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

[villakram]

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

Of course, as it stands, we have no choice at all (short of wasting a vote on the LibDems) - it's either Tory catastrophe or Labour catastrophe. 

The country is committing suicide. 

It won't be suicide, but it will be bad, e.g., look at the Irish economy or the American economy after 2008. X number of years of economic growth delated in an instant, and a long time required to get back to where you were, i.e., we're at 1/2 a generation right now (a generation is 20-25yrs). I despise this measure of society but it is how things that matter are calculated. Similar to the nonsense arguments about the Scots leaving the UK. There's simply a price to pay and the question should be how much you wish or are willing to pay vs what you will get in return. Sensible analysis suggest 1-3yrs -- 10-15yrs of economic growth at the extreme. 

I'd love if the beeb went and asked this to all the "support her"/"out now" crowd. I'd bet most of them are in the crowd who are still suffering post 2008 after who knows what from the tomult in the 80s/90s. Maybe they're simply used to a certain amount of misery by now. But, do they really want more.

PM Boris to the rescue 

[VILLAMARV]

It all feels a bit like a trailer for SAW IX

[peterms]

[peterms]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

Oh , alright, I’ll get you a taxi back to your potting shed where you can talk to the flowers about bringing back 3 channels of TV and revolution.  

I, for one, believe the quality of life would be tangibly improved were we to return to three channels of TV.

[mjmooney]

9 minutes ago, peterms said:

I, for one, believe the quality of life would be tangibly improved were we to return to three channels of TV.

Bruce Springsteen's 1992 song "57 Channels (and Nothin' On)" seems rather understated these days. 

[bickster]

So you know we've been told time and time again that people in 1975 didn't vote to lose sovereignty and it had nothing to do with ending war in Europe...

[tonyh29]

that's one leaflet without any context  .. that's me convinced

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

that's one leaflet without any context  .. that's me convinced

did you run out of fingers after one?

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

that's one leaflet without any context  .. that's me convinced

Try hansard then. Or media reports from the time (example quoted recently in the toryraph).

Quote

As Conservative MP Enoch Powell told parliament in his speech during October 1971’s marathon six-day parliamentary debate on Britain’s accession to the European Community: “I do not think the fact that this involves a cession — and a growing cession — of Parliament's sovereignty can be disputed. Indeed, I notice that those who are the keenest proposers of British entry are the most ready to confess — not to confess, but to assert — that of course this involves by its very nature a reduction of the sovereignty of the House.”

SDP founder David Owen agreed from the Labour side: “Of course that means that one gives up sovereignty, and a lot of the debate in this House has been focused upon sovereignty, and rightly so, because this is a central matter to many of the people who fundamentally do not wish us to go into Europe. They do not wish to give up any measure of sovereignty...

"It has now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.”

The Daily Telegraph, October 1971

"They do not wish to give up any power that we exercise as a nation and put ourselves into the decision structure of other nations because it involves compromise. It involves not always getting one's own way. It is, however, foolish to try to sell the concept of the E.E.C., and not admit that this means giving up some sovereignty. Of course it does, and I believe it rightly does. I believe this is one of the central appeals of it.”

Indeed, the Daily Telegraph reported of the October 1971 debate: “Continuing a trend, MPs turned more and more to talking about the issue of sovereignty and tended to be rather brief on economic topics. It has now got through to a lot more MPs that sovereignty is a vital issue.”

Where there was disagreement was over what pooling sovereignty meant in practice. Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath argued that the “Brexiteer” conception of sovereignty was too narrow and legalistic: “It is right that there should have been so much discussion of sovereignty … If sovereignty exists to be used and to be of value, it must be effective. We have to make a judgment whether this is the most advantageous way of using our country's sovereignty.”

"I am not interested in legalistic definitions of our sovereignty; I am interested in what we can do to create a new future for ourselves. How can we control our environment? How can we control our financial future?”

John Gummer

MP David Waddingon, subsequently Margaret Thatcher’s last Home Secretary, spelled it out further: “[a] country may have complete legal sovereignty, complete power to pass whatever laws it wishes in an attempt to control every kind of activity of its citizens, and yet be so weak as to be incapable of protecting its people from military, economic, or other action taken by other countries. Conversely, another country may sacrifice quite a lot of its legal sovereignty and yet, by acting in partnership with others, be able to exercise very much more power and give greater protection to its citizens than it ever could and did before that sacrifice was made.”

Margaret Thatcher’s last Agriculture Minister John Gummer agreed: “if anyone believes that we have the same power to guide our destinies today as we had in 1945 or in 1900 he is taking a totally wrong attitude to life. Sovereignty is defined today as it was in 1900, but the power it gives us is totally different. Therefore, I am not interested in legalistic definitions of our sovereignty; I am interested in what we can do to create a new future for ourselves. How can we control our environment? How can we control our financial future?”

At the heart of this debate was not deception but genuine disagreement, over whether the economic benefits of EEC membership combined with the opportunity for greater collective power through pooled sovereignty outweighed the infringement upon narrow national sovereignty that EEC membership entailed.

Helpfully, the wonders of modern technology make the past ever more accessible: Hansard, for example, is now helpfully online, so every Parliamentary utterance of Britain’s politicians on what joining the Common Market actually entailed can be accessed with but a click of a mouse.

 

[StefanAVFC]

She HATES foreigners

 

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

She HATES foreigners

 

Opposing immigration is the only thing she seems to actually believe in. Everything else is just background noise with her. It's odd, and slightly demented.

[Awol]

Just now, blandy said:

Opposing immigration is the only thing she seems to actually believe in. Everything else is just background noise with her. It's odd, and slightly demented.

There’s a logic to it. She’s a Remainer & post the referendum the Remainery politicos decided to ignore the polling showing that sovereignty (let’s not have that argument again Pete!) was the largest factor for leave voters, with immigration some way behind in 2nd. 

They didn’t believe in Brexit as a project but were in charge, so aimed to keep as close to the EU economic & legal order as possible, while clinging totemically to immigration as the thing to deliver that would satisfy the racist, foreigner hating leavers. 

Her entire policy has been based on a totally flawed analysis of the result, hence 2.5 years trying to negotiate a settlement that missed the entire point and now consequently can’t carry the leavers in Parliament and the country. 

 

[peterms]

The Scottish Government internal website is now asking staff to volunteer to cover the emergency room in the event of no deal.

[ml1dch]

Anyone not familiar with Dmitry Grozoubinski, I'd highly recommend his writings on trade. His latest on the unutterably stupid "World Trade Deal" stuff is a good read.

Extract from longer article.

Quote

 

So, what’s the ‘No Deal = World Deal’ argument?

It runs like this: “In the absence of a negotiated Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union, UK-EU trade won’t become lawless. The rules of the World Trade Organization will continue to apply, a deal so good 164 countries are signed up to it!”

Referring to falling from the heights of the Single Market to the paltry safety net offered by baseline WTO commitments as a “World Trade Deal” is a brilliant piece of branding. It’s like if your mother threw you out and you re-branded ‘being homeless in Greater London’ as ‘living on a 1,583 square kilometer property with plenty of natural light.’

Unfortunately, it’s also largely (as you Brits say) bollocks.

 

https://www.explaintrade.com/blogs/2018/12/11/world-trade-deal

His four earlier articles are good as well.

Edited December 13, 2018 by ml1dch

[Chindie]

Was about to post that myself. It's nothing new really but destroys the 'WTO Deal' thing quite simply.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Her entire policy has been based on a totally flawed analysis of the result

Aside from the rest of your post, which is a fair enough take, this bit is interesting. Because although you say her analysis is flawed, I mean, no one actually knows the "right" analysis. I suspect there isn't one, tbh. With so many people voting (both ways) who can ever know what the right analysis is? Hers may be different to yours or mine, and no doubt ehe's seen polling and stuff we haven't, but there's just no knowing the right analysis from 34 million individual motivations to vote either way. We can say sovereignty, or immigration, or economy, or don't rock the boat, or stuff it, what's to lose or whatever, but the question was so open with possible interpretations or motivations, who knows. I think she's wrong, you do to. I don't know who's right, though.

[Rodders]

 

 

[LondonLax]

7 hours ago, Awol said:

There’s a logic to it. She’s a Remainer & post the referendum the Remainery politicos decided to ignore the polling showing that sovereignty (let’s not have that argument again Pete!) was the largest factor for leave voters, with immigration some way behind in 2nd. 

They didn’t believe in Brexit as a project but were in charge, so aimed to keep as close to the EU economic & legal order as possible, while clinging totemically to immigration as the thing to deliver that would satisfy the racist, foreigner hating leavers. 

Her entire policy has been based on a totally flawed analysis of the result, hence 2.5 years trying to negotiate a settlement that missed the entire point and now consequently can’t carry the leavers in Parliament and the country. 

 

I think I tend to agree with you here. All this talk about how she hates foreigners kind of misses the point that she is a politician trying to represent constituents who voted for Brexit. In her mind she will be fighting for the things they wanted out of the vote.  We may never actually know what her personal views on the issue are. 

It’s funny because if you read the ‘below the line’ comments on a paper like the Daily Mail, they see her as a remainer whose heart is not in it, or even going so far as claiming she is sabotaging the process. Yet on here she is seen as relishing the process, eager to enact her dreams of kicking out foreigners. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by LondonLax

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I think I tend to agree with you here. All this talk about how she hates foreigners kind of misses the point that she is a politician trying to represent constituents who voted for Brexit. In her mind she will be fighting for the things they wanted out of the vote.  We may never actually know what her personal views on the issue are. 

It’s funny because if you read the ‘below the line’ comments on a paper like the Daily Mail, they see her as a remainer whose heart is not in it, or even going so far as claiming she is sabotaging the process. Yet on here she is seen as relishing the process, eager to enact her dreams of kicking out foreigners. 

it stretches back further than Brexit, the go home vans, the Windrush deport first ask questions later, all on her - she's a f***ing racist, it's about the one consistency she's ever had

[peterms]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

it stretches back further than Brexit, the go home vans, the Windrush deport first ask questions later, all on her - she's a f***ing racist, it's about the one consistency she's ever had

Though I'm sure she's perfectly pleasant and polite to people of other ethnicities, on a personal basis.  I'm sure she would never seek to create a hostile environment for someone on a one-to-one basis, just in the aggregate.