Its only that way because the Government wanted it to be. It was entirely open to the Government to keep Parliament engaged if it wanted to.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Its only that way because the Government wanted it to be. It was entirely open to the Government to keep Parliament engaged if it wanted to.
The had a referendum a few years ago, 'a once in a generation' if you recall. Scotland will get another referendum but the UK has the right to call when is the right time for that to happen for the good of the majority, not the Scottish minority.
The uk is a minority within the 'undemocratic' eu but its free to activate article 50 at anytime
And Westminster also had the ultimate say when that referendum happened.
You're failing to think about what the EU will want. Do you think they might talk on the basis that May can suspend negotiations every so often so she can ask parliament if it likes the way things are going, and if parliament doesn't then the EU would of course just change their mind and offer something completely different?
Negotiations would be over pretty damn quick, the EU would say take it or leave it, and the hardest of all Brexits would ensue.
Thats fair enough considering that the uk applied as eu member as a union.
The irony is that the uk calls the eu undemocratic despite offering its members more power than the uk does to its own members. An eu member has a veto + it can leave the union at any time
Yeah i should have expanded, i meant we're in the same situation where the only thing stopping May is public opinion and the potential for tory revolt.
You say enormous way but i don't think blocking A50 or forcing a GE was remotely possible but I don't think we'll agree on that.
Maybe Sturgeon will save the day
Two very different Unions.
One allows countries a veto on any decision taken + an opportunity to checkout at any time. The other does not. Whose the most democratic?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ant-to-be-used-trigger-giuliano-a7156656.html
You were saying.................
I am still at a loss to understand any benefits to the UK of Brexit. The opinion I have heard are:
1. Stops citizens of other European countries using the NHS for free, which is bollocks anyway, because they are meant to be charged it's just that no one gets round to it. Also, the amounts involved are very small in comparison to the total costs of the NHS.
2. Reduction in regulation, except that if we want to export British products to Europe, and indeed any country around the World, we have to comply with local standards & regulations.
3. Boris goes on about exporting British goods and gives all sort of examples, but we are already doing that. Does he honestly think that India, for example, are going to suddenly stop putting 150% import duty on Scottish Whiskey, just because we are no longer in Europe?
Can anyone tell me any tangible benefit of exiting Europe?
1. Stops citizens of other European countries using the NHS for free, which is bollocks anyway, because they are meant to be charged it's just that no one gets round to it. Also, the amounts involved are very small in comparison to the total costs of the NHS.
2. Reduction in regulation, except that if we want to export British products to Europe, and indeed any country around the World, we have to comply with local standards & regulations.
3. Boris goes on about exporting British goods and gives all sort of examples, but we are already doing that. Does he honestly think that India, for example, are going to suddenly stop putting 150% import duty on Scottish Whiskey, just because we are no longer in Europe?
Can anyone tell me any tangible benefit of exiting Europe?
Why would May suspend negotiations? Or seek approval for each step of the way? That's not the suggestion being made.
Think about the number of sectors affected by this trade deal. The finance sector, agriculture, academia, science, IT services and so on. Every one of them is likely to have a view on what works for them & what they'd want in a trade deal. Theresa May should be systematically consulting every single one of them that she reasonably can to try and understand what their priorities would be, how to get a deal that works best for them, etc. Its absolutely in our interest to at least listen to all these views. Theresa May doesn't, indeed shouldn't, try to please everyone. But there's rarely a situation where being uninformed leads to a better deal with being well informed.
Parliament is by design a forum for receiving and considering the views of a wide range of stakeholders. The fact of representation via MPs means that even less powerful stakeholders get the chance to put their two pence in on the floor of the house. In the absence of Parliament's involvement, some groups will still get their views heard, but only if a) they have the ear of senior individuals in the Tory hierarchy or b) they're part of a powerful lobby.
Just pleased we can actually get the ball rolling now instead of constantly talking about it.
Yeah, because blind action is always preferable to carefully debated action..
No, because actually doing something is better than constantly talking about doing it.
That's quite obviously wrong. It's only better if what you are doing is actually positive. Otherwise not doing it is certainly a better choice.
Only problem is, debating preferred action would never get us anywhere.
For one, the SNP would never agree with what the Government has planned, and if everyone had to agree on a course of action, then Article 50 would never be triggered. Same goes for Wales and NI, they all have differing views on what Brexit is for them, so whilst it would be ideal to get an agreed approach before triggering, that would never happen unfortunately.
That's quite obviously wrong, because you can never guarantee that something will have a positive outcome unless you actually take action in the first place. The only difference is whether you consider that thing to be of benefit to you or not and in your best interests.
The financial markets have known for nine months that Britain was going to trigger the process of leaving the EU. But it seems that Brexit may not be ‘priced in’.
George Saravelos, currency strategist at Deutsche Bank, believes that sterling could fall much further, and close to parity with the US dollar:
“I think the market is slowly starting to realise that Brexit is anything but priced in.”
“How can you price in an event of incredible complexity that has never happened before? We remain very bearish on the pound — our forecast is for a move close to $1.05.”
That’s via the FT...
George Saravelos, currency strategist at Deutsche Bank, believes that sterling could fall much further, and close to parity with the US dollar:
“I think the market is slowly starting to realise that Brexit is anything but priced in.”
“How can you price in an event of incredible complexity that has never happened before? We remain very bearish on the pound — our forecast is for a move close to $1.05.”
That’s via the FT...
Why would you think that? Almost no government policies are based on 'let's try it and find out'. The normal course of action is for government departments to carry out endless studies into the expected outcomes of different scenarios, and then for government to debate with their own party and with opposition using that evidence to support their argument for moving forward.
Now we seem to have changed to a system where all the studies say 'DON'T DO THIS, THIS WOULD BE TERRIBLE!!' and the government then debate with their own party and with opposition about why studies are boring and experts are tiring and that shallow slogans and blind action are the only logical way forward.
"Tangible" is not in keeping with the spirit of the times. It's going to be a beautiful wall over there, and we are going to reawaken the spirit of 200 years ago and become a great global trading nation. What exactly we will sell and what is preventing us from doing so already are irrelevant points of detail, as is the notion that a bloc of 500m can reasonably expect to get better terms from other trading partners than a country of 60m (possibly soon to be 55m and with no whisky to sell).
I'm not sure what you're proposing in practice then, that MPs should have been given time to consult all these groups, then hold a long series of debates before tendering article 50, thus putting it back six months or more? Even that would be too short a time to accomplish true consultation, I'd have thought, and even after all that we would then be in the same place anyway, with the government carrying out the negotiations, not parliament.
I can see the benefit of better-informed government of course, but also the downside to even longer paralysis of government, and uncertainty for business and industry. And crucially, I still don't think you're considering the EU's point of view as to what negotiations mean to them, they want Brexit settled, and quickly so they can move on, if not they have the option of no deal at all, and the hardest of Brexits.
It's a rolling disaster of course, I voted against Brexit, and against May and the Tories too, but we're in the hands of her and her negotiators now, that's the way it is. I doubt many Leavers thought it through to this position, and many Remainers just seem too shell-shocked to take it all in, but our best hope right now is that May turns out to be a world-class politician for the next year or two. Well, you never know.
Last edited:
No wonder you lost your job with the Samaritans.
This is about Brexit.
Just about sums up the opinion of certain remainers about Brexit, even though they have no idea about what the outcome will be.
We do have a very good idea what the outcome will be. I have no idea when this myth became commonplace that somehow crashing out of the single market and losing tariff free trade was some big mystery that no-one could possibly predict the effects of. What exactly do you think is going to happen when suddenly there are tarrifs and customs barriers in between us and the countries we do 50% of our trade with?
The impression I get is that the government think they are going to be able to still have the same access to the single market without EU laws, without immigration and without contributions so there will be no effect , in fact with their new trade deals on top of that, Britain is going to soar.
And if they can actually catch that rainbow shitting unicorn then fair play to them.
That's not what Im suggesting. I'm suggesting committing to doing that during the negotiations, not before A50 is triggered. Likewise this isn't about Government being subservient to Parliament. It simply means bringing the debate about the mechanics and the aims of the trade deal into the public forum of Parliament rather than behind closed doors. The decisions stay with Government.
The uncertainty would be temporary, a bad deal for business & industry would be locked in place for a generation. Besides, an open process would mitigate that uncertainty by giving May & co the opportunity to give some limited feedback on the process.
As I say, a commitment to consult through Parliament doesn't mean delaying the timetable, it can be done concurrently. However its also worth pointing out that there's very little prospect of the trade deal being struck within two years. Even "simple" bilateral trade deals take well over a year, and this is a 28 way trade deal with all sorts of messy politics involving the future of the EU and the influence of Trump and Russia running through it. This deal will be comparable to TTIP in complexity, so to imagine that we'll do it in two years is wishful thinking. In reality, we're going to either need a transitional deal that looks very similar to what we have now or the agreement of the EU to pause the two year clock. Either way, we need the EU's support, and if the EU don't want to play ball because they want us out asap, then we're already stuffed.
Fair enough, I respect your view even though I don't agree with. I suppose at least you'll have the consolation of being able to say 'it should have been done that way' for years to come.
Except that we all know about the current situation and it really isn't that bad. Better the devil you know etc and also better to be on the inside rather than outside looking in.
Anyway, unfortunately, these arguments are now redundant. We have no idea what it is going to be like outside Europe but we do know that over 50% of the population were sold the idea on a lie. I am sure everything will be fine in 30 years or so and people will look back and say "I told you we'd be better outside Europe!" in the meantime, we would have suffered 30 years of turmoil to get back to where we started.
If May agrees to a second indy ref either before or after Brexit, it will be interesting to see how she defends not having one on Brexit after the deal on offer is settled.
Its unthinkable from an economic, social and political view that a responsible european nation would shut the door to the very continent it made part off.
Article 50 provided a nation that descended into such chaos a fast track route out of the eu. Hence such country can function without constantly being fined for not adhering to high eu standards (ex human rights) while the eu can avoid being dragged into that same chaos
Considering that the uk government had allowed the nationalist extremists to take over against the will of remainers, leaver moderates, financial experts and individual nations prime ministers i guess that article 50 is serving its purpose wonderfully
The eu gives a veto to each eu nation and a fast track route out of the eu if they want to. Thats more then brexit England is ready to offer to its members. Boris and co should remember that next time they liken the eu with this or that regime. Regimes are built through violence and invasions + once in they dont allow anyone out.
Last edited:
Basically because the UK will have a government that don't want another referendum on the EU, whereas the Scots will have a government that want another referendum on independence. That's really all there is to it.
So none of this "We, the people..." stuff ?
If there was an opposition that made a second referendum a popular idea and stood a genuine chance of toppling the government, "the people" might matter. Unfortunately, fate has handed us the combined talents of Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron for this particular moment in history.So none of this "We, the people..." stuff ?
Because once article 50 is tendered it's irreversible. There have been some claims it isn't, but if you think about it from the EU's point of view, if they allow otherwise they would be inviting every member nation to go through the same referendum process to see if they could improve their terms and conditions as well, and the EU would be dealing with little else.
Actually that's my thought for the day, for anyone who's struggling to understand what's happening (me included), think about the process from the EU's point of view as well as ours and things fall into place a bit more.
Yes, there's been lots of talk about whether it is or not and according to someone on here the man who wrote it said it is. (memory may fail me on that ) But I always say the EU is really a political artifice and in reality there's probably enough creative ambiguity in the treaties to allow it, political will permitting.
Honestly don't think may would allow it though.
Last edited:
This guy is a joke