Scotland-England border would probably been even more disastrous.
More disastrous than a border in Ireland?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
More disastrous than a border in Ireland?
It's all hopeless.
You can guarantee every time the PM or cabinet member opens their mouth, the pound starts falling.
I'm sure businesses and investors are thoroughly reassured now they've been given the excruciating detail.
I'm sure businesses and investors are thoroughly reassured now they've been given the excruciating detail.
If the UK ends up with a de facto internal border then it would be across the Irish sea, between NI and Britain. That certainly seemed to be the implication of the backstop plan put forward by the EU earlier in the week, though Barnier was careful not to call it a border.
Of course that runs afoul of the DUP and the UK's commitment to having no barriers of trade between NI and Britain. *sigh*
Depressing stuff really. The Tory rebels are the last hope, at least for safeguarding the goods part of the economy via the customs union.
I know that, I'm trying to think about an alternative. The UK government asked for creative answers.
I know that, I'm trying to think about an alternative. The UK government asked for creative answers.
Be reassured, whatever ideas you come up with will be more sensible than anything the UK government will.
Strange of the government to let a competition winner make the speech.
Brexit is in such shambles that its not even funny anymore.
It never was to be honest - a country of 65m people entering on a course of self-sabotage based on a mixture of lies, ignorance and desperation while weakening Europe at the same time. Still waiting for the moment when they reveal this is all a giant wing up (Rees-Mogg as Jeremy Beadle?).
Never seen a country so hell bent on self harm.
John Redwood: I hope the EU responds warmly to this generous vision
The prime minister set out some noble aims and plenty of detail on how the new trading arrangements could work if the EU does wish to have a comprehensive free trade agreement and customs understanding with us. She spoke in words that should bring together many who voted remain and many who voted leave, concentrating on how we can have a good relationship with the rest of the EU once we have left.
The UK has been most accommodating in the negotiations so far, offering money for a transitional period, offering a full free trade deal so their exporters do not face tariffs in future, and reassuring all those who have come here under EU law that they are most welcome to stay. I do hope the EU now responds positively and warmly to this speech, agreeing in principle to the prime minister’s vision of a wide-ranging free trade agreement. The offer is clearly well meant and the overall package the UK has in mind generous to the rest of the EU.
Many leave voters just want to exit and get on with spending all the money we will save once properly out. I agree with them that we do need to spend more on the NHS, our education system and other public services, and the easiest way to pay for all that will be from the savings in EU contributions. I also look forward to the day, after a clean Brexit such as the one described by the prime minister, when the UK parliament can abolish VAT on feminine hygiene products, green products including heating controls and draught excluders, and on domestic energy where we could help anyone struggling with high fuel bills.
• John Redwood is the Conservative MP for Wokingham and a leading Brexiter
The prime minister set out some noble aims and plenty of detail on how the new trading arrangements could work if the EU does wish to have a comprehensive free trade agreement and customs understanding with us. She spoke in words that should bring together many who voted remain and many who voted leave, concentrating on how we can have a good relationship with the rest of the EU once we have left.
The UK has been most accommodating in the negotiations so far, offering money for a transitional period, offering a full free trade deal so their exporters do not face tariffs in future, and reassuring all those who have come here under EU law that they are most welcome to stay. I do hope the EU now responds positively and warmly to this speech, agreeing in principle to the prime minister’s vision of a wide-ranging free trade agreement. The offer is clearly well meant and the overall package the UK has in mind generous to the rest of the EU.
Many leave voters just want to exit and get on with spending all the money we will save once properly out. I agree with them that we do need to spend more on the NHS, our education system and other public services, and the easiest way to pay for all that will be from the savings in EU contributions. I also look forward to the day, after a clean Brexit such as the one described by the prime minister, when the UK parliament can abolish VAT on feminine hygiene products, green products including heating controls and draught excluders, and on domestic energy where we could help anyone struggling with high fuel bills.
• John Redwood is the Conservative MP for Wokingham and a leading Brexiter
Redwood must surely be certifiably insane
No, just a gigantic lying cnut. He knows he's talking absolute bullshit.
You're right. However, I always thought that somewhere common sense will prevail. The UK will carve an inferior but still liveable deal for itself, which will kick in after a lengthy transition period and life will go on. In a couple of years time most Brexiters will kick the bucket and the UK will return were it belongs to. It doesn't seem like its going to happen now.
I haven't yet lost complete trust of that happening. However that trust is diminishing by the hour.
I thought so too but even a transition period looks further away now than ever. Barnier said he'd try right to the end to get a deal for everyone but I think even he is just fed up with the unrealistic posturing - unless massive advances are made by the end of this month, it looks bad.
Could take 20 years and we wouldnt get the rebate next time.
Should never had made such a major decision on a straight majority. Should have required 60% vote to exit IMO.
It should never have gone to a referendum full stop.
I would tend to disagree with that. The vote was slightly in favor so a referendum was a valid. However when a change is so impactful and irreversible a 60% vote should be required IMO. The vote was so close that if you did it again today the result would probably go the other way.
The validity of a referendum has nothing to do with the result, it's all about the type of question that you are asking. This particular question was/is too complex for a referendum, most people had no idea about the subject they were voting for or against.
I think the question was pretty clear. Many might not fully understand the full implications but that can be said for most elections. The remain/leave the EU argument has been around as long as I can remember, which is around the time of the original vote to join the EU. Public feeling was very split on the topic and having a referendum was the right choice IMO. Making such an impactful change should have required a large majority though.
I think there is a cross party majority that are in favour of staying in the Common Market. I hope they get the chance to vote on their views.
But it's not like most elections, here you are breaking the legal framework of your country without knowing what you will replace it with. Also your vote is based on lies that you would have spotted if you knew just a little bit about the subject, example "We want to make our own laws", "we want control of our borders", "we want to control the bend of our bananas".
Absolutely. If I buy a share or a bond, any fundamental change to the terms requires 2/3 or 3/4. But my citizenship gets changed on a 2% swing. Cameron is the worst PM in British history (the previous holder of that title, Lord North, the man who lost America, at least had the excuse of having a pig-headed king interfering in policy).
If you're holding a referendum on an issue either make it 50% or don't bother at all. Otherwise if the side requiring 60% wins with less than that they (rightfully) claim they've been disadvantaged and the issue doesn't go away until they get a fair vote.
That's just not logical nor practical. If you are holding a referendum on a hugely significant and divisive issue (which in Brexit's case will change the established order for the past 40 years), it is standard practice for almost any relatively established democracy to require a supermajority (60% or 66%) as well as a minimum voter participation (that was met in the Brexit vote, to be fair).
I have not heard anyone question Trump's legitimacy even though <50% voted for him, for example (not on that front at least) because the rules were clear up front (even if they are hugely skewed to help Republicans).
Otherwise, you end up with a situation where a solid % of the population is very dissatisfied with this decision that will determine the direction of the country for years and years. Even more so in the case where the younger generation who will have to live with the decision for what is their whole (or most of their) life.
I have not heard anyone question Trump's legitimacy even though <50% voted for him, for example (not on that front at least) because the rules were clear up front (even if they are hugely skewed to help Republicans).
Otherwise, you end up with a situation where a solid % of the population is very dissatisfied with this decision that will determine the direction of the country for years and years. Even more so in the case where the younger generation who will have to live with the decision for what is their whole (or most of their) life.
I've been away for a week, so I'm trying to catch up, but we still seem to be headed for a hard brexit, and a hard Irelands border.
Pretty shit really, but I can't see any evidence to the contrary.
Pretty shit really, but I can't see any evidence to the contrary.
I agree. However, let me say that this issue shouldn't be solved with a referendum.
Referendums are strange beasts. In Malta we had one against hunting. Hunting is a thorny issue there and while there's a strong minority of hunters with a well organized lobby, the rest of the islands loathe them. We were 100% sure that if we somehow managed to bypass politics we'll be able to control their practices more. Its started really well, with polls giving us a healthy lead of 10 points. Then, the big guns kicked in by getting endorsements from extremely popular politicians and the issue changed completely. Hunting took a very minor role and the referendum become more about giving a trashing to unpopular politicians who stirred away from endorsing the hunters (which was interpreted as them being anti hunting). We ended up losing the referendum.
I can see some parallels between this referendum and Brexit, with Boris giving legitimacy to the cause and voters being eager to give a thrashing to unpopular politicians who imposed austerity on them. Not to forget the many emotions surrounding it (like making the UK great again and getting control) that drove people to vote against the EU despite having nothing to do with the UK's relationship with the EU.
I wonder how long it will be before there's an escalation in tensions in Ireland over the border issue. Seems the perfect powder keg, what with the power sharing dispute already between the DUP and Sinn Fein, plus the fact the DUP basically has this government by its balls. The establishment of a hard border could be the 2-ton led pipe that breaks the camel's back. If shit does kick off again in Northern Ireland it'll be the least surprising development of the lot. Hard-line Brexit supporters will happily see it as a price worth paying.
Helloooooo!!
At least those who oppose Trump are opposing Trump. The position of the Democrats isn't "Yes he's a disaster, but he won the election so we should stop moaning and get behind him"
Looks that way and no transition either at this rate.
When the EU asked May to tell them what she wanted to do, she misunderstood and only told them which cherries she wanted.
I've been amazed at the positive reception of this speech in the British press. No one seems to be able to call out May and explain to normal people she's not said anything that would drive the process further.
This just makes it obvious why people voted out. There's a profound level of misinformation about how the EU works in this country.
This just makes it obvious why people voted out. There's a profound level of misinformation about how the EU works in this country.
The majority of the press want the UK to leave, it would be so easy to disprove all the nonsense but on one hand no-one wants to do so and secondly so much of the public doesn't want to listen. Corbyn could have destroyed May in parliament but didn't.
Think they must be putting something in the water, the public seem like brainwashed zombies.
Even the supposed Tory rebels are not really going to challenge May.
Last edited:
Just 8 per cent of voters feel 'more optimistic' about Brexit, says new poll
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...stic-about-brexit-says-new-poll-a3780786.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...stic-about-brexit-says-new-poll-a3780786.html
But don't forget 'the will of the people' trumps all. It doesn't matter if the economy's going to crap or that the country's going to spend years in an unnecessary exercise in futility just to get poorer.
Have we established who/what the post-Brexit scapegoat is going to be for everything that’s wrong.
I assume it’s still the EU?
I assume it’s still the EU?
Cameron, May, and Corbyn. I've no doubt many here will discount Corbyn, but he's had as much time as May to come up with a strategy and he's been just as wishy-washy and useless as she has.
everything will be fine once Sir Keir is leader.