Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

I think it's too early to say we won't have MEP's.

If May can't get a deal where we are out and pay nothing but still have MEP's and tell the other 27 countries what to do, then she should stand aside and let a professional like Gove have a crack at it.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, peterms said:

Mad Nad claims the deal means we will have no MEPs.  Can it be true?

 

I think it must be Andrea Leadsdhot's turn tomorrow to say something revealingly stupid. It's like a relay race for imbeciles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The three ministers in charge of our departure – Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox – had two years to use their persuasive powers to bring the Europeans round to their view. The outcome was inevitable. The EU was never going to change the rules of the club to serve the self-interest of a departing member. Slowly, despite all the bluster and the oversold claims, Mrs May did what prime ministers always do. To extract something from the wreckage, she called on the civil servants to get a grip. The three Brexit ministers had completely failed to chart a way forward and were now determined to get out from under their failures...

... A significant component of British postwar industrial policy has been the investment here of major car manufacturing companies. I have played my part in these negotiations. They come here not in order to access the UK market, but the European market. There are virtually no British-owned car companies left. And the significant investment decisions are not taken in the UK, but in head offices around the world. If there are emerging markets open for business, those HQs will determine how to access them either by direct investment as they did here or by serving them from other existing plants closer to these markets. If we cut ourselves off or erect barriers to efficiency between ourselves and the European markets, they will diversify there.

We hear the same deluded claims about the success of the City. This success is undoubted, and is a major asset. But again the head offices are elsewhere. Opportunities overseas will be grabbed just as the opportunity to invest in London was grabbed. But the decisions will be taken in New York, Shanghai, Berlin and Paris. The involvements will be made in the new financial centres employing local nationals or managers from the investing country. Profits will similarly flow not to London but to the parent nation. This realpolitik analysis of much of the British economy is the background against which to judge the wildly optimistic claims for speedy and more generous trade deals. It was always fanciful to think that we could replicate this infrastructure in a way that was economically more effective. Particularly so against the other ingredient of Brexism – the policy that we will tell less prosperous economies than our own that only their most talented citizens, whose education has been paid for at home, have a change of coming here.

 

Michael Heseltine aka Tarzan - Grauniad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/11/2018 at 13:19, chrisp65 said:

Is there anyone left in the country that believes Labour would stop Brexit?

My hunch, is that an awful lot of Labour voters and new members are remainers that just block this stuff out.

I can genuinely still see a scenario where Labour votes get a tory deal inched over the line.

 

On 17/11/2018 at 14:15, bickster said:

Its not even a hunch, the party conference proved it

And today's quote almost proves it beyond doubt

Quote

Jeremy Corbyn has said he does not know how he would vote in a new referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union. 

The Labour leader said he would need to know what the options are in any fresh test of public opinion as he reiterated his opposition to Theresa May's Brexitagreement. 

Mr Corbyn's words came as remain-supporting Labour MPs urged the leader to more solidly get behind a plan for final say referendum, something which he said was an "option for the future".

 

Moron on Link (Indie)

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 

And today's quote almost proves it beyond doubt

Moron on Link (Indie)

So he won't say how he would vote, in a purely hypothetical referendum which doesn't have any options yet?

To be fair, I don't know how I would vote in a referendum in which I don't know what the options are either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

So he won't say how he would vote, in a purely hypothetical referendum which doesn't have any options yet?

To be fair, I don't know how I would vote in a referendum in which I don't know what the options are either. 

No, come on.

He's got to say how he would vote.  There's only two options, yes and no.  How hard can it be?

The question will be defined later, that's just a technical detail, but right now, we must be told how he would vote.  Anything less is stumbling vacillation, evasive indecision, and feeble shilly-shallying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, peterms said:

No, come on.

He's got to say how he would vote.  There's only two options, yes and no.  How hard can it be?

The question will be defined later, that's just a technical detail, but right now, we must be told how he would vote.  Anything less is stumbling vacillation, evasive indecision, and feeble shilly-shallying.

The problem with your argument is that he was specifically asked "What do you think the question should be?" as a follow up to his "dunno" and didn't answer that either. He dodged the point and opportunity to lay out what Labour's alternative credible proposals are (because Labour hasn't got any, either).

Politicians have a duty to be more honest. The devious positioning and such like does no one any favours.

Standing on the sidelines metaphorically sniggering, occasionally poking a stick in and waiting for it to all fall into a heap so I can be PM - that applies to Corbyn and it also applies to Boris Johnson and a few others. These twunts are all to blame. None of them are doing anything constructive or effective for the betterment of the Country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think there's scope for saying "No, I don't know how I'd vote in an imaginary referendum" but adding "but here's what I believe...."

Exactly. And not "I don't know, but I believe the tories are all nasty", but "I'd like to see a referendum that has options on the following lines..."

Essentially the non-political reality is that what was promised to voters as being what would happen if we Brexit, and what is actually going to happen are just miles and miles apart. None of the benefits and many of the drawbacks. There's also been the corruption, interference and crime.

People generally are beginning to understand the mess, now. Many desperate for someone to propose something positive, for it to be Labour to do that. But they're not. They're saying the tories are rubbish (true) and then offering / claiming to somehow get something better in the remaining 4 months, via a general election, getting in and then trying to overcome the exact same contradictions as the tories faced regarding the single market and customs Union and free movement etc. Not credible at all. Just more empty slogans.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

The problem with your argument is that he was specifically asked "What do you think the question should be?" as a follow up to his "dunno" and didn't answer that either. He dodged the point and opportunity to lay out what Labour's alternative credible proposals are (because Labour hasn't got any, either).

Politicians have a duty to be more honest. The devious positioning and such like does no one any favours.

Standing on the sidelines metaphorically sniggering, occasionally poking a stick in and waiting for it to all fall into a heap so I can be PM - that applies to Corbyn and it also applies to Boris Johnson and a few others. These twunts are all to blame. None of them are doing anything constructive or effective for the betterment of the Country.

But he hasn't got an answer to the question of 'what do you think the question should be' because he doesn't want a second referendum (at least not preferentially, compared to other options) and it isn't party policy to offer one. Their party policy is to Do A Brexit; some Remainers seem to be surprised about this, which is strange, because it was in the manifesto in 2017, and then reaffirmed at conference in 2018. Their party policy has shifted towards the softest-possible Brexit over the last two years, but it hasn't reached Remain, which is why he's arguing for a Brexit on Labour's terms rather than Remain. 

As it happens, I agree with you that Labour's medium-term Brexit policy isn't particularly credible (I don't think they are going to get 'a single market, rather than the single market' which seems to be the medium-term aspiration). But the short-term plan is absolutely credible; it's essentially exactly the thing Theresa May has just agreed with the EU, but on a permanent basis rather than a temporary one, which would be more amenable to Brussels. 

On the second referendum generally, and not specifically directed at anyone on this site, but I think important: people who have spent two years laughing at 'chaos with Ed Miliband' should be careful about implicitly taking the line 'let's just have a referendum, and we'll worry about all the details and implications later', because that attitude is not without recent precedent, and we're all suffering through the consequences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh FFS, any referendum, if one happens, will be no more complicated than the initial question in the Sausage Sandwich Game

No Deal, A Deal or No Brexit. So he says it depends on the deal, fair point (ish), the next question is what deal would you vote for (or hell, even negotiate)... has anyone seen him come close to giving an actual explanation of how he'd improve the current deal with you know, realistic suggestions and sage-like knowledge? Nope me neither, it's just the same old bollocks about preserving jobs and making sure no one is worse off. Its impossible and totally unobtainable. We're already worse off now even if we remain, we've lost a great number of company HQ's and all European Agencies that were based here, those jobs have already gone, that tax income has gone, regardless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the second referendum generally, and not specifically directed at anyone on this site, but I think important: people who have spent two years laughing at 'chaos with Ed Miliband' should be careful about implicitly taking the line 'let's just have a referendum, and we'll worry about all the details and implications later', because that attitude is not without recent precedent, and we're all suffering through the consequences. 

I agree with this a fair bit. A People’s vote is essentially a fudge, a possible means to get “remain” made valid. But it’s very flawed. People might vote to Leave, still. People will decry it as “we’ve already told you to leave”, it’s probably impractical in the time remaining. It’s a surrogate for calling the whole thing off.

But every other alternative is also deeply flawed. The genie can’t be put back in the bottle.  Tories, they mess everything up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stupid thing is, that most of the Tory party, most of Labour, all of the LibDems and the vast majority of business leaders don't want any sort of Brexit at all. In any sane society it would be called off as as being as daft as Boaty McBoatface, but infinitely more damaging to the country. 

But no, we go ahead over the cliff edge, all because of this absurd X-Factor 'democracy'. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Oh FFS, any referendum, if one happens, will be no more complicated than the initial question in the Sausage Sandwich Game

No Deal, A Deal or No Brexit. 

Hmm. Not sure I agree.

What is "no deal" being defined as in this situation? 

No arrangements of any kind? So no visa reciprocity, no aviation treaties, no broadcasting licenses, no mutual recognition of driving licences, no food export authorisations? Because all of those things require "a deal".

As soon as any of the cretins who ever espouse leaving without a withdrawal agreement is questioned on it, it quickly turns that what they mean is not "no deal" but "lots of little side deals on our terms so we don't have to answer those difficult questions we didn't think about earlier".

Side deals which they wouldn't be making if a referendum had just told them that they couldn't. So it'll never appear as an option for people to vote upon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â