Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Skier said:
To do that requires everyone to accept that we are leaving the EU, that includes the negotiating team, politicians and in particular the those representing the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

Labour's handing of this has been atrocious, but in the grand scheme of who has been responsible for the cluster we are currently in then Labour is not really at the top of the list and should not really deserve a 'in particular', you could have ended your sentence after the word politicians and it would have been fine . Concentrate on the mess made by the side who are in government and who have been calling all the shots. And if you are a supporter of said Tory party, have a long hard look at them instead of singling out the opposition. As some may argue blaming others for our own misfortune is kind of what led us to this position. Also you could make the argument that labour should represent the view of their members, whatever it is this week.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
It's quite simple really.

I believe leaving the EU is an act of madness and deliberate national self-harm - an act that will damage the futures of my children and that will impact negatively most the poorest and most vulnerable of society.

I read here of the benefits leaving the EU will bring to the UK - but I still do not read and see that many benefits coming directly to the ordinary man and woman in the street - certainly not sufficient to counter the real and tangible negative impacts that will be felt - almost from the word go as tariffs get applied to imports and costs increase - never mind the risk to jobs that IDS does not seem to think exists.

The decision to leave was IMO based upon a false prospectus set out by Leave campaigns that fed off discontent with the EU fostered by decades of lies and exaggerations from the anti-EU press and those who detest every fibre of EU being. That the EU - even with the UK in a key influencing position - could have done some things differently to try and counter the ant-EU propaganda is certainly true - but I doubt it would have made that much difference. When a lie is told enough times it becomes the truth for some - a truth that is very difficult to counter (see the Bannon/Trump Lies Playbook) - and the EU-phobes would have continued their campaign whatever

Where the UK is today is pretty grim in it's divisions and anger - and I feat that that anger* has a long way to go no matter what outcome of the coming months as people hurt ever more and little benefit is felt or even perceived. And for what? The self-satisfaction of a relatively well-off minority of anti-EU and largely English UK nationalist ideologues seems just about all I can come up with. Not great and very sad and worrying (* and see the disgusting and vile abuse of Anna Soubry today - and those voicing that abuse will not have been on the Remain side of the argument but is symptomatic of what been unleashed)

I note that if in 10yrs tim e - or maybe even 5yrs time - Brexit is shown and found to have been a great success then great - because my children will be benefitting as will the poorest - and I will have been completely wrong. But I will be relieved to be so wrong.
Click to expand...

The thing is SILH, I voted out but I was 50/50 when I walked into the polling booth and I have to say that reading the hundreds of posts you have made on the issue, if anything, they have hardened my resolve to want to leave.From not accepting a democratic decision to the insults we leavers have been subjected to by you, I would definitely vote to leave a second time because you, and many like you have insulted our intelligence over and over. The lies, and counter lies, went both ways when we voted to leave it was a binary choice and had the remainers not decided to insult us with "project fear" then we might well have decided differently but then I blame Cameron for failing in his negotiations, the Eu for treating us like mugs and Parliament for abrogating their responsibilities and voting for a referendum.

The problem for me with the whole issue is that people nowadays can't accept a vote that doesn't go their way and I've rarely seen anyone interviewed who's wanted a second vote give a reason that doesn't come down to "so that we can reverse the decision as I didn't agree with it"

Clearly, to me anyway, the way that the government have handled it has been a mess, either deliberately so as to try and not really leave, or that they just dont have any ability to negotiate, and also because it should have been done from day one by a leaver so that their heart was really in it. I believe that we are seeing the end of the EU as we know it, there are other countries who's population would vote to leave and with the ever more federalism that the unelected powerbase intend to follow I certainly think other countries will eventually follow our lead. I'm for a " Common Market" , indeed I voted for it back in the day, and I understand the need for a limited amount of federalism to ensure fair play but these people have, and are, going too far and I firmly believe we will prosper in the long run.

Maybe I'm being rather simplistic in my views but think that the EU could have, and probably still could, stop us leaving by offering to resolve many of the issues Cameron tried to get them to do and then suggest a 2nd vote rather than pander to remainers wanting a 2nd vote just because they didn't like the 1st one
 
chrisd said:
The thing is SILH, I voted out but I was 50/50 when I walked into the polling booth and I have to say that reading the hundreds of posts you have made on the issue, if anything, they have hardened my resolve to want to leave.From not accepting a democratic decision to the insults we leavers have been subjected to by you, I would definitely vote to leave a second time because you, and many like you have insulted our intelligence over and over. The lies, and counter lies, went both ways when we voted to leave it was a binary choice and had the remainers not decided to insult us with "project fear" then we might well have decided differently but then I blame Cameron for failing in his negotiations, the Eu for treating us like mugs and Parliament for abrogating their responsibilities and voting for a referendum.

The problem for me with the whole issue is that people nowadays can't accept a vote that doesn't go their way and I've rarely seen anyone interviewed who's wanted a second vote give a reason that doesn't come down to "so that we can reverse the decision as I didn't agree with it"

Clearly, to me anyway, the way that the government have handled it has been a mess, either deliberately so as to try and not really leave, or that they just dont have any ability to negotiate, and also because it should have been done from day one by a leaver so that their heart was really in it. I believe that we are seeing the end of the EU as we know it, there are other countries who's population would vote to leave and with the ever more federalism that the unelected powerbase intend to follow I certainly think other countries will eventually follow our lead. I'm for a " Common Market" , indeed I voted for it back in the day, and I understand the need for a limited amount of federalism to ensure fair play but these people have, and are, going too far and I firmly believe we will prosper in the long run.

Maybe I'm being rather simplistic in my views but think that the EU could have, and probably still could, stop us leaving by offering to resolve many of the issues Cameron tried to get them to do and then suggest a 2nd vote rather than pander to remainers wanting a 2nd vote just because they didn't like the 1st one
Click to expand...

this post deserves a standing ovation!
 
I'd add that no-one has every had a successful negotiated settlement with the EU. Their stance would have been the same with Labour or any other UK team. It is simply about denial of change.
 
chrisd said:
The thing is SILH, I voted out but I was 50/50 when I walked into the polling booth and I have to say that reading the hundreds of posts you have made on the issue, if anything, they have hardened my resolve to want to leave.From not accepting a democratic decision to the insults we leavers have been subjected to by you, I would definitely vote to leave a second time because you, and many like you have insulted our intelligence over and over. The lies, and counter lies, went both ways when we voted to leave it was a binary choice and had the remainers not decided to insult us with "project fear" then we might well have decided differently but then I blame Cameron for failing in his negotiations, the Eu for treating us like mugs and Parliament for abrogating their responsibilities and voting for a referendum.

The problem for me with the whole issue is that people nowadays can't accept a vote that doesn't go their way and I've rarely seen anyone interviewed who's wanted a second vote give a reason that doesn't come down to "so that we can reverse the decision as I didn't agree with it"

Clearly, to me anyway, the way that the government have handled it has been a mess, either deliberately so as to try and not really leave, or that they just dont have any ability to negotiate, and also because it should have been done from day one by a leaver so that their heart was really in it. I believe that we are seeing the end of the EU as we know it, there are other countries who's population would vote to leave and with the ever more federalism that the unelected powerbase intend to follow I certainly think other countries will eventually follow our lead. I'm for a " Common Market" , indeed I voted for it back in the day, and I understand the need for a limited amount of federalism to ensure fair play but these people have, and are, going too far and I firmly believe we will prosper in the long run.

Maybe I'm being rather simplistic in my views but think that the EU could have, and probably still could, stop us leaving by offering to resolve many of the issues Cameron tried to get them to do and then suggest a 2nd vote rather than pander to remainers wanting a 2nd vote just because they didn't like the 1st one
Click to expand...

Well said Chris, very well said.

I too stood in the polling booth facing a dilemma, and voted Remain. 3 reasons; 1) change doesn't suit big business, and the level of integration would cause problems, 2) we were about to buy in Spain, with a long term plan to live there, 3) my wife is an ardent Remainer, and I didn't want any conflict in the home.

I believe the UK could make a huge success of Leave, after the bumps in the road, for a few reasons; 1) the UK has a great economy compared to the vast majority of the EU but is being driven to the bottom by a 'forced' equalisation of economies, 2) there are bigger opportunities out there, 3) the EU is on a slide towards greater federalism, which I vehemently disagree with.

As a common trading block, with trading rules, yes yes yes and yes again. With common rules on employment, to ensure fair competition in the labour market, again a big yes. Political merging, no no no and no again. And then add a bloody big no to that.
 
IanM said:
Still waiting for a Remainer educate me on why Federalism is good.........
Click to expand...

Not a Remainer but I'll have a stab...

Federalism is good for Brussels as it give unfettered opportunities for widening their tentacles and with it the budget clawed to the centre from the members!!

The USA sort of works because the States' share similar societal norms, culture, language, economic basis and currency - all the reasons that caused the fracture of the USSR and threaten the EU.
 
drdel said:
Not a Remainer but I'll have a stab...

Federalism is good for Brussels as it give unfettered opportunities for widening their tentacles and with it the budget clawed to the centre from the members!!

The USA sort of works because the States' share similar societal norms, culture, language, economic basis and currency - all the reasons that caused the fracture of the USSR and threaten the EU.
Click to expand...

:) ... and for Joe Public?
 
IanM said:
Still waiting for a Remainer educate me on why Federalism is good.........
Click to expand...

If you could define what you mean/think is federalism then that would help. I am not sure many remainers want to be completely ruled by Brussels if that is your definition. If you take the encyclopedia Britannica definition of

Federalism, mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity. Federal systems do this by requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions. The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centres; they stress the virtues of dispersed power centres as a means for safeguarding individual and local liberties.

Then personally I can see some attraction in a system where people negotiate and reach a solution through some giving and taking. As opposed to systems where the ideological political ideas are becoming more and more diverse leading to an increasing fractious relationship between opposing sides and the growth of demagogue leaders who take advantage of this increasing anger and resentment. But you know, whatevs.
 
Federalism??? Well HK, you might have guessed that I mean the "abridged" version at the top of your post.
Why does a "trading co-op" needs a parliament, a currency, a central bank and a legal system and judicary... (etc)

Reason: it aint a trading co-op. Never has been. Google Peter Shore, Labour MP - 1975 speech - still valid
 
Mmmm..a one sided article that doesnt answer the question....

But, using your response, here's a question. If you object to the UK in princple, (as Federal) why do you think that sending power even further away (from Scotland) is acceptable?

But, accepting your offer for the sake of respectful debate, (you might try it) having lived with the status quo for several hundred years it's all we know! And after this time, we share a common language (of sorts) and a highly integrated economic system.

And, as one of the most vociferous supporters of Remain on here, you STILL havent said why you think Federalism is OK.
 
Hacker Khan said:
If you could define what you mean/think is federalism then that would help. I am not sure many remainers want to be completely ruled by Brussels if that is your definition. If you take the encyclopedia Britannica definition of

Federalism, mode of political organization that unites separate states or other polities within an overarching political system in such a way as to allow each to maintain its own fundamental political integrity. Federal systems do this by requiring that basic policies be made and implemented through negotiation in some form, so that all the members can share in making and executing decisions. The political principles that animate federal systems emphasize the primacy of bargaining and negotiated coordination among several power centres; they stress the virtues of dispersed power centres as a means for safeguarding individual and local liberties.

Then personally I can see some attraction in a system where people negotiate and reach a solution through some giving and taking. As opposed to systems where the ideological political ideas are becoming more and more diverse leading to an increasing fractious relationship between opposing sides and the growth of demagogue leaders who take advantage of this increasing anger and resentment. But you know, whatevs.
Click to expand...

In principle, I agree with most of that. Picking bits out of it would only be splitting hairs.

However, the EU defence and security policy; the EU army that already exists and operates under a central control. In the first instance, if a defence force is to be sent to, say, the Congo, the EU member states discuss it and if in agreement they send the force. If, whilst the force is there, the circumstances change and the scope of operations need to change the Commission doesn't need to ask the member states permission to change that scope.

Sorry but not in my name, or in the name of my country, do I agree to a unilateral decision made in Brussels to extend military operations. To be honest, I don't agree with having an EU defence force operating outside the EU's borders full stop!

And what I certainly don't agree with is a far greater force solely controlled by Brussels, as proposed by Juncker and fully supported by Macron and, more recently, Merkel.
 
IanM said:
Federalism??? Well HK, you might have guessed that I mean the "abridged" version at the top of your post.
Why does a "trading co-op" needs a parliament, a currency, a central bank and a legal system and judicary... (etc)

Reason: it aint a trading co-op. Never has been. Google Peter Shore, Labour MP - 1975 speech - still valid
Click to expand...

Well that is you interpretation of the definition. Which you are completely entitled to have and I agree with the idea that I do not want to see the EU having control over everything we do. However where we may differ is that it is my perception through what I see in my work, play and what I consume from the media that that is not currently happening. But if/when I feel it is then I am more than happy to leave the EU. Where as you may already think we are there.
 
Last edited:
Hobbit said:
In principle, I agree with most of that. Picking bits out of it would only be splitting hairs.

However, the EU defence and security policy; the EU army that already exists and operates under a central control. In the first instance, if a defence force is to be sent to, say, the Congo, the EU member states discuss it and if in agreement they send the force. If, whilst the force is there, the circumstances change and the scope of operations need to change the Commission doesn't need to ask the member states permission to change that scope.

Sorry but not in my name, or in the name of my country, do I agree to a unilateral decision made in Brussels to extend military operations. To be honest, I don't agree with having an EU defence force operating outside the EU's borders full stop!

And what I certainly don't agree with is a far greater force solely controlled by Brussels, as proposed by Juncker and fully supported by Macron and, more recently, Merkel.
Click to expand...

To be brutally honest, whilst I will always respect those that have served/are serving, as a concept I do not care that much about who has the final say with regards to defence forces and I can't get excited or angry about an EU defence force, certainly not the the extent that it would influence any vote on the matter. But fully appreciate others may feel more strongly about it having had a lot more experience of them than me.
 
Business minister Claire Perry warns that no-deal Brexit would be “catastrophic” and “a way of crashing the economy”. Greg Clarke - Business Secretary - today in HoC - "No-Deal should not be contemplated".

Seems like the government ministers closest to business, and what no-deal would likely hold, are not great fans of no-deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
9K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top