Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
I thought about 60% of Labour voters sided with Remain?
Some even say "we don't even need to trigger article 50, we can just leave!"
But it is amazing, and slightly horrifying, how those in charge have stopped using the arguments that we're bound to get a good deal because of the trade deficit and German cars and whatever else, it's moving to "well, you know, WTO rules aren't that bad."
Maybe May should do something along the lines of saying to Brussels ' Sorry guys....We're skint....Can't afford to pay you any longer....'
Opinions / ideas what the EU's response would be ?
Maybe something like ' Aw don't worry - you can stay in the SM just keep your borders open and pay us what you can afford ' through to ' No problem...The ECB will lend you the money to enable you to continue paying your subs ' or a simple ' Well feck off then '....
Opinions / ideas what the EU's response would be ?
Maybe something like ' Aw don't worry - you can stay in the SM just keep your borders open and pay us what you can afford ' through to ' No problem...The ECB will lend you the money to enable you to continue paying your subs ' or a simple ' Well feck off then '....
PEDRO....
Nothing new here - could have been written by Osborne as part of Project Fear.
Sections 1 and 2 could be any old cut and paste from any number of articles about The City written over the past 15 years....
Section 3 would be a bit more worrying for the UK if the following didn't appear on Page 1 -
Section 3 estimates the possible effects of Brexit, using admittedly rough calculations and assuming difficult negotiations with the European Union
And Section 4 isn't going to have any other conclusion given Section 3's estimates, possibilities, rough calculations and assumptions.
We are going to build a wall... It will be a beautiful wall and the UK is going to pay for it
Those people don't care about the facts anyway, they get their news from the Mail and purposefully dumbed down and confrontational radio news shows.
Its like a Monty Python sketch with that lot, instead of 3 yorkshiremen outdoing each other with their tough upbringing its them competing over how much they can make out the EU to be a villain/disaster.
"When i was a lad the EU came to my house and took away my vacuum cleaner"
"Thats nothing, when i was a lad the EU homed sixteen polish men in my wardrobe and made me impotent"
Only Labour can secure a fair Brexit. Here’s how
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ration?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Ignoring the credibility of the author ("Mr there's no money left"), i think this is a fair article on how Labour could proceed.
All Labour can do it right now is make noise and be ignored by our supreme ruler May but promoting a viable alternative loudly may prove effective if things do go South.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ration?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Ignoring the credibility of the author ("Mr there's no money left"), i think this is a fair article on how Labour could proceed.
All Labour can do it right now is make noise and be ignored by our supreme ruler May but promoting a viable alternative loudly may prove effective if things do go South.
Not exactly Corbyn's strong point.
I don't think you needed to highlight 'promoting' or 'loudly'.
Depends, I don't think they ever planned to challenge prior to triggering A50 as they didnt want to be seen as blocking it.
Once its triggered you'd hope they'll aggressively fight the terms.
He is good with a megaphone.
A second Scottish referendum - clear fallout from Brexit.
Michael Hesseltine speaking sense on Sky News.
When will the 3rd and 4th scottish referendums be?
Take Back Control. No, not like that!
Its not just about being seen to be blocking it.
Brexit is not real. By that, I mean, it doesn't exist beyond being an idea. But everyone who voted for it has a different idea of what brexit is. Whether its less immigration, better trade with other countries, less bureaucracy or a million other things.
But you cannot argue against an idea. Brexit has to be real before you can convince anyone that what they thought brexit would be, is not actually what it will be.
Corbyn took a bashing for it, but getting article 50 out the way quickly is sensible. It is only after we do that, and the reality becomes more than an idea, but inarguable facts, that you can have any real debate on the value of brexit itself.
I'm fairly sure I can.
Once it is real most Brexiters who change their mind won't be this analytical. If something about it pisses them off they will forget their original ideas on the subject and be against it.
If he was really against it he could have taken a stance that he was making sure that the 48% were represented.
I can see a little logic in your argument but sadly I also see it as being more akin to debating what a parachute should really look like and be made of after you've jumped from the plane.
The failure to secure amendments means there's next to no Parliamentary oversight. The time to fight for the terms of A50 was before it was triggered.
Fighting the terms of A50 was always ultimately a pointless task as nothing can be guaranteed and we can't stop the process. Only the promise to existing EU members staying was worthwhile as it causes needless harm.
Nothing else including the vote amendment were of much use. Parliament will get a vote in the end, either because we've got a good deal and May wants the occasion or because the deal is bad and parliament can choose between it and hard brexit.
I think we've had those debates for over a year. The issue is we can't buy the parachute until we've jumped and there's no pre-ordering.
A ridiculous process to prevent anyone but idiots leaving the EU but sadly the idiots vote too.
The Opposition had limited options for sure. However the point here is that while there may have been limited options before A50, after A50 there are none. The suggestion that Labour will be able to aggressively fight the terms when Parliament isnt even involved in the process is pretty hollow.
For all the hoo-ha what did people actually want? I think its a case of looking for any win from this shit storm more than achieving anything practical.
We're in the same situation except the opportunity of blocking brexit or triggering a GE prior has now passed.
I'm afraid people just couldn't understand that negotiations will take place between the government and the EU, not parliament and the EU. A lot seem stlll so shell-shocked by the referendum result they're not thinking things through yet, just re-fighting it over and over again.
That second sentence kind of makes no sense. We're in the same situation except for the pretty enormous way in which its different?
But generally I don't get this weird vacillation you have going on, where at one moment you say you hope people will be aggressively fighting the Brexit terms, then on the other hand saying there's naff all we could do about it anyway. The truth is in the middle. The opposition don't get a veto, but every point at which Parliament is engaged with the process is an opportunity to put the spotlight on May & Davis, both within the House and without.
'Democratic' uk is refusing Scotlands bid for a second referendum, as it preparing itself to activate article 50 which allow countries to leave the 'undemocratic' eu
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.