In less than two months from now the number of living Leave and Remain voters will be equal. By 2021 the number of living Remain voters will significantly outnumber Leave voters.
From January I hope all Brexiters qualify their 'will of the people' statements so it is clear they mean it WAS the 'will of the people' in June 2016.
Do people vote as they check out now?
Is it possible that some can change their vote to enter the pearly gates?
But UKIP and many tories campaigned for a referendum, put pressure on Cameron and he agreed. That is democracy
No. Democracy is about voters acting on informed issues that are achievable. Not lies and unicorn utopia. Not a campaign heavily involved with Australian media owners, Russian hackers, Tory hedge funders due to make millions from exit, incompetents lying about benefits and consequences.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no.Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
That’s a very flippant assumption Prague. May be true, but let’s be honest, you don’t know, I don’t know and most people don’t know. It’s the type of far fetched, un-supported claim that would be sneered at had it come from a leaver on the Brexit issue.
I attended a lecture last month by one of the accounting professions whereby the neutral opinion offered by one of the expert speakers was that (after explaining the pros and cons of the different bespoke deals already in place for certain countries (Canada, Swiss etc)), that a Norway style deal was the most likely option at that stage with a transition period thereafter that could effectively run for x number of years.
People seem to be suggesting that there is no better deal possible than what May has proposed. Does that mean the Norway style option was not viable..... or are there possible alternatives out there still??
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
I hate them too, but for real reasons.
My father was involved with the planning and execution of the U.K. response.
1. A couple of destroyers would not have deterred a set of unpredictable (unless gifted with 30 year 20/20 hindsight) political circumstances, combined with an economic crisis, which lead to Galtieri's rushed military decision based on their declining popularity and their belief the The US (and their mixed messages) would be on Argentinas side.
2. Decisions 'taken by Thatcher' would have been based on a) intelligence reports and b) military assessments.
3. You seem to misunderstand the UK military commitment to the Cold War, which is strange. The costs were eye watering as were the requirements for constant joint exercises.
4. If you are going to tar all Tory politicians over this decision to defend the will of the islanders (and even culpable Defence Secretary John Nott and his money saving decision to withdraw destroyer support a year before was acting on reluctant military advice) then how must you see Bliar and all of Labour? (Maybe shagger Cook and Claire Short escape as the only ones with a principle at the time)
There really is no point in us going for the Norway option. Might as well stay in.
From memory, It was being proposed more an the only opinion that could satisfy all parties in the short term, avoid a unthinkable no deal and then allow further negotiations during the transition period.
But I agree with the underlying point. That as a final final landing point would be pointless from a leave perspective.
There really is no point in us going for the Norway option. Might as well stay in.
From memory, It was being proposed more an the only opinion that could satisfy all parties in the short term, avoid a unthinkable no deal and then allow further negotiations during the transition period.
But I agree with the underlying point. That as a final final landing point would be pointless from a leave perspective.
The Norway/Switzerland option was effectively what was sold pre referendum by the likes of Hannan and Farage, Boris thought we could have our cake and eat it and Davis who believed we would be doing a trade deal with Germany once we were out. Everything got conflated either deliberately and through their stupidity, remember "no one is talking about leaving the single market"
There really is no point in us going for the Norway option. Might as well stay in.
From memory, It was being proposed more an the only opinion that could satisfy all parties in the short term, avoid a unthinkable no deal and then allow further negotiations during the transition period.
But I agree with the underlying point. That as a final final landing point would be pointless from a leave perspective.
The problem with that being that the transition period is intended to operate between Brexit and, in this case, the Norway option.
And, in fairness to the EFTA states, they have been clear that an EEA/Norway option cannot be a temporary staging post on the road to the summit uplands.
Mind you, I heard someone (Brandon Lewis?) on Today claiming that the backstop is temporary, which will be in distinct contrast with the EU27 understanding. An approach consisting of apparent public backtracking on what is agreed is unlikely to encourage the other party to ratify the agreement.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Why would we only defend our territory which is deemed of “strategic importance”? Surely we defend all of it with an amount of force commensurate with the threat and if that’s found to be inedequate we respond accordingly.
Sorry if I’m missing the point, the Falklands war was before I was born, but what are you suggesting?
- when the Argie junta came to power and started banging on about the Falklands, Thatcher was trailing badly in the polls. I mean, badly, and quite deservedly.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
If I remember rightly there had been an unwritten agreement with Argentina since the early 1960s which was that as long as Britain retained a certain level of military presence (including a RN ship) then Argentina would not invade. It was a diplomatic fudge rather than a military deterrent.
The British government had mixed feelings toward the islands and would happily have moved toward 'losing' the dependency. Then a decision was made by the government of the day (cost cuttings) to withdraw the HMS Endurance and reduce the garrison. As a result diplomatically Argentina felt it was legitimate to invade prompting the nationalist response...
Argentina's various dodgy regimes have used the Falklands as a way to deflect from their own shortcomings before and since the conflict (not unlike Thatcher and this conflict) but the truth of it had they bide their time and been a democratic government they probably would be at least power sharing in the islands now.
So it is worse than ignoring the impending situation they actively encouraged it despite warnings from senior Tories and senior civil servants.
I attended a lecture last month by one of the accounting professions whereby the neutral opinion offered by one of the expert speakers was that (after explaining the pros and cons of the different bespoke deals already in place for certain countries (Canada, Swiss etc)), that a Norway style deal was the most likely option at that stage with a transition period thereafter that could effectively run for x number of years.
People seem to be suggesting that there is no better deal possible than what May has proposed. Does that mean the Norway style option was not viable..... or are there possible alternatives out there still??
Norway is very viable but includes paying the EU but not say on matters so is a no no for many.
I think at the time views such as those expressed by PA were given a degree of legitimacy by the stripping of citizenship from the Islanders. Galtieri and his murderous cabal would also have taken succour from that decision. The irony being that in seeking to prevent HK Chinese arriving in the UK, Thatcher in part created the war that saved her political career and tapped into the nationalist seam that has landed us in our current predicament. Ironic too that the much abused "sovereignty" was on our lips then as now. Those that claim their vote was for reasons of control and sovereignty are the loudest voices now complaining about the British people exercising a democratic right and equally the biggest deniers of Parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process.
Dressed to kill one cool spring morning Got on board the first from Portsmouth On the crest of a rising wave Of hate for strangers of our own kind But the headlines, cheering crowds and flags I must admit stirred something in me That faded as we pulled away And turned out to be only fear disguised The bulldogs bayed The pious prayed I think it rained On the Easter parade.
OK, to be clear. I would not have supported leaving the Falkland islanders to the junta. My beef is that it should have been prevented. I don't have any special knowledge around the affair, as you do via your Dad, but funny enough my post has prompted a private post from another Lifer who does have such knowledge. So there you go. I accept that I was flippant to suggest the Navy wasn't doing anything at the time. But I'm sticking to my belief that she could have taken preventative action. The lead up was never properly examined at the time, because by then the whole country had gone full Thatcher. There was some fuss around the Belgrano, but nothing about the prior events. There was far less examination of that than about the lead up to Blair's Iraq War. Since you ask, I am equally unable to forgive him as I am Thatcher. But paradoxically I supported his action in Yugoslavia. I was disgusted that we sat by and let Milosevic murder civilians for years; but it's less clear cut in terms of blame - the Germans were culpable for recognizing Croatia too quickly, and of course there was no such thing as an EU army.
So with all due respect to your Dad, and I don't mean that flippantly, I am going to stick to my belief that she could have taken preventative action and did not do so for a quite cynical political reason.
I think you’re probably wasting your time @theeenorth - there hasn’t been a sensible response to those ridiculous accusations (which I’m sure are widely held as justifications for “getting out of Europe” by some sections of society) despite multiple articulate rebuttals for a few days now.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
I think you’re probably wasting your time @theeenorth - there hasn’t been a sensible response to those ridiculous accusations (which I’m sure are widely held as justifications for “getting out of Europe” by some sections of society) despite multiple articulate rebuttals for a few days now.
Yes mate properly fucked up now.
History handed down like big brother's clothes Madmen and giant's cast offs Stretched and frayed or tailor made? The news of the old world hangs on slender shoulders now Every lesson been denied Every question pushed aside
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
I attended a lecture last month by one of the accounting professions whereby the neutral opinion offered by one of the expert speakers was that (after explaining the pros and cons of the different bespoke deals already in place for certain countries (Canada, Swiss etc)), that a Norway style deal was the most likely option at that stage with a transition period thereafter that could effectively run for x number of years.
People seem to be suggesting that there is no better deal possible than what May has proposed. Does that mean the Norway style option was not viable..... or are there possible alternatives out there still??
Norway is very viable but includes paying the EU but not say on matters so is a no no for many.
The Falklands is history, the Argentinians started it. Could we have avoided the subsequent war? Maybe, maybe not but we probably could have done more to try to avoid it. I did read a book many moons ago by Tam Dalyell (misrule) which was quite interesting in terms of the lies behind it all and the sinking of the General Belgrano. I believe Thatcher was genuinely angry and wanted to get revenge. I don't think she did it for political gain, but she wasn't going to let them get away with it. But nobody can get inside her head, we can only speculate. If I am right, some would praise her for it, some would bring up the lost lives on both sides.
In terms of all options - well the situation is so fluid, it isn't clear what option or opportunity will present itself. The government could collapse, then we would have an election, they could cling on, then we could have another referendum. Remainers should be encouraged by the Labour statement. I think there is one point that some remainers have never really got, and that this is the time Brexit can be stopped, not earlier and how it is stopped is crucially important as if it looks like Brexiters have caused the issue, which they will have, the vote is more likely to turn out the right way. I find it incredible that some remainers think that merely forcing another vote will mean we will win it! IT is the same sort of arrogance displayed by Cameron when he called the referendum.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
There really is no point in us going for the Norway option. Might as well stay in.
From memory, It was being proposed more an the only opinion that could satisfy all parties in the short term, avoid a unthinkable no deal and then allow further negotiations during the transition period.
But I agree with the underlying point. That as a final final landing point would be pointless from a leave perspective.
The problem with that being that the transition period is intended to operate between Brexit and, in this case, the Norway option.
And, in fairness to the EFTA states, they have been clear that an EEA/Norway option cannot be a temporary staging post on the road to the summit uplands.
Mind you, I heard someone (Brandon Lewis?) on Today claiming that the backstop is temporary, which will be in distinct contrast with the EU27 understanding. An approach consisting of apparent public backtracking on what is agreed is unlikely to encourage the other party to ratify the agreement.
I suppose he means a backstop until 2099 is 'temporary '.
I attended a lecture last month by one of the accounting professions whereby the neutral opinion offered by one of the expert speakers was that (after explaining the pros and cons of the different bespoke deals already in place for certain countries (Canada, Swiss etc)), that a Norway style deal was the most likely option at that stage with a transition period thereafter that could effectively run for x number of years.
People seem to be suggesting that there is no better deal possible than what May has proposed. Does that mean the Norway style option was not viable..... or are there possible alternatives out there still??
The fascinating but depressing interplay continues with Brexiteer cabinet members now seeking to persuade May to seek some amendment of the backstop.
It will be very interesting if it happens what the EUs reaction will be to that.
It will so be interesting if she resists, will the cabinet split again and then force a no confidence vote.
On assumes part of this must happen today with the EU meeting tomorrow ?
And all of this on a weekend with no Charlton in action.
Havn’t the 27 already stated that the negotiations are over. Complete and unchangable ?
May is right. It’s the deal she has negotiated, no deal or no Brexit.
Two and a half years to reach where we now find ourselves. I can’t see the 27 allowing change other than perhaps extension to allow for a second vote or maybe a general election. Time has run out for a Norway, Canada plus tweak to where we currently are.
I just wonder if May might seek to call a referendum with the only choice being between he plan and a no deal Brexit - it isn't as though Corbyn and McDonnell are really pushing any alternative or the Tories really give a damn about what happens to the country based on the last two years of farce - which May's agreement really just extends for another 2 years while the alternative from the nutters is to crash out and have a recession. All makes the current leadership issues at Charlton look like a minor irritance.
From the Huff post and confirmed by a bloke I work with who is a Labour party member.
Labour’s stance has hardened significantly in the past few days, with Jeremy Corbyn writing to all members yesterday to explicitly say “we will support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote”.
Sorry, I don't understand what Labour are saying. What do they mean by supporting all options ? It's surely not possible to support all options?
They think there should be a general election, but if there can’t be a general election then they support a referendum.
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
So their position has remained the same and they do not support all options. Non story surely ? If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain. Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
What is a "good deal" though? Specifically, can you - or anyone - articulate a deal that isn't worse, economically, than staying in?
We've had 500 pages of this, so there's no point going over old ground ad infinitum.
However, I suspect many Brexiteers were happy to accept a deal where we may be slightly worse off economically in the short/medium term, in exchange for having more more control over our laws and borders. I suspect very few believed we would be better off economically in the short term.
Perhaps like changing jobs, where your pay is a little worse, but you feel much happier and get far greater satisfaction.
Comments
No. Democracy is about voters acting on informed issues that are achievable. Not lies and unicorn utopia. Not a campaign heavily involved with Australian media owners, Russian hackers, Tory hedge funders due to make millions from exit, incompetents lying about benefits and consequences.
- it didn't take much "intelligence" to confirm that the threat to the Falklands was real. Our navy didn't have much else on at the time. So a few manoueuvres with a destroyer or two would have been more than enough to deter those clowns in Buenos Aires. But no. Thatcher chose not to do that. So the clowns thought they had carte blanche to go for it.
- Then we sent the armada. Hundreds of our armed forces lost their lives. Thatcher's poll ratings reversed, and the rest is history.
And, while I haven't thought about it this way up until now, that is probably the fundamental reason why I despise most Tory politicians.
People seem to be suggesting that there is no better deal possible than what May has proposed. Does that mean the Norway style option was not viable..... or are there possible alternatives out there still??
My father was involved with the planning and execution of the U.K. response.
1. A couple of destroyers would not have deterred a set of unpredictable (unless gifted with 30 year 20/20 hindsight) political circumstances, combined with an economic crisis, which lead to Galtieri's rushed military decision based on their declining popularity and their belief the The US (and their mixed messages) would be on Argentinas side.
2. Decisions 'taken by Thatcher' would have been based on a) intelligence reports and b) military assessments.
3. You seem to misunderstand the UK military commitment to the Cold War, which is strange. The costs were eye watering as were the requirements for constant joint exercises.
4. If you are going to tar all Tory politicians over this decision to defend the will of the islanders (and even culpable Defence Secretary John Nott and his money saving decision to withdraw destroyer support a year before was acting on reluctant military advice) then how must you see Bliar and all of Labour? (Maybe shagger Cook and Claire Short escape as the only ones with a principle at the time)
But I agree with the underlying point. That as a final final landing point would be pointless from a leave perspective.
Everything got conflated either deliberately and through their stupidity, remember "no one is talking about leaving the single market"
It will be very interesting if it happens what the EUs reaction will be to that.
It will so be interesting if she resists, will the cabinet split again and then force a no confidence vote.
On assumes part of this must happen today with the EU meeting tomorrow ?
And all of this on a weekend with no Charlton in action
And, in fairness to the EFTA states, they have been clear that an EEA/Norway option cannot be a temporary staging post on the road to the summit uplands.
Mind you, I heard someone (Brandon Lewis?) on Today claiming that the backstop is temporary, which will be in distinct contrast with the EU27 understanding. An approach consisting of apparent public backtracking on what is agreed is unlikely to encourage the other party to ratify the agreement.
The British government had mixed feelings toward the islands and would happily have moved toward 'losing' the dependency. Then a decision was made by the government of the day (cost cuttings) to withdraw the HMS Endurance and reduce the garrison. As a result diplomatically Argentina felt it was legitimate to invade prompting the nationalist response...
Argentina's various dodgy regimes have used the Falklands as a way to deflect from their own shortcomings before and since the conflict (not unlike Thatcher and this conflict) but the truth of it had they bide their time and been a democratic government they probably would be at least power sharing in the islands now.
So it is worse than ignoring the impending situation they actively encouraged it despite warnings from senior Tories and senior civil servants.
I think at the time views such as those expressed by PA were given a degree of legitimacy by the stripping of citizenship from the Islanders. Galtieri and his murderous cabal would also have taken succour from that decision. The irony being that in seeking to prevent HK Chinese arriving in the UK, Thatcher in part created the war that saved her political career and tapped into the nationalist seam that has landed us in our current predicament. Ironic too that the much abused "sovereignty" was on our lips then as now. Those that claim their vote was for reasons of control and sovereignty are the loudest voices now complaining about the British people exercising a democratic right and equally the biggest deniers of Parliamentary sovereignty throughout the process.
Dressed to kill one cool spring morning
Got on board the first from Portsmouth
On the crest of a rising wave
Of hate for strangers of our own kind
But the headlines, cheering crowds and flags
I must admit stirred something in me
That faded as we pulled away
And turned out to be only fear disguised
The bulldogs bayed
The pious prayed
I think it rained
On the Easter parade.
OK, to be clear. I would not have supported leaving the Falkland islanders to the junta. My beef is that it should have been prevented. I don't have any special knowledge around the affair, as you do via your Dad, but funny enough my post has prompted a private post from another Lifer who does have such knowledge. So there you go. I accept that I was flippant to suggest the Navy wasn't doing anything at the time. But I'm sticking to my belief that she could have taken preventative action. The lead up was never properly examined at the time, because by then the whole country had gone full Thatcher. There was some fuss around the Belgrano, but nothing about the prior events. There was far less examination of that than about the lead up to Blair's Iraq War. Since you ask, I am equally unable to forgive him as I am Thatcher. But paradoxically I supported his action in Yugoslavia. I was disgusted that we sat by and let Milosevic murder civilians for years; but it's less clear cut in terms of blame - the Germans were culpable for recognizing Croatia too quickly, and of course there was no such thing as an EU army.
So with all due respect to your Dad, and I don't mean that flippantly, I am going to stick to my belief that she could have taken preventative action and did not do so for a quite cynical political reason.
What do they mean by supporting all options ?
It's surely not possible to support all options?
History handed down like big brother's clothes
Madmen and giant's cast offs
Stretched and frayed or tailor made?
The news of the old world hangs on slender shoulders now
Every lesson been denied
Every question pushed aside
The problem I have is - when will they accept that there won’t be a GE and come out in favour of a referendum?
There isn’t going to be a GE, you’d need a significant number of Tory MPs to vote for that and I doubt many of them would put their seat on the line in the current circumstances
In terms of all options - well the situation is so fluid, it isn't clear what option or opportunity will present itself. The government could collapse, then we would have an election, they could cling on, then we could have another referendum. Remainers should be encouraged by the Labour statement. I think there is one point that some remainers have never really got, and that this is the time Brexit can be stopped, not earlier and how it is stopped is crucially important as if it looks like Brexiters have caused the issue, which they will have, the vote is more likely to turn out the right way. I find it incredible that some remainers think that merely forcing another vote will mean we will win it! IT is the same sort of arrogance displayed by Cameron when he called the referendum.
If they support all options they would support May's plan, support a hard Brexit and support Remain.
Complete fuckwittery and Labour are little better that the Tories, in as much as both parties put their parties first and the country second.
I'm 100% we should now Remain, because I trust no politician be it Blue, Red or European to ensure we get a "good" deal, even if they claim we will.
However, I suspect many Brexiteers were happy to accept a deal where we may be slightly worse off economically in the short/medium term, in exchange for having more more control over our laws and borders.
I suspect very few believed we would be better off economically in the short term.
Perhaps like changing jobs, where your pay is a little worse, but you feel much happier and get far greater satisfaction.