Hard Brexit

[OBE]

2 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Frustrating, eh?

 

The lies, upon lies, upon lies spouted by the Leave campaign which have been established as utter bullshit - that's what people voted for. Since we won't be getting all that extra NHS cash, does that mean that we're not getting what we voted for? Therefore, the vote was on false pretence and should be re-run.

 

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people wouldn't back a second referendum. We now know far more about the likely outcome of Brexit. A vote now, with extremely strict rules around what the two sides could present (i.e. no blatant fabrications) is in the best interest of the country.

 

Failing that, surely the incumbent government has a duty to deliver the best possible deal. If we agreed to be outside the union, and that MUST be adhered to, it's plain and simple to see that an EEC type deal is the best alternative (aka a slightly shitter version of what we have now). The no-deal or chequers style Brexit is a calamity which every economist worth their salt is stating will cause damage to the economy. 

 

Not getting what we voted for? like every potential governments manifesto at a general election. Should they also be re-run if their manifesto promises are broken?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

11 minutes ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

 

Not getting what we voted for? like every potential governments manifesto at a general election. Should they also be re-run if their manifesto promises are broken?

 

Yip, remember no increases in tuition fees, how did that work out again, so all of the people who agreed with Nick and voted Lib Dems in 2010 were lied too, but I didn't hear anybody crying and moaning for a second chance losers vote, because they were lied to.

 

And speaking of Sir Nick Clegg, I see he's joined up with Blair & Major in an effort to try and get brexit stopped.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/14/clegg-leads-pro-remain-grandees-on-diplomatic-mission-to-stop-brexit

 

Oh the irony.

 

[Captain Sausage]

32 minutes ago, Old Blue Eyes said:

 

Not getting what we voted for? like every potential governments manifesto at a general election. Should they also be re-run if their manifesto promises are broken?

 

So by that logic you’ve no issue with Brexit being overturned and us remaining. Cool. 

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Frustrating, eh?

 

The lies, upon lies, upon lies spouted by the Leave campaign which have been established as utter bullshit - that's what people voted for. Since we won't be getting all that extra NHS cash, does that mean that we're not getting what we voted for? Therefore, the vote was on false pretence and should be re-run.

 

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why people wouldn't back a second referendum. We now know far more about the likely outcome of Brexit. A vote now, with extremely strict rules around what the two sides could present (i.e. no blatant fabrications) is in the best interest of the country.

 

Failing that, surely the incumbent government has a duty to deliver the best possible deal. If we agreed to be outside the union, and that MUST be adhered to, it's plain and simple to see that an EEC type deal is the best alternative (aka a slightly shitter version of what we have now). The no-deal or chequers style Brexit is a calamity which every economist worth their salt is stating will cause damage to the economy. 

To give just two examples when we were promised an immediate recession and emergency budget after a leave vote, was that a lie? And when we were promised Article 50 would be triggered the day after a leave vote was that a lie?

Both sides lied but only one side spent millions of taxpayers money in doing so.

 

[Francis Albert]

An op ed piece in the New York Times today is a vitriolic attack on England and the English by an Irish writer who has lived in England for three years. It makes the familiar claim that the Good Friday  Agreement abolished the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. It seems some lies are avceptable and can be repeated endlessly.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Seymour M Hersh]

12 hours ago, Captain Sausage said:

This saga is almost comedic. 

 

The whole Leave angle of ‘this isn’t what we voted for’ is utter pish. No one knew what we were voting for, all I remember being asked was if I thought we should remain in the EU or leave. Remain or leave. Nothing about a ‘hard’ Brexit or a ‘soft’ Brexit. Leaving and joining the EEC in a Norway-style deal would still fulfil the referendum result. We asked to leave the union and it’s up to the politicians to find the best fudge of this embarrassment that they can. 

 

Ah but we did know. Cameron and Co used tax payer money (£9m) to put together the pamphlet that explained it. They worded it in scary language effectively using it as remain propaganda. However it made it very very clear that voting leave meant leaving the CU and Single Market completely. No ifs or buts. Hard brexit is just an invention by remainers like yourself to put the frighteners on people as is "crashing out" and "cliff edge"! 

[Norm]

10 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Ah but we did know. Cameron and Co used tax payer money (£9m) to put together the pamphlet that explained it. They worded it in scary language effectively using it as remain propaganda. However it made it very very clear that voting leave meant leaving the CU and Single Market completely. No ifs or buts. Hard brexit is just an invention by remainers like yourself to put the frighteners on people as is "crashing out" and "cliff edge"! 

Except BJ also claimed there'd be access to the single market and free trade after Brexit. That's a major advocate of Leave saying the opposite of what it looks like we'll get.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

Except BJ also claimed there'd be access to the single market and free trade after Brexit. That's a major advocate of Leave saying the opposite of what it looks like we'll get.

 

Access yes, free trade yes but clearly the EU have no intention of negotiating anything. 

[Norm]

10 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Access yes, free trade yes but clearly the EU have no intention of negotiating anything. 

But why should they negotiate? We wanted to leave. They have no obligation to negotiate anything. We already had access, we already had free trade and they made it clear we'd lose that if we voted leave. As you just pointed out, the remain side said we'd lose all of that if we voted to leave as well. It was the leave campaign who claimed otherwise. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

35 minutes ago, Normthebarman said:

But why should they negotiate? We wanted to leave. They have no obligation to negotiate anything. We already had access, we already had free trade and they made it clear we'd lose that if we voted leave. As you just pointed out, the remain side said we'd lose all of that if we voted to leave as well. It was the leave campaign who claimed otherwise. 

 

You say we had access but everything is set by EU law. What leave were seeking was access and trade without the EU dictating to us (as they manage to do with other countries all around the world).

 

I suppose they can take that attitude but if they don't feel they need to negotiate why should they make ridiculous demands on the UK? Negotiation (whether they like it or not) is a 2 way street. By behaving this way they want to scare any other countries considering leaving into remaining.It's a failing project that survives by bullying and threats. 

 

The EU is fundamentally protectionist, massively wasteful, anti-democratic, allow the ECJ to meddle in everything and very corrupt.  Many people across Europe are seeing this project for what it is. 

[NANOJAMBO]

16 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You say we had access but everything is set by EU law. What leave were seeking was access and trade without the EU dictating to us (as they manage to do with other countries all around the world).

 

I suppose they can take that attitude but if they don't feel they need to negotiate why should they make ridiculous demands on the UK? Negotiation (whether they like it or not) is a 2 way street. By behaving this way they want to scare any other countries considering leaving into remaining.It's a failing project that survives by bullying and threats. 

 

The EU is fundamentally protectionist, massively wasteful, anti-democratic, allow the ECJ to meddle in everything and very corrupt.  Many people across Europe are seeing this project for what it is. 

The EU doesn't dictate to its member states - they sign up to EU law because you can't have 27 member states claiming primacy over everybody else. Brussels sets the rules and EVERYONE has to abide by them. It's a trade bloc and that is how it has worked since the UK joined 45 years ago. 

 

What ridiculous demands ? The UK decided to walk out. You can't negotiate from a position of strength when you  walk out. It's really simple. 

 

No ,they don't. The UK isn't getting to cherry pick and is losing the plot. The UK has to negotiate terms that will give Toyota/Nissan/Honda (just for starters) what they currently have in terms of frictionless trade. Maybot  is going to have to pay a price for any access to the EU market or 100K jobs will disappear. The EU will not give the UK access to their markets at a price that undercuts their workers. Again, it's really simple. 

 

You need to unbundle that load of nonsense. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

7 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

The EU doesn't dictate to its member states - they sign up to EU law because you can't have 27 member states claiming primacy over everybody else. Brussels sets the rules and EVERYONE has to abide by them. It's a trade bloc and that is how it has worked since the UK joined 45 years ago. 

 

What ridiculous demands ? The UK decided to walk out. You can't negotiate from a position of strength when you  walk out. It's really simple. 

 

No ,they don't. The UK isn't getting to cherry pick and is losing the plot. The UK has to negotiate terms that will give Toyota/Nissan/Honda (just for starters) what they currently have in terms of frictionless trade. Maybot  is going to have to pay a price for any access to the EU market or 100K jobs will disappear. The EU will not give the UK access to their markets at a price that undercuts their workers. Again, it's really simple. 

 

You need to unbundle that load of nonsense. 

 

On protectionism.

Big business lobbies Brussels for more regulations to make it more difficult for small companies to enter the market and compete. The Customs Union, to which all EU member states belong, imposes more than 13,000 tariffs on imported goods. As a result, EU consumers are paying an average of 17 per cent above world prices on food.
The Single Market is a single protectionist zone where regulations are harmonised and all goods and services produced must satisfy these regulations whether or not they are sold in other member states.
Only 6 per cent of UK companies trade with the EU – accounting for around 12 per cent of Gross Domestic Product – yet 100 per cent of UK regulations are determined in Brussels, including for the 94 per cent of UK companies that do not trade with the EU.
The UK, in particular, has seen little economic benefit from the Single Market. UK goods exports to the 11 fellow founding members of the Single Market have grown over the years 1993-2015 at just 1 per cent pa.
Over the same period, UK goods exports to the 111 countries with which it trades under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules have grown at 2.88 per cent pa, nearly three times faster.
This helps to explain why UK trade with the EU has fallen from 60 per cent to 44 per cent since the Single Market was introduced.
Services account for 80% of the UK economy but only 40% of the UK’s service exports go to the EU, amounting to just 5% of GDP. The result is a £28bn services surplus but a £95bn goods deficit with the EU, leaving an overall £67bn trade deficit in 2017.
Even strong supporters of the EU, like the Financial Times’ Wolfgang Münchau, concede that the Single Market is "not visible in the macro statistics…. the data are telling us a different story – that the Single Market is a giant economic non-event, for both the EU and the UK".

 

On wastefulness 

 

Brussels seriously misallocates resources. Take the EU Budget: 40 per cent goes to farmers, mostly to the richest farmers with the largest farms. Yet agriculture accounts for only 1 per cent of GDP across the EU. The Common Agricultural Policy encourages overproduction.
We used to have wine lakes and butter mountains. Now we have the surplus production being dumped in overseas markets. A current example is the dumping of tinned tomatoes in Africa, in particular Ghana, which leads to a significant distortion to the local market and a reduction in the income of Ghanaian tomato farmers.

 

Anti democratic

 

A whole range of European leaders have made abundantly clear the EU's political agenda, such as Jean Monnet:
"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation" 
And Jean-Claude Juncker: "There can be no democratic choice against the European Treaties".

 

The ECJ

 

The ‘purposive’ nature of EU law allows the European Court of Justice to interpret and reinterpret the wording of EU laws in line with the European Commission’s (often changing) intentions.  
This contrasts with the clarity and precision of English laws. A further issue relates to the EU legal convention that everything is prohibited unless it is permitted, which requires constant appeals to the ECJ to grant permission. This contrasts with the English common law tradition where everything is permitted unless it is prohibited.

 

And corruption

 

This is well illustrated by the fact that the EU’s accounts have not been approved for the last 20 years by the EU’s chief auditor in respect of around €100bn of expenditures.  Governed as it is from a centre run by unelected bureaucrats and judges rather than politicians, it is readily apparent that the EU is incapable of reforming itself.
As an institution driven by process rather than outcomes, it is drowning in its own rules and this is stifling innovation.  

 

Hopefully this "unbundles" enough for you.

[Mikey1874]

Dominic Rabb on the telly says they are close to agreeing a deal. 

[coconut doug]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

 

Anti democratic

 

A whole range of European leaders have made abundantly clear the EU's political agenda, such as Jean Monnet:
"Europe's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation" 
And Jean-Claude Juncker: "There can be no democratic choice against the European Treaties".

 

 

 

There is considerable doubt as to whether Jean Monnet said this or not. This link suggests that he did not.  https://waisworld.org/go.jsp?id=02a&o=105072  They suggest that a Conservative politician paraphrased something Monnet said, to suit their agenda.  This quote is sometimes attributed to him but unlike other quotes there is no date given. Monnet died in 1979 at 91. He was never elected to any office. What possible significance could this have nowadays anyway?

Seems you might have done something similar with the Juncker quote which actually was. The president of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker said "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties. One cannot exit the euro without leaving the EU taken from  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31082656

There is absolutely nothing anti-democratic about this statement or the situation. If you have chosen to join an institution, as Greece did with the EU then you are bound by its rules.  If you no longer wish to observe the rules then you can no longer remain a member. That’s why the U.K.is leaving.

 

The underlying principles of the EU are non negotiable. That's what we signed up to. You can't expect the EU to rewrite it's constitution just because our referendum was overly influenced by obvious chancers indulging in illegal activity playing to the prejudices of the badly educated and disenfranchised.

[JamboX2]

On 19/10/2018 at 00:27, Cruyff Turn said:

The majority of N.Ireland would vote for it, including Protestants in a secret ballot. They’re all Irishmen after all. 

 

Why would they have Irish soldiers in Protestant areas?

 

And who cares if there’d be a hard border between Scotland and England. 

 

I would guess that if the Northern Irish Protestants are not happy with reunification and resorted to militancy then you'll end up in a situation that the UK faced up in the 70s and 80s but in Ireland. 

 

On your hard border point you are effectively doing a Farage and saying the ends justify the negative consequences. Much as Hard Brexiteers do not care a jot about an end to the potential collapse of the Good Friday Deal nor to the economic consequences of a hard border between the UK and Europe (and NI and Ireland) you seem to fail to see how equally terrible a customs border at Berwick would be for Scotland and England. 

 

We're in the 21st century not the 19th. Nation states are increasingly going to become old news unless they're the size of China or the US. The integration of economies and frictionless ability to trade is vital to our future prosperity in our corner of the globe. Only by being parts of bigger economic groupings (EU and the UK) can we seek to greatly influence the workings of the economy and tackle climate change. Otherwise we will end up at the table but voiceless and at the whims of the big boys (EU, China, USA and potentially (in time) India).

 

Brexit is a regressive step. Independence (out with the EU and with no good deal with the UK) would be equally regressive. 

[JamboX2]

On 19/10/2018 at 17:56, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Yip, remember no increases in tuition fees, how did that work out again, so all of the people who agreed with Nick and voted Lib Dems in 2010 were lied too, but I didn't hear anybody crying and moaning for a second chance losers vote, because they were lied to.

 

And speaking of Sir Nick Clegg, I see he's joined up with Blair & Major in an effort to try and get brexit stopped.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/14/clegg-leads-pro-remain-grandees-on-diplomatic-mission-to-stop-brexit

 

Oh the irony.

 

 

In 2015 the Lib Dems dropped from near 70 seats to 5. 

 

That was the democratic response for those who felt cheated. That was their second vote. That is democracy in action.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

In 2015 the Lib Dems dropped from near 70 seats to 5. 

 

That was the democratic response for those who felt cheated. That was their second vote. That is democracy in action.

 

Second vote (?) 5 years apart from the previous General Election, and the Lib Dems lost so many seats as a consiquence of jumping into bed with the Tories and forming a coalition with them.

 

The losers this time around want to hold another vote before the result of the first vote are implemented, you lost get over it.

[The Mighty Thor]

11 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

you lost get over it.

Ah the clarion call of the winners.

 

How about you won, get on with it?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

24 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Ah the clarion call of the winners.

 

How about you won, get on with it?

 

The talks are still on-going are they not, so the winners are getting on with it, not quick enough imo, but it is the EU we are trying to deal with, notorious for the last minute deal.

[Cruyff Turn]

4 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

1) I would guess that if the Northern Irish Protestants are not happy with reunification and resorted to militancy then you'll end up in a situation that the UK faced up in the 70s and 80s but in Ireland. 

 

2) On your hard border point you are effectively doing a Farage and saying the ends justify the negative consequences. Much as Hard Brexiteers do not care a jot about an end to the potential collapse of the Good Friday Deal nor to the economic consequences of a hard border between the UK and Europe (and NI and Ireland) you seem to fail to see how equally terrible a customs border at Berwick would be for Scotland and England. 

 

3) We're in the 21st century not the 19th. Nation states are increasingly going to become old news unless they're the size of China or the US. The integration of economies and frictionless ability to trade is vital to our future prosperity in our corner of the globe. Only by being parts of bigger economic groupings (EU and the UK) can we seek to greatly influence the workings of the economy and tackle climate change. Otherwise we will end up at the table but voiceless and at the whims of the big boys (EU, China, USA and potentially (in time) India).

 

4) Brexit is a regressive step. Independence (out with the EU and with no good deal with the UK) would be equally regressive. 

1)  If there was a vote on the re-unification of Ireland then it would take votes from both sides to create a majority. Secondly the demographics are against the loyalist communities so it will eventually happen.

 

It would be a Democratic vote, like the GFA, like the Devolution Settlement and like the EU Referendum in which both sides clearly supported peace, shared Governance and having an open Border & EU membership. The results of each vote were accepted peacefully, which supports the view that neither side wants a to return to violence and would respect the Democratic process of a re-Unification vote. 

 

2) This is from the Googsy Broon playbook of scaremongering.

 

The border in Ireland is different because the border in Ireland is a British Partition  ‘of the island of Ireland’ not a Border between two separate Countries.  

 

Scotland and Englands Border has been there for a very long time.

 

How would a Border for Customs be a bad thing between Scotland and England? I’d imagine it would only be for ‘Customs’ and not for Citizens. A Customs Border would mean that would have an accurate sum of our exports unlike we do at the moment. We also have many ports between the mainland of Europe and Scotland in case you hadn’t noticed.

 

 

What a truly terrible inconvenience.

 

3) Spoken like a true Neo-Liberal Globalist Tory where everything is a commodity to be bought and sold and essentially why we need to gain our Independence from the UK. 

 

4) Brexit is a regressive step because so many of our rights, standards, financial regulations, trade and business is with the EU therefore Scotland would be affected much more by leaving the EU than leaving the U.K. 

 

The only negotiation with the rUK after Independence is whether they will write off our share of debt against our share of UK assets, when they will be moving their WMD’s and trade. As I’ve stated above, all our regulations, rights and standards are already in line with the EU for a trade agreement.

 

To think that we would not trade with the rUK after Independence is another scare story. Does England have enough farms and fishermen to feed their population of 60million plus with fresh produce? I think not. They’ll have to export from Scotland because they won’t have a trade deal with anyone else within a couple of thousand miles. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Cruyff Turn

[JamboX2]

2 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Second vote (?) 5 years apart from the previous General Election, and the Lib Dems lost so many seats as a consiquence of jumping into bed with the Tories and forming a coalition with them.

 

The losers this time around want to hold another vote before the result of the first vote are implemented, you lost get over it.

 

This is the absurdity of the argument. Democratic outcomes are undone over regular periods for governing. The Lib dems never did what they promised on students fees because of that coalition they lost seats over.

 

The clincher for me is that in the two years since we have seen a huge change in circumstances;

 

- the funding scandals behind the Leave campaign

- the fact they've gone from arguing it'd be mad to leave the single market to arguing we should 

- the chief Leavers in Johnson, Davis and Fox had the 3 key posts on Brexit and abjectly failed in two years to produce a plan,

- no solution on the Irish border and the Good Friday Agreement,

- have produced no support for any option, and

- have abjectly failed to implement a sensible policy.

 

Democracy is the best way of governing. And the vote has been respected - we been trying to implement Brexit. But we are failing to do it seriously or with any coherent, workable plan. 

 

Why - in those circumstances - can the deal achieved (if one is) not be put to the people? Or if none the idea of no-deal? 

 

Mogg and Davis thought a confirming vote was ok right up till they won. That's all that's suggested. 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The talks are still on-going are they not, so the winners are getting on with it, not quick enough imo, but it is the EU we are trying to deal with, notorious for the last minute deal.

 

Partly because the government has repeatedly failed to agree with itself what it wants. It's a mess because of British failings. No one elses.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

1)  If there was a vote on the re-unification of Ireland then it would take votes from both sides to create a majority. Secondly the demographics are against the loyalist communities so it will eventually happen.

 

So not necessarily a vote of the majority of both communities then. The NI Act 98 on border polls does not prescribe a majority of both. Just a majority. So if demographics do go that way then it could be without loyalist backing. Which is my point. 

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

 

It would be a Democratic vote, like the GFA, like the Devolution Settlement and like the EU Referendum in which both sides clearly supported peace, shared Governance and having an open Border & EU membership. The results of each vote were accepted peacefully, which supports the view that neither side wants a to return to violence and would respect the Democratic process of a re-Unification vote. 

 

Think you're being optimistic. At no stage in any of those processes was one communities identity fundamentally in question. GFA opened up a border and provided dual citizenship. In effect nationalists in the UK could be Irish citizens whilst Ulster remained British. Reunification would fundamentally alter that dynamic in a post-Brexit situation.

 

This is why Brexit is fundamentally flawed for both communities in NI.

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

 

2) This is from the Googsy Broon playbook of scaremongering.

 

The border in Ireland is different because the border in Ireland is a British Partition  ‘of the island of Ireland’ not a Border between two separate Countries.  

 

A border consented to in Treaty by Ireland in 1922. I'd also add the Northern community did not wish to consent to rule from Dublin and were consistent in this for sometime for fear of Catholic rule from the south in a Home Rule and subsequently independence stand point. In fact it was Carson in 1914 who raised the volunteers and threatened to march on Dublin if the passed Home Rule Bill was enacted. Which it never was. Whilst partition is a fudge it's arguably the only one which was open to both sides at that time. Much like the GFA is a fudge now. But a workable one at that.

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

 

Scotland and Englands Border has been there for a very long time.

 

But as nothing more than a cultural and administrative one since 1707. 

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

How would a Border for Customs be a bad thing between Scotland and England? I’d imagine it would only be for ‘Customs’ and not for Citizens. A Customs Border would mean that would have an accurate sum of our exports unlike we do at the moment. We also have many ports between the mainland of Europe and Scotland in case you hadn’t noticed.

 

 

What a truly terrible inconvenience.

 

1. A customs border would inflate the cost of goods as you'd have to account for increased travel time, increased costs of paying tariffs and increased costs of paying for a border and customs force to administer it. This is one of the reasons why the cost of living in Switzerland exceeds that of its neighbouring EU neighbours. In general not great for trade. Certainly nowhere near is good as the openness amd integration we have now from UK and EU membership.

 

2. A passport border has associated costs but is frankly utterly archaic. 

 

3. We do have many ports between Scotland, Europe and the world. But between EU borders and England no need for passports or customs. And the rest from beyond both are taxed, subject to inspection and passport control. Making it more costly for those costs overall.

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

3) Spoken like a true Neo-Liberal Globalist Tory where everything is a commodity to be bought and sold and essentially why we need to gain our Independence from the UK. 

 

Not at all. I don't agree with globalist greed or with huge corporations with gdps equivalent or more than some nations trampling over national legislation  and doing as they please by lobbying. Facebook refuse to attend a UK Parl committee. They will go to Brussells though. There is strength in numbers with other nations cooperating in political unions and using their collective strength to bargain to greater effect than they can alone. 

 

You don't need to be a neoliberal, Milton Friedman lover to realise the future is about cooperation and tearing down barriers to work closer together than before. In my view it's all about solidarity. That's best achieved when we work as closely as possible together through shared institutions than without them.

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

 

4) Brexit is a regressive step because so many of our rights, standards, financial regulations, trade and business is with the EU therefore Scotland would be affected much more by leaving the EU than leaving the U.K. 

 

Most of our statute law in Scotland on employment, commerce, foreign affairs, human rights and environmental standards is UK Parliament law. Most of our social security law is also. So you'd also need to give effect to all this to avoid huge holes in the law and society emerging. 

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

 

The only negotiation with the rUK after Independence is whether they will write off our share of debt against our share of UK assets, when they will be moving their WMD’s and trade. As I’ve stated above, all our regulations, rights and standards are already in line with the EU for a trade agreement.

 

Not at all that simple. You'd need to agree for a host of UK bodies to continue their jobs in Scotland in economic and social regulation until a Scottish body was established to take over. Treaty would be needed to govern how these external bodies would operate in Scotland and how much we'd pay for those to do that work. So a lot more than you suggest.

 

1 hour ago, Cruyff Turn said:

 

To think that we would not trade with the rUK after Independence is another scare story. Does England have enough farms and fishermen to feed their population of 60million plus with fresh produce? I think not. They’ll have to export from Scotland because they won’t have a trade deal with anyone else within a couple of thousand miles. 

 

We would trade. Of course we would. Not my point. The cost would rise in the process which results in reduced profits for businesses (less to invest and to employ) and a corresponding increase in price for the consumer. 

 

If Scotland leaves the UK and joins the EU (Or EEA/EFTA) it will be bound by whatever deal the UK has with the EU. On that basis Scotland will only be able to do trade with its nearest neighbour on a potentially bad deal. Given the biggest consumer of Scottish goods is the rUK then the consequences could be big. Like they are for the UK. Supply chain businesses would be hit by any big hit to major employers.

 

Yes this is correctable with time. As it is with Brexit. But at what cost is this genuinely all worth it? Be it Indy or Brexit.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

This is the absurdity of the argument. Democratic outcomes are undone over regular periods for governing. The Lib dems never did what they promised on students fees because of that coalition they lost seats over.

 

The clincher for me is that in the two years since we have seen a huge change in circumstances;

 

- the funding scandals behind the Leave campaign

- the fact they've gone from arguing it'd be mad to leave the single market to arguing we should 

- the chief Leavers in Johnson, Davis and Fox had the 3 key posts on Brexit and abjectly failed in two years to produce a plan,

- no solution on the Irish border and the Good Friday Agreement,

- have produced no support for any option, and

- have abjectly failed to implement a sensible policy.

 

Democracy is the best way of governing. And the vote has been respected - we been trying to implement Brexit. But we are failing to do it seriously or with any coherent, workable plan. 

 

Why - in those circumstances - can the deal achieved (if one is) not be put to the people? Or if none the idea of no-deal? 

 

Mogg and Davis thought a confirming vote was ok right up till they won. That's all that's suggested. 

 

It may have started life as such, a vote to accept or reject the final deal (or no deal) but it's morphed into including an option to stay in the EU now, little wonder May is refusing as there has already been a vote to stay in the EU and remain lost it.

 

Besides isn't parliament getting a vote on the final deal, didn't some folks go to court to force the government to give parliament the final say, if that's the case why should there be a so called 'people's vote', isn't parliament the elected representatives of 'the people', the folks who went to court thought so.

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

It may have started life as such, a vote to accept or reject the final deal (or no deal) but it's morphed into including an option to stay in the EU now, little wonder May is refusing as there has already been a vote to stay in the EU and remain lost it.

 

An accept or reject vote is by it's nature stay or leave. It was never suggested by Mogg etc in 2015 as a deal or no deal. These charlatans have walked us to the cliff edge and now we stand ready to drop with little alternative. 

 

Why must we continue down a path to a dead end when we can all see the dead end? Any deal we get now will be bad. Should we get or not get a chance to approve or reject it? If you believe Brexit is good should for democracy's sake we ratify it by a vote of the people as it's them who will be affected most? 

 

Quote

 

Besides isn't parliament getting a vote on the final deal, didn't some folks go to court to force the government to give parliament the final say, if that's the case why should there be a so called 'people's vote', isn't parliament the elected representatives of 'the people', the folks who went to court thought so.

 

They did. But Raab and May have now said no amendments will be allowed to be tabled to the vote. Rendering it a meaningless vote of parliament as MPs - our representatives - will be handtied to backing or rejecting the deal. 

 

No deal will catastrophic for many people in the UK and the economy. 

 

I don't think people voted for this shambles and for that outcome.

 

£350m per year extra for the nhs is still mia for the Chancellor...

Edited October 22, 2018 by JamboX2

[AlimOzturk]

Unamed MPs in her party saying some utterly horrific, threatening things about May

 

"Moment is coming when the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted. She'll be dead soon."

 

 

 

These are the folk that run this country ffs

 

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by AlimOzturk

[Captain Sausage]

8 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Unamed MPs in her party saying some utterly horrific, threatening things about May

 

"Moment is coming when the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted. She'll be dead soon."

 

 

 

These are the folk that run this country ffs

 

 

 

Utterly disgusting and the person should be named and shamed. 

[Victorian]

Still trying to fool people,   including parliament,   that progress is being made with asinine soundbites of 95% of Brexit being agreed.

 

Yeah... saying 95% often enough will make everyone forget about Ireland.

 

Utter lunatic.

[NANOJAMBO]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

Still trying to fool people,   including parliament,   that progress is being made with asinine soundbites of 95% of Brexit being agreed.

 

Yeah... saying 95% often enough will make everyone forget about Ireland.

 

Utter lunatic.

This. It's not going to go away no matter how long an extension period Maybot can or cannot get.  As Barnier has consistently said, nothing is agreed until all is agreed.  So now the leave loons in the Tory party are going to effectively stage a coup d'etat by removing May and getting their own man & policies to the discussion table. And leavers say the EU is undemocratic. 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

This. It's not going to go away no matter how long an extension period Maybot can or cannot get.  As Barnier has consistently said, nothing is agreed until all is agreed.  So now the leave loons in the Tory party are going to effectively stage a coup d'etat by removing May and getting their own man & policies to the discussion table. And leavers say the EU is undemocratic. 

 

The hardliners' current tactics are to insist that the full extent of the government's negotiating obligations to the country is to simply leave on WTO terms and that attempting to negotiate a bespoke arrangement with the EU is only to be viewed as a bonus.    Something that was never suggested,  pledged,  promised or guaranteed.     Conveniently excusing the government of any responsibility or liability to achieve the best case scenario,    now that the goal of a hard Brexit outcome is within their grasp.      They're just trying to push it over the line.

 

The people pretending to uphold the notion of democratic integrity are rewriting the history of the democratic contract between parliament and the country.      

[NANOJAMBO]

Just now, Victorian said:

 

The hardliners' current tactics are to insist that the full extent of the government's negotiating obligations to the country is to simply leave on WTO terms and that attempting to negotiate a bespoke arrangement with the EU is only to be viewed as a bonus.    Something that was never suggested,  pledged,  promised or guaranteed.     Conveniently excusing the government of any responsibility or liability to achieve the best case scenario,    now that the goal of a hard Brexit outcome is within their grasp.      They're just trying to push it over the line.

 

The people pretending to uphold the notion of democratic integrity are rewriting the history of the democratic contract between parliament and the country.      

Absolutely , the very thing Redwood just tried to say (in fact did say) on C4 news tonight , ie this is  what "the people" (yeah, that mantra again) had voted for in the referendum and he wasn't corrected. You can see what is coming down the track, it's all that "will of the people " stuff and more lies to convince "the people" that what they are getting is not what they voted for. 

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Absolutely , the very thing Redwood just tried to say (in fact did say) on C4 news tonight , ie this is  what "the people" (yeah, that mantra again) had voted for in the referendum and he wasn't corrected. You can see what is coming down the track, it's all that "will of the people " stuff and more lies to convince "the people" that what they are getting is not what they voted for. 

 

Also bearing in mind that the ability of the goverment to achieve any kind of beneficial bespoke arrangement has been sabotaged at every juncture,    mainly by the hardliners.    

 

Now they're saying 'don't bother hoping for a deal... it was never part of the game'.    

[The Mighty Thor]

It's going to be a no deal. It's the will of the Tory party so we should just crack on with it. 

Convert the M20 into a lorry park, get the border gates up in Ireland and let the chips fall where they fall. 

[Francis Albert]

The hardliners are a small minority in parliament. If they win it will because the majority allow them to. And because remainers in parliament refuse to accept the vote they by a huge majority agreed to hold. A peoples vote.

[Seymour M Hersh]

9 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

It's going to be a no deal. It's the will of the Tory party so we should just crack on with it. 

Convert the M20 into a lorry park, get the border gates up in Ireland and let the chips fall where they fall. 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

14 hours ago, Victorian said:

Still trying to fool people,   including parliament,   that progress is being made with asinine soundbites of 95% of Brexit being agreed.

 

Yeah... saying 95% often enough will make everyone forget about Ireland.

 

Utter lunatic.

Ireland should unite as one country. That will sort the mess out. 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Ireland should unite as one country. That will sort the mess out. 

 

?

[Cade]

That pesky little 5% just so happens to be the unsolvable Irish border question.

 

 

[pablo]

21 minutes ago, Cade said:

That pesky little 5% just so happens to be the unsolvable Irish border question.

 

 

 

Yeah, it's not going to be solved, is it? I no longer think a deal will be done unfortunately 

[Cade]

James Dyson, billionaire and ardent Brexiteer, is building his new electric car manufacturing facility in........Singapore.

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

32 minutes ago, Cade said:

James Dyson, billionaire and ardent Brexiteer, is building his new electric car manufacturing facility in........Singapore.

 

 

 

Will that be in the same plant that's been making the Dyson Vacuums since 2002?

 

Dyson's have been made in Singapore & Malaysia for over 15 years now.

[NANOJAMBO]

7 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Ireland should unite as one country. That will sort the mess out. 

 

Maybot insisting she will not do anything that risks the break up of the UK (ironically, to placate the DUP) but this might be the thing that finally unites Ireland. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Ireland should unite as one country. That will sort the mess out. 

 

Agreed

[JudyJudyJudy]

and lets not fudge the " border " issue. Its not an Irish border its a " British" border in NI...sooner the country is united the better. 

[pablo]

5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Maybot insisting she will not do anything that risks the break up of the UK (ironically, to placate the DUP) but this might be the thing that finally unites Ireland. 

 

I can see how it's a complete mess, but how does a no-deal Brexit result in the reunification of Ireland? I don't get that personally.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

10 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Maybot insisting she will not do anything that risks the break up of the UK (ironically, to placate the DUP) but this might be the thing that finally unites Ireland. 

Be funny if it happened and the tories lost the DUP support. 

 

Put it to an all Ireland vote, I say. 

[The Mighty Thor]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Maybot insisting she will not do anything that risks the break up of the UK

 

 

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

and lets not fudge the " border " issue. Its not an Irish border its a " British" border in NI...sooner the country is united the better. 

By definition a border cannot be in one country or part of one country. It is a border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland in the island of Ireland. Thus by any definition it is an Irish border.

It is also interesting that those that say the obvious answer is a union in Ireland include many who want the union of that other island, Britain to be abolished.

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Be funny if it happened and the tories lost the DUP support. 

 

Put it to an all Ireland vote, I say. 

That would actually be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.

Unlike as so often claimed without challenge  border contols between the Republic and NI.

[Ulysses]

8 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

and lets not fudge the " border " issue. Its not an Irish border its a " British" border in NI...sooner the country is united the better. 

 

Reunifying Ireland might seem like a clever and simple idea, but it is neither.

 

Mind you, sundering the island is a pretty stupid idea as well.

 

There isn't a border.  Seriously.  It's like something out of an episode of Doctor Who.  There's one country here, and another one just over there, and they're quite different, and there's definitely a point at which one place disappears and the other one pops into being, but there's no border.  Just 499 kilometres of not very much that manages to successfully mark the very clear difference between one country and another.  If you'd described that to me in the mid-1990s I'd said you were between deluded and insane, yet there it is, and isn't.  Kinda like Schrödinger's border, in a way. 

 

Some people want to replace Schrödinger's border with something altogether more, er, tangible, and don't seem to realise how daft an idea that it.  One or two of those might actually be malicious, but for the most part I suspect it's that they just don't see why there might be a fuss.  But if they take a wee visit to Pettigo, Strabane, Lifford, or Belleek, or any one of dozens of points either side of Schrödinger's border, they'll be able to work it out.

 

 

(But I am asking you not to run that line about uniting Ireland again.  It's not good.  Please trust me on that.)