Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Not sure how to really respond here as I'd hope anyone willing to reply would get the context that this particularly  belittling for the UK because it is entirely a failing of our own making. Much like Suez was or the loss of the 13 Colonies. I'll chuck in the Narvik debacle too.

 

A British citizen did not shoot Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand engaging a system of alliances which rolled over two months into a European catastrophe. It wasn't British Tsars who mobilised an army of millions. Nor was it a British Kaiser who called up his reserves triggering a French call up of theirs. Nor was it a British Emperor who invaded Serbia engaging Russian mobilisation... That wasn't of our making.. 

 

Appeasement in its context was probably about right. We weren't ready to fight over the Anschluss. Or over the Suedeten Land. We weren't even mentally ready for a fight when Hitler had 100,000 troops in total and he rolled into the Rhineland. Nor was France or Belgium. Or any "ally". We weren't truly ready for war in 1939 either. If we'd gone to war in 1937-38 we'd have still seen enormous bloodshed. The men in charge then were scarred by the memories of the trenches 20 years earlier. Of whole towns of men being mown down by machine guns and gassed. That wasn't solely of our making, France didn't want a war at all before it had to fight. 

 

I agree with you on the ills of Empire. Suez being the crescendo of it all. Where we finally realised all it took was a tap of money being turned off in Washington for our will to fight sapped and have our own truly independent foreign policy curtailed for ever. Ever since then we've been a multilateral player operating in coalition. Falklands and opposition to Vietnam stand alone in those terms. 

 

History has a context. It is important to place decisions of those times in their rightful places.

 

My point, moving off your own misplaced hyperbole, is that we have a PM who set out a set of immovable red lines to the EU. The EU said "Ok Theresa we can do a deal...". Both parties agreed a deal: which to allow for no customs union and single market membership forced the UK into a place where it had two years under a transition deal to solve the no customs union but frictionless border in Ireland issue. In order *to get a deal* the *BRITISH* Prime Minister authorised her own team to design the NI backstop. She then made a further step of her own to make it a UK wide one; so the domestic union was preserved. That is hers and our deal as a nation. It is our creation.

 

She has now backed a backbench amendment to trash her own deal and will now have to go to back to Brussels to ask that the EU remove from the deal a back stop she asked for and which her red lines helped to create. Do you not see how farcical that is? How demeaning that is for us as a nation? Do you not get that this is to protect the unity of one political party and it's small band of NI backers over doing what is best for the nation as a whole?

 

What's worse is Junker told her before the vote the deal is not to be and will not be reopened. Full stop. They agreed a deal in good faith. It's done. They want to get on with their lives, focus on Europe and bid us the adieu we voted for.

 

Perhaps it was hyperbolic of me to say "ever". But this is certainly the lowest ebb Britain has been in diplomatically in my life and I include Iraq in that. It's not hyperbole to say it's shambolic. 

 

This is going to be a repeat of Saltzburg where she hears no in 27 languages. 

 

Then what? 

 

All of this was avoidable if she'd had a plan before the Art.50 notice. But no. Of course not. Better to waste time on a major national issue with petty party politics and elections you can nearly lose than do any serious negotiating and governing.

 

One aspect where it does seem to be a low point for Britain is in the overseas reaction.

 

Countless people sayng "we thought you were the sensible, reliable ones, an example on how to do things".

 

However victory from the jaws of defeat might now be starting to be in sight. 

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, Smithee said:

As there simply isn't enough time to get all the necessary laws etc through both houses (even if we had a competent political system and they all agreed) No Deal can't happen, not on 29th March anyway. 

 

It's not just a case of "All these euro laws no longer apply!", we have to replace them with legislation of our own, standards of our own, and put in place the logistical means to carry it all out. 

 

We'll be in the EU come 30th March, that much I'm sure of, either because article 50 has been extended/restarted, or because we've passed the original withdrawal agreement (no laughing please) and are in the transition period. 

 

The proposed new deal proposed (though not set out) as part of vote yesterday includes extending the transition period for another year till end 2021 and what looks like a customs union. This was on a short document obtained by the BBC yesterday.. 

 

Which may be why Corbyn is now willing to talk to May. As it could get Labour support. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Mikey1874

[ri Alban]

10 hours ago, jake said:

No such thing mate.

Only hear about unicorns etc from remainers.

Pish patter

You better ask your dealer for your money back.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

im not a tory bud in fact the whole lot are a waste of space that includes snp , ive always 

voted during my lifetime, next election i will be struggling to know who to vote for.

I am of the opinion though that staying in the EU is not the right choice, 

And I have the same opinion on the UK.

[Mikey1874]

7 hours ago, Number28 said:

I disagree totally with this posting. Labour has known from day one what they wanted - POWER| Their front bench has demonstrated no interest in the demands of their constituents following the referendum in 2016. Their only purpose would appear to have been to seek a general election which would inevitably put them in power. Clearly they got their strategy and/or their timing wrong. If they let the Tories find a winning formula for Brexit and we left the EU with a deal, then the Labour party would find itself out in the wilderness for years to come. Corbyn was humiliated tonight. His proposed amendment was trashed in Parliament and he was forced to bow to May's superior position and agree to meet with her to discuss the Brexit policy.

Personally, I think he's finished. He was always un-electable. I just can't see him at a meeting of the World's leaders looking presidential or imposing as Britain's leader. Corbyn is Ed Milliband. He's Gordon Brown. He's Neil Kinnock. He's Michael Foot. He's finished.

 

Partly true. Because Labour can do well in an election  campaign (turned 20% poll gap into narrow 2% defeat in 2017).

 

But Corbyn / Labour leadership also want to fulfil 2016 vote. In the face of massive opposition in own party. Partly because it seems Corbyn wants to leave EU but mainly because they recognise the vote should be honoured. 

 

Haters not giving credit for that.

 

And May still needs Labour support to get her Deal passed. The most significant event yesterday could be Corbyn willing to enter talks. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Mikey1874

[ri Alban]

Tories are looking for eternal governance of the UK from brexit. 

[Cade]

Guess what?

The EU 27 are still saying no to changing the deal.

That is not going to change. 

[Mikey1874]

2 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

As soon as politicians started talking about there being no hard border two years ago it was clear a deal couldn't be done. It's like saying there will be no friction scientifically, or no gravity. You can't become independent of something without there being  a defining line between you and the thing you are independent of. I've said all along that Ireland would be the sticking point. The logical answer is either a united Ireland (or at least free movement of goods between North and South - effectively NI remaining in the EU and aborder between the Irish island and the 'British' island) or a border between the north and south. A referendum in NI on that would be a starting point to establish the British position but of course it would be anathema in the irish political situation. So to avoid that clarity we are trying to fudge the clarity of Brexit, and of course it's impossible to Brexit fully  if you do that. We have now voted for there to be clarity (no backstop means there has to be some clarity at a fixed date), but not what that clarity might be.

 

Ho hum

 

They need to agree a customs union to avoid a hard border unless some super duper technology can be created. 

 

The problem being is extreme opposition to a customs union in Tory party (Brexiteers). Hence May made it a 'red line'. 

 

What I think will happen (and there was a hint to it yesterday in the proposal behind the amendment that passed) will be a customs union packaged as something else. It will need Labour support but May and Corbyn will negotiate an agreement that will also satisfy EU who want a customs union. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Mikey1874

[scott herbertson]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

They need to agree a customs union to avoid a hard border unless some super duper technology can be created. 

 

The problem being is extreme opposition to a customs union in Tory party (Brexiteers).

 

What I think will happen (and there was a hint to it yesterday in the proposal behind the amendment that passed) will be a customs union packaged as something else. It will need Labour support but May and Corbyn will negotiate an agreement that will also satisfy EU who want a customs union. 

 

 

Yes, I get that. Just think that a customs union is the opposite of what the Brexiteers want so if that comes back for a vote the ERG won't back it. And the EU have been clear that customs union requires freedom of movement.

Edited January 30, 2019 by scott herbertson

[John Findlay]

2 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

As soon as politicians started talking about there being no hard border two years ago it was clear a deal couldn't be done. It's like saying there will be no friction scientifically, or no gravity. You can't become independent of something without there being  a defining line between you and the thing you are independent of. I've said all along that Ireland would be the sticking point. The logical answer is either a united Ireland (or at least free movement of goods between North and South - effectively NI remaining in the EU and aborder between the Irish island and the 'British' island) or a border between the north and south. A referendum in NI on that would be a starting point to establish the British position but of course it would be anathema in the irish political situation. So to avoid that clarity we are trying to fudge the clarity of Brexit, and of course it's impossible to Brexit fully  if you do that. We have now voted for there to be clarity (no backstop means there has to be some clarity at a fixed date), but not what that clarity might be.

 

Ho hum

I enjoyed the clarity of this post?

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Yes, I get that. Just think that a customs union is the opposite of what the Brexiteers want so if that comes back for a vote the ERG won't back it. And the EU have been clear that customs union requires freedom of movement.

 

No it's the single market that requires freedom of movement. Customs union affects ability to do independent trade deals (hence Brexiteer opposition/ May 'red line' against it).

 

May doesn't need Brexiteers to pass deal. Ideally she wants that though which might scupper my theory. She just needs Labour support.

 

We're in the territory of fudge / final Deal. Bear in mind too Labour has held regular talks with EU throughout process (normal to have parallel talks with opposition - same happens for UK budget). So there are other proposals that have been discussed. A fudge is needed so one will be done. 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Unknown user]

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It automatically happens.

 

It may be true that we'd automatically no longer be members as far as the EU's concerned but we wouldn't have the laws in place to go it alone, and I'm sure you've been paying attention enough to know that the Lords haven't been impressed with what's been thrown their way and have been throwing legislation back. 

To give an idea of the scale, something like 25 IT systems would need tendered, designed and replaced in time for day 1 too.

 

Surely no one honestly thinks we can have a huge amount of European laws removed with nothing ready to replace them.

[Francis Albert]

9 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Not sure how to really respond here as I'd hope anyone willing to reply would get the context that this particularly  belittling for the UK because it is entirely a failing of our own making. Much like Suez was or the loss of the 13 Colonies. I'll chuck in the Narvik debacle too.

 

A British citizen did not shoot Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand engaging a system of alliances which rolled over two months into a European catastrophe. It wasn't British Tsars who mobilised an army of millions. Nor was it a British Kaiser who called up his reserves triggering a French call up of theirs. Nor was it a British Emperor who invaded Serbia engaging Russian mobilisation... That wasn't of our making.. 

 

Appeasement in its context was probably about right. We weren't ready to fight over the Anschluss. Or over the Suedeten Land. We weren't even mentally ready for a fight when Hitler had 100,000 troops in total and he rolled into the Rhineland. Nor was France or Belgium. Or any "ally". We weren't truly ready for war in 1939 either. If we'd gone to war in 1937-38 we'd have still seen enormous bloodshed. The men in charge then were scarred by the memories of the trenches 20 years earlier. Of whole towns of men being mown down by machine guns and gassed. That wasn't solely of our making, France didn't want a war at all before it had to fight. 

 

I agree with you on the ills of Empire. Suez being the crescendo of it all. Where we finally realised all it took was a tap of money being turned off in Washington for our will to fight sapped and have our own truly independent foreign policy curtailed for ever. Ever since then we've been a multilateral player operating in coalition. Falklands and opposition to Vietnam stand alone in those terms. 

 

History has a context. It is important to place decisions of those times in their rightful places.

 

My point, moving off your own misplaced hyperbole, is that we have a PM who set out a set of immovable red lines to the EU. The EU said "Ok Theresa we can do a deal...". Both parties agreed a deal: which to allow for no customs union and single market membership forced the UK into a place where it had two years under a transition deal to solve the no customs union but frictionless border in Ireland issue. In order *to get a deal* the *BRITISH* Prime Minister authorised her own team to design the NI backstop. She then made a further step of her own to make it a UK wide one; so the domestic union was preserved. That is hers and our deal as a nation. It is our creation.

 

She has now backed a backbench amendment to trash her own deal and will now have to go to back to Brussels to ask that the EU remove from the deal a back stop she asked for and which her red lines helped to create. Do you not see how farcical that is? How demeaning that is for us as a nation? Do you not get that this is to protect the unity of one political party and it's small band of NI backers over doing what is best for the nation as a whole?

 

What's worse is Junker told her before the vote the deal is not to be and will not be reopened. Full stop. They agreed a deal in good faith. It's done. They want to get on with their lives, focus on Europe and bid us the adieu we voted for.

 

Perhaps it was hyperbolic of me to say "ever". But this is certainly the lowest ebb Britain has been in diplomatically in my life and I include Iraq in that. It's not hyperbole to say it's shambolic. 

 

This is going to be a repeat of Saltzburg where she hears no in 27 languages. 

 

Then what? 

 

All of this was avoidable if she'd had a plan before the Art.50 notice. But no. Of course not. Better to waste time on a major national issue with petty party politics and elections you can nearly lose than do any serious negotiating and governing.

In the post I replied to you simply stated that this shambles was "the biggest low point for the UK internationally since the American colonies became independent". You have now modified that to restrict the judgment to low points not entirely within the UK's control and making the rather large excision of the history of the British Empire, while absolving the UK for any responsibility for the start of and course of the two world wars.

 

[scott herbertson]

19 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

No it's the single market that requires freedom of movement. Customs union affects ability to do independent trade deals (hence Brexiteer opposition/ May 'red line' against it).

 

May doesn't need Brexiteers to pass deal. Ideally she wants that though which might scupper my theory. She just needs Labour support.

 

We're in the territory of fudge / final Deal. Bear in mind too Labour has held regular talks with EU throughout process (normal to have parallel talks with opposition - same happens for UK budget). So there are other proposals that have been discussed. A fudge is needed so one will be done. 

 

As far as i am aware all the territories which are part of a customs union with the EU have had to sign up to freedom of movement.

[XB52]

13 hours ago, SwindonJambo said:

And because of just how utterly shocking they are, the government get away with being mediocre at best. Hopefully there will be some appetite to negotiate from the EU. With 59 days left, it's now down to who blinks first. 

The pound's just taken a wee dunt btw.

Labour showed their true colours by refusing to back the SNP amendment. SNP always vote for what they think is best for our country. Labour vote for what is best for lavour, except their support is gradually realising this and drifting away. At least you know what you get with the tories, unfortunately

[Boris]

16 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

As far as i am aware all the territories which are part of a customs union with the EU have had to sign up to freedom of movement.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/customs-union-what-is-eu-brexit-single-market-alternatives-labour-corbyn-speech-a8557046.html

 

 

[XB52]

7 hours ago, JyTees said:

 

I agree. The withdrawal agreement will now get through the commons after a bit of jiggery-pokery from Brussels. There's no way the EU will want to be seen as the cause of a no deal Brexit. With May now negotiating armed with a clear mandate from parliament for the first time it's no longer our choice whether we crash out or not. Balls in Brussels court.

 

There's not a chance the EU will want their members pointing the finger of blame at them for their part in the downfall of their economies. The implosion would be final. Nope, guarantee there'll be frantic 5 to midnight negotiations on the 28th and they'll see the light, kowtowing to our demands. ?

Wow.  Just a wee note. The glorious British Empire is no more. Kowtowing to our demand??????

[Jambo100]

The E U has no choice it must stand firm.It was setup to stop NAZI style Governments like what we have now..

[jake]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

You better ask your dealer for your money back.

Are you just going to follow me round forever on this forum alternating between druggie drunk and racist?

 

 

[scott herbertson]

32 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/customs-union-what-is-eu-brexit-single-market-alternatives-labour-corbyn-speech-a8557046.html

 

 

 

From another site:

 

Turkey has a “customs union” for goods with the EU. It is not bound by the CAP (and it’s agricultural products are outside of the customs union), it doesn’t pay fees and there is no freedom of movement of people between Turkey and the EU.

Unfortunately, there is a catch – or rather, several of them. The Turkish customs union covers only goods, not services or finance. So a Turkish-style deal would be denying us a big part of the single market. What’s more, the quid pro quo of even this limited access is that Turkey has to follow the EU’s rules for the production of goods – without any say on what those rules are. A pattern should be familiar by now: to the extent that a country gets access to the single market, it has to follow the EU’s rules.

Turkey’s customs union with the EU – a key difference from the Norwegian or Swiss models – creates further problems. It requires Turkey to align its trade policy with the EU’s, seeking to cut free trade deals on goods with whomever Brussels makes deals.

 

 

 

I don't think a 'customs union' of the sort that people fancy when they hear that term, is possible for the UK with the EU, but we will see...

[Francis Albert]

22 minutes ago, Jambo100 said:

The E U has no choice it must stand firm.It was setup to stop NAZI style Governments like what we have now..

In a recent survey an alarmingly large number of people, particularly young people, do not know that the holocaust happened.

That and assuming the above is a young persons view makes me wonder whether the many Remainers' view that the voting age should be lowered to 16 and even that older people's votes should somehow not count because "its not their future" is altogether wise.

[scott herbertson]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In a recent survey an alarmingly large number of people, particularly young people, do not know that the holocaust happened.

That and assuming the above is a young persons view makes me wonder whether the many Remainers' view that the voting age should be lowered to 16 and even that older people's votes should somehow not count because "its not their future" is altogether wise.

 

 

I think the same argument was used against women getting the vote, and in fact against the extension of the franchise to the middle classes in 1832, ie "they can't be trusted with it"

[ri Alban]

32 minutes ago, jake said:

Are you just going to follow me round forever on this forum alternating between druggie drunk and racist?

 

 

I just thought your drugs must be shite if you don't see unicorns.

 

 

Is the BBC full of shite on brexit?

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I think the same argument was used against women getting the vote, and in fact against the extension of the franchise to the middle classes in 1832, ie "they can't be trusted with it"

OK I was not being entirely serious. And I am not against lowering the voting age. And I know a lot of old people are ignorant too, as evidenced by the frequent use of the words  "Nazi" and "Fascist " to describe this government and indeed any politician to the left of Jeremy.

[Hugh Phamism]

From the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. Sums the whole mess up pretty well.

 

"The MPs are unable to agree about much and were making more noise than the proponents and opponents of Brexit who were protesting outside. The Scots do not want a Brexit at all, Labour wants to keep one leg in the EU, the Brexiteers want to go into battle against the EU like Don Quixote, and the Northern Irish unionists want to drag as much money out of London as possible."

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

OK I was not being entirely serious. And I am not against lowering the voting age. And I know a lot of old people are ignorant too, as evidenced by the frequent use of the words  "Nazi" and "Fascist " to describe this government and indeed any politician to the left of Jeremy.

 

To the right of course. Though the terms are used so indiscriminately ...

[Francis Albert]

18 minutes ago, Hugh Phamism said:

From the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. Sums the whole mess up pretty well.

 

"The MPs are unable to agree about much and were making more noise than the proponents and opponents of Brexit who were protesting outside. The Scots do not want a Brexit at all, Labour wants to keep one leg in the EU, the Brexiteers want to go into battle against the EU like Don Quixote, and the Northern Irish unionists want to drag as much money out of London as possible."

... a million scots voted for brexit

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

It may be true that we'd automatically no longer be members as far as the EU's concerned but we wouldn't have the laws in place to go it alone, and I'm sure you've been paying attention enough to know that the Lords haven't been impressed with what's been thrown their way and have been throwing legislation back. 

To give an idea of the scale, something like 25 IT systems would need tendered, designed and replaced in time for day 1 too.

 

Surely no one honestly thinks we can have a huge amount of European laws removed with nothing ready to replace them.

 

One of the main points of the great repeal bill is to absorb all the EU law into UK law then get rid of what we want when we want to so we avoid the bit in bold. It's exactly what India did on gaining independence from the UK. It passed into law last June.

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Seymour M Hersh

[Hugh Phamism]

11 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

... a million scots voted for brexit

 

And 3 million didn't...

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

... a million scots voted for brexit

Hypocrite!

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Phamism said:

 

And 3 million didn't...

1.7m

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 minutes ago, Hugh Phamism said:

 

And 3 million didn't...

 

Absolute rubbish it was just over 1.6 million.

[Hugh Phamism]

Just now, ri Alban said:

1.7m

 Nope. I'm being pedantic, but 1.7m voted 'remain'. Around 3m didn't vote for 'leave'

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Hugh Phamism said:

 Nope. I'm being pedantic, but 1.7m voted 'remain'. Around 3m didn't vote for 'leave'

?

[...a bit disco]

39 minutes ago, Hugh Phamism said:

From the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant. Sums the whole mess up pretty well.

 

"The MPs are unable to agree about much and were making more noise than the proponents and opponents of Brexit who were protesting outside. The Scots do not want a Brexit at all, Labour wants to keep one leg in the EU, the Brexiteers want to go into battle against the EU like Don Quixote, and the Northern Irish unionists want to drag as much money out of London as possible."

 

 

Hard to pick any holes in that really!

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

One of the main points of the great repeal bill is to absorb all the EU law into UK law then get rid of what we want when we want to so we avoid the bit in bold. It's exactly what India did on gaining independence from the UK. It passed into law last June

There's so much more to it than that, like I saw the Lords have been passing bills back due to a lack of detail. But it's not just about passing laws for post brexit, it's also about passing the legislation from our end that allows us to leave, and that's ignoring the massive logistics of putting everything into place. 

 

This is the equivalent of having to move out tomorrow, except we'll be at work, haven't arranged a removal van, anywhere else to live, or even started packing yet. 

 

I stand by what I said, we'll be in the EU on 30th March one way or another.

[Boris]

26 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

... a million scots voted for brexit

 

So Britain doesn't want Brexit then, by your same logic?

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

So Britain doesn't want Brexit then, by your same logic?

Lost me. I was responding to claim the "the scots" ( not most scots) don't want Brexit at all. The majority do not but a million do.

[Boris]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Lost me. I was responding to claim the "the scots" ( not most scots) don't want Brexit at all. The majority do not but a million do.

 

*shakes head*

 

So equally Britons don't want Brexit.

[Thunderstruck]

41 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Lost me. I was responding to claim the "the scots" ( not most scots) don't want Brexit at all. The majority do not but a million do.

 

In the second vote on Brexit (on 8 June 2017), 1.5m Scots (57% of those that voted) opted for parties that indicated that they would implement Brexit.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

45 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

*shakes head*

 

So equally Britons don't want Brexit.

 

Well, of those who voted, yes they do.

[Boris]

12 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

In the second vote on Brexit (on 8 June 2017), 1.5m Scots (57% of those that voted) opted for parties that indicated that they would implement Brexit.

 

Except it wasn't a second vote on Brexit, was it? 

 

It's like saying on the vote to retain the monarchy, 99.4% opted for parties that indicated they would keep them.

 

 

[Boris]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Well, of those who voted, yes they do.

 

That's my point to FA! 

 

Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, therefore fair for the Dutch newspaper to say "Scots do not want a Brexit".

 

FA then points out that some Scots voted for Brexit as this somehow negates the point.

 

So the equivalent argument for the UK as a whole, based on FA's logic is that Britons don't want Brexit.  

 

 

[Cade]

Trying to conflate separate things in order to score imaginary points

[Thunderstruck]

Just now, Boris said:

 

Except it wasn't a second vote on Brexit, was it? 

 

It's like saying on the vote to retain the monarchy, 99.4% opted for parties that indicated they would keep them.

 

 

 

It confers as much of a ‘mandate’ (perhaps more) than the votes that we are told are a mandate for independence. 

 

Further, May called the election to strengthen her hand in the negotiations. It didn’t but it did reveal that 80% of the vote across the UK was for Cons or Labour who were standing on the basis of implementing the will of the people. 

 

You can, of course, argue that it was a General Election with a multiplicity of issues but, to do so, weakens the case for such elections being used to settle such issues. 

[Cade]

£190billion worth of assets moved to Dublin by Barclay's bank after the High Court gives them the go-ahead.

 

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

That's my point to FA! 

 

Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, therefore fair for the Dutch newspaper to say "Scots do not want a Brexit".

 

FA then points out that some Scots voted for Brexit as this somehow negates the point.

 

So the equivalent argument for the UK as a whole, based on FA's logic is that Britons don't want Brexit.  

 

 

 

"Scots do not want Brexit" is demonstrably inaccurate.

 

"Most Scots do not want Brexit" is accurate.

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It confers as much of a ‘mandate’ (perhaps more) than the votes that we are told are a mandate for independence. 

 

Further, May called the election to strengthen her hand in the negotiations. It didn’t but it did reveal that 80% of the vote across the UK was for Cons or Labour who were standing on the basis of implementing the will of the people. 

 

You can, of course, argue that it was a General Election with a multiplicity of issues but, to do so, weakens the case for such elections being used to settle such issues. 

 

How often do general elections yield everything that is in the winner's manifesto?  Very, very rarely I'd argue.

 

One could also argue that the 2017 GE was NOT another referendum on Brexit, as the result had been decided the previous year at the referendum.  Arguably the Scots delivered their verdict on May and her Government by voting 73% AGAINST her and her party.  Maybe more if the Scottish Tories had campaigned on something other no "NO INDY REF 2"!  (Which in turn dilutes the argument that the 2017 GE was a vote on Brexit).

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

"Scots do not want Brexit" is demonstrably inaccurate.

 

"Most Scots do not want Brexit" is accurate.

 

[Francis Albert]

11 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

That's my point to FA! 

 

Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, therefore fair for the Dutch newspaper to say "Scots do not want a Brexit".

 

FA then points out that some Scots voted for Brexit as this somehow negates the point.

 

So the equivalent argument for the UK as a whole, based on FA's logic is that Britons don't want Brexit.  

 

 

So if I say Scots do not want independence at all you'd be happy.