It was never considered before the referendum. If they blame the EU they have to blame the WTO as well and international law, it has always been an impossibility - if the UK (including NI) leaves the EU , they break the GFA. No-one to blame but the gullibles.
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.
It was never considered before the referendum. If they blame the EU they have to blame the WTO as well and international law, it has always been an impossibility - if the UK (including NI) leaves the EU , they break the GFA. No-one to blame but the gullibles.
Sir John Major speaking on the madness of leaving. He hits the nail on the head.
When ever I think of someone I need to talk sense and back up my argument, it's always John Major.
They should of held a 2 stage ref. Step one, see if the people want it, go away and determine what the deal would look like. Step 2, yes or no based on the deal agreed.
Whenever I haven’t got any sort of cogent argument, it’s always ad hominem.
Like joining the Euro?
Yes No ref was offered , uk voted for the party offering it.
They could have done that but I still think they should have ironed out the basics of what Brexit would mean before any referendum.
You're both making the massive presumption that the EU would have been happy to carry out serious negotiation for a year or two and then sit back and say, 'but don't worry lads, only if you agree to it'. Every other country in the EU would have wanted to do the same thing, with nothing to lose.
As it happens things are turning to such utter shit for all concerned that we may, if the EU indicate they would respond, get a second chance to vote, but what they'll ask for in return is as yet unknown. If they consider it at all.
From the start, the referendum should've been Remain vs either leave the single market and customs union, or instead just to leave the EU with things mostly remaining the same. That would've been clearer, but Leavers would've never opted for that because then they'd have had to be deliberately clear in their vision for departure, instead of being able to put out a vague campaign in which nothing was ever properly clarified and Brexit voters could impose their own version of Brexit onto the vote.
Over three years since the referendum became a probability and over two and a half years since serious debates started and still not one Brexiter has any idea what they actually voted for.
I don't get why everyone on Labour side who speaks out against Brexit is attacked from the left. It isn't just Blair which given his profile and past is maybe understandable but it generally seems those who support the current leader only really take an interest in Brexit if they notice anyone of the left/Labour criticising the Tory Brexit then they attack them for doing so.
As if the only acceptable opposition is what the Labour front bench present, which is having the exact same policy.
As if the only acceptable opposition is what the Labour front bench present, which is having the exact same policy.
Because Corbyn is infallible... Momentum etc... It's shambolic from both parties.
I'm not even on about that. I don't mean the exact wording of the article that we end up agreeing with the EU but rather a proposal that the government could get consensus on from it's own MP's. A written set of goals and a realistic list of privileges that we would expect to give up in order to get these goals.
The idea that we don't want to contribute to the EU either financially, through free movement or through regulation but wanted to keep a tariff free market is just a pipe dream.
If the government had at least canvased it's own MP's and realised that there is no way that they could get them to sit down together as adults and hash out a Brexit that would even get the EU to the negotiating table then maybe the referendum was a bad idea in the first place.
Agreed, it is a particular problem with the left though. Just look at when people were praising Anna Soubry and retweeting the video where she laid into her colleagues on Brexit. People like Owen Jones, and others, were incandescent practically. Arguing that because she had supported Tory cuts and past Tory policy (which shouldn't really be unexpected for an actual Tory) people were wrong to point out that they agreed with her on Brexit. The mentality on the left really seems to be 'either we agree on everything or you're the enemy and we can't agree on anything.'
If a passing Tory MP is going to push you out of the way of an ongoing bus with '£350m a week to NHS' written on the side, the smart thing to do is to allow them to help, not insist on getting hit by the bus because you'll somehow feel besmirched because: 'he voted for benefit cuts'. Seeing everybody as the enemy is a massive problem some on the left really has to overcome. What's needed is cross-party/ideology unification against Brexit, not trying to find examples of where we've disagreed on other unrelated matters to excuse why we can't even recognise when we agree on this.
Worse than that the government can't agree between themselves what Brexit should mean.
To be fair I'm sure they have decided brexit means brexit
Soubry's talking out against her party has been fairly insubstantial and hasn't done much to deter the Tory party from their current path, and she's still voted on the government with plenty of key matters. Likewise the conditions that led to the anger which led to Brexit have been created by plenty of policies she supported and continues to support. Not ridiculous to point that out.
I think it's similar to how under Miliband the party never defended its record in government and allowed the 'Labour broke the economy' narrative to take hold. Eventually it became 'fact'. A proposition unopposed will do that. By the time Labour got around to recognising the need to actually fight back against that narrative/lie it was too late, there was no reversing it. With Brexit nobody really opposed the Farage/nutjob narrative that Brexit was an "overwhelming" vote for a hard Brexit where we'd leave the CM/CU and feck ourselves, generally, up the arse. So that's what Brexit means now, even those who didn't vote for that kind of Brexit now think they did as they've been told for 2 years they did and very few people have challenged that narrative.
If the day of the referendum there were calls for a national debate on the future relationship things might be different but nobody who mattered (or who wouldn't be dismissed) made that point. It was utter capitulation to the hard right, UKIP wet dream which cannot realistically be reversed. Suggest that people didn't vote to shoot themselves in the face they'll scream back that they absolutely did.
If the day of the referendum there were calls for a national debate on the future relationship things might be different but nobody who mattered (or who wouldn't be dismissed) made that point. It was utter capitulation to the hard right, UKIP wet dream which cannot realistically be reversed. Suggest that people didn't vote to shoot themselves in the face they'll scream back that they absolutely did.
It was ridiculous. If you attack someone attacking something you oppose you undermine them and you undermine the argument they're making and you weaken their attack on the thing you oppose. Otherwise how would consensus across the parties ever be achieve. You and I both want A but we have a different view on B, so when you're making a positive argument for A it makes absolutely no sense for me to attack you on our disagreement on B. We can do that later if we want.
If you can't agree with someone on an issue unless you disagree on nothing else then that's pretty childish.
Cross party committees would never exist. The cross party committee on youth crime would just be people sat arms folded looking the other way and sulking because even though they might agree on a policy to tackle youth crime they disagree on environmental policy so decide they can't do anything but attack each other on the issue they have differences over.
It would be absurd. Families, circles of friends and work places aren't like that, there people agree to disagree, find areas of common interest and get along. Wanting politics and political debate to be so binary is something I'm not a fan of.
The government think that Brexit means leaving but keeping the bits they like and they all like different bits and that includes JRM.
The last two years have been a total waste of time for the UK as unless the UK miraculously decides to stay it's clearly going to be no deal.
They weren't ready for No Deal 2 years ago and they are no closer to being ready for No Deal in March.
All this wasted time for the UK has done is enabling the EU to start getting ready for No Deal and businesses to prepare to relocate.
One would expect common sense to have prevailed in the end, but there is no common sense in this government.
Soubry is still willingly a member of the party who are currently implementing Brexit, a party who are currently in a minority government and can't afford to lose many more MP's. She could leave if she wanted to, and join Labour or the Lib Dems, or stand as an independent. If a few more with similar opinions followed, the government would potentially collapse.
Soubry was a prominent Cabinet minister in a government who regularly scapegoated the EU for all of our woes, and the government who offered this referendum to placate hard-right Tories/Kippers. If she'd been so serious about her continuing EU membership, she could've opposed this referendum, spoke out against Cameron's scapegoating of the EU, or ensured the terms of the referendum were more specific in what leaving would entail and thus beneficial to the Remain campaign. She didn't.
Her action against Brexit thus far has been about the equivalent to McCain's actions against Trump; occasionally she's been a thorn in the government's side but for the most part she's continually placated them, and hasn't kicked up that much of a fuss or achieved anything substantive. Indeed, if anything she's been a beneficial voice for May to have; someone to assure more liberal Tories that the party hasn't went off the deep end, and that they still have respectable voices to be listened to.
Yes, there needs to be room for cooperation. Yes, as much as I don't like Soubry or agree with most of what she says, I do agree she's better to be dealing with than JRM or Boris or Gove. Yes, everything would fall apart if parties didn't work together on occasion. But at the same time we shouldn't be foaming at the mouth every time a Tory gives some mild criticism of Brexit without ever actually doing anything about it. Especially when that very same Tory helped create the conditions and social atmosphere which lead to it in the first place.
And additionally, much as I do partially agree with the idea that we need compromise and cooperation in government, it should also be noted at the same time that for a lot of left-wingers, these are essentially useless sentiments which are a disguised way of saying a bunch of centrists who occasionally disagree on some small issues should all be jovial with each other, safe in the knowledge they won't have to face any anger from the public for their political choices, and that they'll occasionally exchange power with each other. If you're on the left (the actual left) you'll view the Tory policies of the past half-decade as ones that have wrecked misery and suffering upon the most vulnerable in society. Why shouldn't you get angry against the people who implemented those policies, if that's the case? And what's cooperation and compromise achieved for the likes of Miliband in recent years, who was seen as not representing anything and who was swiftly defeated? A lot of the successful politicians in recent decades (including the likes of Thatcher) got where they did not through careful compromise but through conviction and force of will. Thatcher didn't shift the economic paradigm to the right (a paradigm we're now still in) by being nice and cosy to those who disagreed with her.
If we both agree the council shouldn't allow planning permission of a new strip club next to a primary school and we find ourselves in front of the planning committee and when you start making the argument I turn around and attack you because we have a difference of opinion on something else what am I achieving other than seeking to undermine you and essentially undermine the cause I support in that instance?
If I agree with someone on Brext, or on ANY issue, I'm not going to refuse to acknowledge we agree unless there is no other issue on which we disagree.
If anyone says anything on Brexit I agree with I don't care. A moderate (for a ) Tory MP attacking Brexit has potential to cut through. Attacking them when they do so because I disagree with them on something else, categorically makes absolutely no sense.
Pro-Brexiteers are divided because they disagree on Brexit, but they're aided as the anti-Brexit group are divided because some are concerned that others are imperfect allies. It's nuts.
If I agree with someone on Brext, or on ANY issue, I'm not going to refuse to acknowledge we agree unless there is no other issue on which we disagree.
If anyone says anything on Brexit I agree with I don't care. A moderate (for a ) Tory MP attacking Brexit has potential to cut through. Attacking them when they do so because I disagree with them on something else, categorically makes absolutely no sense.
Pro-Brexiteers are divided because they disagree on Brexit, but they're aided as the anti-Brexit group are divided because some are concerned that others are imperfect allies. It's nuts.
Sadly yes. I also think that the deal that the EU have made with Japan will go a long way towards mitigating the losses they will suffer under a no deal.
I think most people would agree that there are two opposing parties under the name "conservative".
Maybe you should actually argue your points then instead of laughing at other posters?Unbelievable. This thread really cracks me up
Unbelievable. This thread really cracks me up
That's what a soft Brexit is, i.e. the version of Brexit that doesn't violate the Good Friday Agreement. What's your alternative?
Unbelievable. This thread really cracks me up
But that's what the government is doing, they want to leave but for everything to remain roughly the same , except paying for it and accepting foreigners.
Why didn't they just leave, what are they waiting for, what do they want, why are they so upset the EU are not playing ball.
A no deal means nothing will ever be the same for the UK, just as long as you're aware that the things you took for granted may no longer be available.
JRM is torn between a complete break with the EU, and loyalty to PMTM.
Let's see.
Same goes for the EU.
If this is the case, good riddance to the EU and those relocating.
Very easy to judge without understanding the complexity of the situation.
You're not thinking this through.
You're implying that the EU was expecting to kneecap the UK for leaving. How do you feel about an organisation that is basically trying to say that there is no way for the UK to leave the EU?
The UK should tell Ireland, what is YOUR plan for a no deal brexit for the UK?
You wanna get tough with the EU?
You want to sell beef to us etc?
You wanna get tough with the EU?
You want to sell beef to us etc?
Why the feck should Ireland get involved? We didn't vote to leave. Our stance is to stay in the EU and let the UK sort out their mess while we figure out how to deal with the repercussions on us.
Well it requires much less time for individual nations within the EU to prepare for no deal scenario given their trade/service relationship with the UK makes up for 0-10% of their total trade coverage, while UK around 80% (of their total trade coverage) dependant on goods/services going in and out of the EU.
Not sure why you acting so smug by making such a stupid point. But that’s par for the course for leavers I guess.
I think we need to remember that even Cameron understood that Britain could only prosper in a reformed EU, and that is what he campaigned for, remaining in a reformed EU.
Also May promised to bring immigration down, but completely failed.
Cameron tried to get a reform deal from the EU but failed, and yet he still campaigned for britain to remain in a reformed EU.
Also May promised to bring immigration down, but completely failed.
Cameron tried to get a reform deal from the EU but failed, and yet he still campaigned for britain to remain in a reformed EU.
We should re-do the partition of Ulster to make Northern Ireland much smaller and at least 90% Unionist. Any Unionists left on the 'wrong side' should move over, likewise any Nationalists. If they're not willing they should be forced, a little ethnic cleansing did wonders for Greek-Turkish relations after all. The new border should be as straight as those lines you see on the maps of the Sahara, and can be as hard as London wants. Problem solved.
Afraid not, he just doesn't want the job yet, he knows it's all turning to disaster and he doesn't want to be the one in charge when it does, he's only in it for the money and here's his lack of knowledge and still wanting to keep the benefits of the EU: "If you are in a negotiation for a free trade agreement, you can maintain your existing standards for ten years under WTO rules. So we have ten years from the point at which we leave the European Union to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which would mean we can carry on with our zero tariffs."
What the wasted 2 years or the No deal - No deal is at about 99.9% at this moment
But EU countries are getting ready for no deal - NL customs offices, Calais port buying land for lorry parks and customs buildings, Ireland planning to recruit customs personnel and so on. The Uk have done nothing.
But if those relocating their factories, for example, move to within the EU, they not only produce for the domestic and EU market, they also produce for sales worldwide so if all the car manufacturers decided to move their plants to the EU all the trade deals with the USA, China , Australia would not only not happen, but the existing sales would also disappear. Cars are the UK's biggest manufacturing export worldwide.
But we do understand the complexity of the situation which is why a real Brexit cannot happen without catastrophic results.
Duh, because a hard brexit massively affects them and their economy.
We don't see it as our mess. It's a joint mess with the EU because of all the problems the membership to the EU has caused us.
List the top 100
The Uk wants to leave, Ireland didn't ask the UK to leave.
If you think the EU are getting tough with the UK, that means you want something, you're expecting something, but you voted to leave , surely you don't want anything from the EU.