd Road singing "I got my sovereignty back" (except that I can't scan that into any known footie song. Probably that is symbolic).
Before the referendum I repeatedly asked leavers for three examples of how our EU membership negatively affects their own lives. I have vague feeling that you were one of the few (possibly the only) who managed an answer with concrete examples related to their own lives. I think it was related to where you live, if I recall. So let's move forward and update the question.
Could you please give me ideally three, and ideally very concrete, examples of how you now expect your own personal life to be improved as a result of Brexit?
I know you have asked this before PA and it is reasonable. It's not possible to say what any of us can expect going forward as none of us know what will be negotiated.
It is also wrong to personalise everything. I think that the UK will be forced into the Euro if we stay in, I don't think this will be good for the UK.
We will undoubtedly be part of an EU army going forward, that might have prevented the disastrous invasion of Iraq, it might not but I think a cooperative approach such as common ammunition makes sense but I have yet to hear any argument at all in favour of an EU army let alone a compelling one.
It is the stated goal of the EU to drive toward ever closer political ties. I don't want this and I guess many of the EU citizens will kick back in the coming years.
It's what I think will be best for the long term future of the UK not necessarily for me personally, although I look forward to us repopulating the Devon countryside with unicorns once we are out.
Interesting how things are individually considered (and thanks for your insight) - i think it's fair to say that the 'individual benefit' of leaving the EU is possibly too nebulous a concept to pin down right now given the uncertainty around the effects. Unfortunately the 'individual negatives' around it are all too clear, at least in the short term. The economy is governed by confidence and expands and contracts on that basis, for both the UK and EU, there will be a negative short term impact. That people are willing to eat this in order to enter a brave new world that they admit they can't put figures or even words to, is too much for me to consider.
Gove wants to leave and he has the intelligence to understand the best way to do that is to leave on softer terms and use that as a stepping stone. Whilst I am definitely no fan of his, it is surely the logical position if you are a Brexiter. Why jump off the cliff when you have absolutely no idea what is at the bottom, when you can jump onto a ledge and get where you want to go more carefully.
The desire to leave totally and completely is a journey of faith. Why risk the future prosperity of the country? It seems too late for it now, but had we left on a Norway type deal, we would have left with a bit of a cushion. A no deal Brexit will, I believe, lead to a far greater chance of no Brexit. I suppose it may be the instinct of many of the Brexiters to take risks. The problem is, I can't see any of this uniting the country. I think that is important and it is why we need a second vote on the deal. And hope that whatever the conclusion of such a vote, the result is conclusive.
It is nothing more than asking people, are you sure? Why can they not be trusted to answer yes or no given that things are clearer now. Not clear but clearer!
Thought of Gove jumping off a cliff has its merits.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
That could well be a scenario but it does have to get through Parliament and that might not be quite as easy as you are suggesting. Not every Tory loon will fall into line and it’s hard to see the backstop being acceptable to the DUP. Labour will see any vote a chance to get an election and would be mad to vote with the government. On that basis I think May winning a parliamentary vote are at best 40/60
How many labour MPs will follow a Corbyn led whip?
I don't see how there can be any benefit in leaving the EU even if every UK citizen or blue passports holder becomes a sterling millionaire within six months of departure. The financials mean Jack to me, anyway how would brexiters control the borders if pollution from a French Nuclear Power Plant meltdown rolled across to the south coast? At least within the EU some collaborative effort can be made to combat threats to planetary environment issues, as well as collaboration on other issues too. Nobody has convinced me life is going to be better as the individual UK, but then again I lost.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
That could well be a scenario but it does have to get through Parliament and that might not be quite as easy as you are suggesting. Not every Tory loon will fall into line and it’s hard to see the backstop being acceptable to the DUP. Labour will see any vote a chance to get an election and would be mad to vote with the government. On that basis I think May winning a parliamentary vote are at best 40/60
How many labour MPs will follow a Corbyn led whip?
Good question but most when the prize is a shot a government. Going against the whip on an issue of this magnitude and by that I mean forcing an election not Brexit would also almost certainly mean deselection for many. I think a vote on the terms as suggested by @Southbank will be close and fractures along party lines will be evident all round. I think it fascinating to think that the DUP will ultimately hold the balance and I don’t think there is a chance in hell of them accepting the backstop arrangement.
As a remainer, I don't like it when Brexit supporters are called stupid. I think it is unnecessarily provocative, insulting, counterproductive and, in the majority of cases, simply not true. That said, I know that I have been prone to go a little too far in my own arguments. The trouble for me is that everything I know or believe about Brexit is so unredeemingly bad, I really struggle to see how a reasonable person would support it. Since the referendum we've seen the supposed benefits refuted, whilst it seems that practically everyday new problems and difficulties surface which make Brexit seem all the more undesirable. I can't help but think that the only reason anyone would have for still supporting Brexit is the sheer painfulness of confronting the fact that it's not a good good choice.
With all that in mind, I'd like to throw down two challenges:
@Red_in_SE8, my challenge to you is to say exactly what it is that you don't like about Brexit without insulting those that take a different view.
@Brexiteers, my challenge to you is to ignore previous insults and focus on the benefits; rather than engaging in squabbles with Red, tell us why you think Brexit is still worthy of your support.
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward,
Just how will another vote solve anything? Good question. To answer it, you first have to look at what needs fixing.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
If I had to bet on what will happen next it will be that the EU will agree a form of words that neutralises the controversial issues such as NI. May will put this to Parliament as the only deal possible. She will tell the Tory MPs who oppose it that if she loses the vote she will call a General Election which could end Brexit. The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes. And that will be that.
That could well be a scenario but it does have to get through Parliament and that might not be quite as easy as you are suggesting. Not every Tory loon will fall into line and it’s hard to see the backstop being acceptable to the DUP. Labour will see any vote a chance to get an election and would be mad to vote with the government. On that basis I think May winning a parliamentary vote are at best 40/60
How many labour MPs will follow a Corbyn led whip?
Good question but most when the prize is a shot a government. Going against the whip on an issue of this magnitude and by that I mean forcing an election not Brexit would also almost certainly mean deselection for many. I think a vote on the terms as suggested by @Southbank1 will be close and fractures along party lines will be evident all round. I think it fascinating to think that the DUP will ultimately hold the balance and I don’t think there is a chance in hell of them accepting the backstop arrangement.
I still believe Corbyn is pro brexit and will, probably, support The vote.
Comments
We all see/here what supports our own entrenched views far easier than those views we oppose.
I have said before that I have never liked the idea of being in the EU, the EC or the EEC. Despite 2016 being the first meaningful vote I have ever been allowed on the matter, I was still unsure just how I was going to cast my vote a day or two before the referendum as I was trying to weigh up the pros and cons. We were never given any facts, just opinions, bias and lies from both sides. We have far more information about the process than we did before the referendum but we still don't have solid facts about how we are going to leave so we can't know what will happen as a result.
What I get bombarded with is a huge amount of gloom and doom from social media and the mainstream media too. These are still just opinions and bias. If you start from a basic premise that Brexit is going to be a disaster then it isn't surprising that your findings will bare this out. There are a distinct lack of articles showing any balance at all, one side makes biased or exaggerated claims and this is then countered by the opposite biased or exaggerated claims to try and change people's minds. It isn't working, particularly when the writer/speaker insults the other side. Everybody just gets the hump and refuses to listen to the other side's legitimate points. Bizarrely, the only personality I can recall hearing speak in a balanced way on Brexit is Martin Lewis.
The LSE claimed that mass immigration hadn't lowered indigenous wages, I can only think that their research centred on sectors that were less prone to the adverse affects of uncontrolled immigration. We heard on this forum from people who had direct experience in the building industry of their income being driven down by new competition. Why would experts be believed when people's own experiences proved this report to be wrong? It also claimed that mass immigration had no adverse affect on social housing. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/11/eu-migrants-had-no-negative-effect-on-uk-wages-says-lse
Immigration is undoubtedly a good thing for the UK overall and indeed the immigrants but it has to be controlled and not used to avoid necessary investment in modernising UK businesses by lazy employers. This is helping to drive down our productivity and wages in some sectors.
Of course our own HM Treasury was in on the biased reporting in their forecasts https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu Please note this is as a result of an out vote not after leaving.
The pound did fall as we know but it was only to the level that the IMF claimed it should have been and a lower pound has good as well as bad results. https://fullfact.org/economy/exchange-rates-and-imf/
This is the Treasury long term predictions https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives
Here is a comment on Treasury forecasts https://cbr.blog.jbs.cam.ac.uk/treasury-economic-modelling-is-flawed/
The IMF is now telling us that the UK will suffer as a direct result of any Brexit, LBC reported that they said that the EU would suffer in the event of a no deal Brexit too. At the same time 5 Live news only reported the IMF issuing dire warnings about the UK. I haven't come across any other mainstream media outlet reporting that both sides will suffer. https://www.politico.eu/article/imf-no-deal-brexit-would-have-substantial-costs-for-uk-economy/ This is a comment on the track record of the IMF https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/why-should-we-listen-to-the-imfs-brexit-warning/
Vince Cable is pushing for another referendum as it will give us a definitive answer on Brexit once and for all (or words to that affect). Just how will another vote solve anything? The last one caused a huge divide between the different parties. I say 'caused' because I certainly wasn't aware of such hostility before the result. If the vote is overturned without being allowed to go through even in BINO there will be major disaffection from many of the 17.4m going forward.
I actually don't have a problem with BMW moving their planned maintenance of their factory to coincide with the the beginning of Brexit, this makes business sense. Of course the timing is based on politics rather than business but it does highlight that much of UK business is getting more and more desperate to know what is going to happen going forward so that they can make plans. The lack of any sense of what the outcome of the negotiations is the real issue for businesses and EU immigrants alike, once a firm agreement is made, everyone can move forward.
I am politically homeless as I see no party that speaks for me and no politician likely to come through that inspires me. I think that I would like a new central party but one based on giving us Brexit, not thwarting it. PR would help deal with many issues, maybe creating others but I would want to see it introduced then the nutters taking over the Labour Party can do so and all the Blairites can so their own thing etc.
He wants to see it as blackmail and that's the only way he will see it.
The UK Parliament is sovereign. Always has been, always will be. So what the UK Parliament decides is what happens in the country. But, right now, Parliament does not have a single, agreed position on Brexit, or any of its various flavours.
When the Prime Minister concludes the Government's negotiations with the EU, Parliament has an opportunity to approve of - or turn down - whatever has been agreed between the Government and the EU. So if we agree a deal (which I think is more likely than not agreeing a deal) it will be put to Parliament. And, as an agreed deal would be so much less "attractive" to the hard-line Brexiteers, it would get voted down. Likewise, if we fail to secure a deal (the "no deal" scenario), there are sufficient members in the House of Commons for that to be voted down.
In other words, our sovereign Parliament (remember, it's sovereign and always has been) are likely to vote down whatever deal (or no deal) the Prime Minister presents.
What happens in either of those cases? Do we remove the sovereignty of Parliament, change the way the UK is governed and enable the Government to overturn the will of Parliament? (And, if "yes", how do we square that with the idea of democracy being important?) Or does Parliament have the final say, so that we turn down the deal (or no deal), remain in the EU and find a Prime Minister prepared to work with a Parliament that demonstrates Parliamentary democracy is more important than the wishes of the Prime Minister?
So the problem is clear. We cannot move forward. Parliament needs our clear instruction.
No-one is suggesting that the vote is overturned. We have already spent more than two years and frittered away millions of pounds attempting to enact the result of the 2016 referendum. A further referendum would not seek to "overturn" the last one. Instead it would present Parliament with a clear mandate on precisely what action needs to be taken, when and by whom; it would force Parliament to act; and it would end the stalemate which will befall the country, with Parliament and the Government working against each other. That's how it will solve something - the biggest something we've been faced for decades.
Why, even The Irish Times has an English language version....
There are regular warnings of harm to the EU, including those emanating from the Commission, but the feeling is that the level of harm is not so great to all 27 (it could fairly well knacker some businesses in Ireland) that it is worth undermining its founding principles (which, in my view is the single greatest flaw in the Brexiter conceit, because that cannot happen without Treaty change, and that just is not on the cards).
In contrast to you, @TellyTubby I am convinced that the EU, EC and EEC has, IMHO, been brilliant for Northern Ireland, and not just in terms of money (it has just as much been about providing shared space and a neutral arena of co-existence, something which Theresa May is not helping - everyone assumes that a Conservative PM will be a Unionist, but that doesn't mean she has to give a speech to that effect in Belfast, the "honest broker" role taken in the early 1990s and confirmed in the Belfast Agreement is being significantly undermined). Personally, I do not think it is a coincidence that Brexit and the political crisis here are happening at the same time.
Mind you, if you want to be politically homeless, feel free to move over here any time you want, a political environment where a party solely created to legalise cannabis use can sometimes seem the only sane option in a sea of rival national identities and a fetishised addiction to flegs will soon make you dream of the delights of Corbyn and May...
The dissident Leave MPs will fall into line convinced by Gove's argument that a bad deal can be renegotiated once we have left in March. The House will pass it by a couple of votes.
And that will be that.
I don't want to be politically homeless believe me. As an atheist I just scratch my head over why anyone gets so serious over religion. I could never live in the USA for that reason.
Also, while the EU27 will be quite happy to seek agreed wording for the legally binding, "all-weather", Irish border backstop (as they have since last December, when the UK agreed to the backstop) they cannot agree to the HMG idea that the UK as a whole be included.
Don't get me wrong, they want a deal, it is self-evidently better than none, but for all Dominic Raab's bluster, they are unlikely to feel that he is right to say the ball is in their court.
They are quite clear what kind of political and economic relationships are possible, given the UK position, and a political statement about the future would be (relatively) straightforward but the exit deal has to be agreed first.
https://www.independent.co.uk/infact/brexit-second-referendum-false-claims-eu-referendum-campaign-lies-fake-news-a8113381.html
m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_cs=zx7sNK-aEdDLYLq_i1h4Dw
It's averages of course and there will be immigrants that contribute less than you and immigrants that contribute more than you. Let's expand your argument - I would hazard a guess that I contribute multiples of what you do in taxes - when are you leaving?
You are exasperated that "Remainers" keep espousing their "entrenched views". They generally do so because they see very clearly the negative effect of Brexit on their own lives. I won't bang on about my personal situation, let's just say that I expect to receive an invoice today from a lawyer regarding my Czech (EU) citizenship application, as an example.
It is however very difficult to pin down "entrenched Leavers" on how they expect their own lives to be improved. I still have an image in my mind of @Southbank walking down Floyd Road singing "I got my sovereignty back" (except that I can't scan that into any known footie song. Probably that is symbolic).
Before the referendum I repeatedly asked leavers for three examples of how our EU membership negatively affects their own lives. I have vague feeling that you were one of the few (possibly the only) who managed an answer with concrete examples related to their own lives. I think it was related to where you live, if I recall. So let's move forward and update the question.
Could you please give me ideally three, and ideally very concrete, examples of how you now expect your own personal life to be improved as a result of Brexit?
The desire to leave totally and completely is a journey of faith. Why risk the future prosperity of the country? It seems too late for it now, but had we left on a Norway type deal, we would have left with a bit of a cushion. A no deal Brexit will, I believe, lead to a far greater chance of no Brexit. I suppose it may be the instinct of many of the Brexiters to take risks. The problem is, I can't see any of this uniting the country. I think that is important and it is why we need a second vote on the deal. And hope that whatever the conclusion of such a vote, the result is conclusive.
It is nothing more than asking people, are you sure? Why can they not be trusted to answer yes or no given that things are clearer now. Not clear but clearer!
It is also wrong to personalise everything. I think that the UK will be forced into the Euro if we stay in, I don't think this will be good for the UK.
We will undoubtedly be part of an EU army going forward, that might have prevented the disastrous invasion of Iraq, it might not but I think a cooperative approach such as common ammunition makes sense but I have yet to hear any argument at all in favour of an EU army let alone a compelling one.
It is the stated goal of the EU to drive toward ever closer political ties. I don't want this and I guess many of the EU citizens will kick back in the coming years.
It's what I think will be best for the long term future of the UK not necessarily for me personally, although I look forward to us repopulating the Devon countryside with unicorns once we are out.
It seems that reports suggest that Barnier is still suggesting the Irish Sea backstop, but to be run technologically for goods.
I don't see that idea as being a solution but maybe I will be surprised.
Interestingly this latest initiative, if that's what it is, was moved by the EU, but I don't think the EU was blackmailed into it by BMW.
.
The financials mean Jack to me, anyway how would brexiters control the borders if pollution from a French Nuclear Power Plant meltdown rolled across to the south coast?
At least within the EU some collaborative effort can be made to combat threats to planetary environment issues, as well as collaboration on other issues too.
Nobody has convinced me life is going to be better as the individual UK, but then again I lost.