[Politics] Brexit

[WATFORD zero]

Oh yes we can sleep easy in our beds now, there is a piece of paper from CMD.........non federalisation of the EU in our time.

Nice one.........excuse my cynicism.

Well I guess you can sleep easy espousing your principled socialist views, while knowing that a huge corporate in the financial markets that you despise so much are paying your mortgage

Excuse my cynicism

 

[Pavilionaire]

I see, so you are saying it won’t ever happen?

No, I'm stating the facts that we have an opt-out if the EU decides to go more federal. What is your problem?

We're fed bullshit that we're powerless to withstand the EU superstate when in fact Europe recognises the key thing is trade and other factors are optional.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Let’s do it, stuff them, let’s jump, no deal Brexit. What’s the worst that can happen. I think everyone needs to lighten up and just do it. It might be ok, it might not be, but whatever. We can have less regulation, lower taxation, compete on price and standards. Keep the EU on their toes as a great trading nation on their doorstep undercuts them. The EU, the bureaucrats, the can all do one, slimey gits

I'm sure they'll be REALLY disappointed to lose us as they hoover up a large part of our economy after it relocates, as it most surely will.

 

[Baldseagull]

It's a one way street. Yes, in the short term there are obstacles. But do you think they rule things out in the long term.

It's one way, it only grows. It never shrinks. It's pretty obvious what the outcome will be. Perhaps not tomorrow, and not the next day. But eventually.

Yeah, one day, and one day the Sun will go supernova. An EU army won't happen until the Government and people of the UK and every other member state want it to.
To claim remaining means we will have to have an EU army is utter bollocks, however much Farage says it, Juncker wants it or Verhofstadt recommends it.

 

[nicko31]

Can someone tell the ERG to stop pedaling more lies about Article 24 of the WTO and so called managed "NO DEAL". I see Lewes MP Maria Caulfield has been all over this today.



Its more BS, fighting fake news is exhausting

 

[pastafarian]

You are quite wrong, some people see the principle of not committing to something on a vague notion, and having a look at what the costs and benefits might be before committing in all situations. Some others maintain the principle only when it suits their agenda though.


Personally, I would prefer parliament to just rescind A50, and say we had a look, it looked shit so we are staying put, but, I accept that as a referendum narrowly gave support to the idea of leaving, there may be a number of people that feel they have been ignored, despite Parliament doing little else but discuss aspects of how to leave for 2.5 years. So, to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the next step is not questioned, we should hold a referendum on what we know now, the Withdrawal agreement and the final deal outline, which parliament may yet force the government to alter, to an outline that has single market and/or customs union inclusion. Once Parliament has an agreed direction of travel, we should be asked if we want that, or would prefer to remain, as many leavers have expressed the view that remaining would be preferable than some versions of leave.
You never know, some people might find that a second referendum is their best chance of getting the type of Brexit they want, and they may suddenly find that the principle of deciding on the fact rather than the notion, returns to them.

From your rather long winded deflection on the subject I will take it that you finally agree Mogg was not talking about a second referendum that could occur after a first binary referendum giving a decision to leave or remain in a renegotiated EU had already happened and was not saying this second referendum, under the circumstances, could occur after negotiations to leave were completed.

 

[Baldseagull]

Really, this is too easy.......

https://mobile.twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/960103430579777537?lang=en

Now, on the prospect of a USE who do I listen too you or a senior European politician?

So, this referendum........are you with Guy V or Nigel F?*

*just a tease I mean Jezza C.

I want a federal EU, but that does not mean I am going to get one, much like your Socialist Republic UK dream, you and I hold minority views and we are not going to get what we want. Just because a Politician says he supports something, it does not make it an inevitable outcome. In fact if you took our Prime Minister as an example, you would be better off betting that what ever she says will happen, won't.

 

[pastafarian]

& will no doubt be replaced by someone who has a vision completely different to his, right? No.

Presidents are nominated by the Council, if they nominated Juncker then he must have fit the bill. The new guy will fit the bill too.

The vision isn't Junckers anyway, it's an institutional vision. If Juncker felt any differently he wouldn't have been nominated and then "elected" President in the first place.

The fav to be his successor Herr Weber sounds more of the same. Weber is the man that says The EU is based on ever closer union and integration and this is non negotiable. He has already promised if he was in the role he would clamp down hard on members states,such as Poland and Hungary that dared to push their own national interests above EU values by drafting new rule-of-law legislation that would be binding.
Sounds like a right hoot.

 

[pastafarian]

British public opinion was in favour of appeasement in the 30s. If there had been a referendum on the matter in, say, 1937 ‘Appeasement’ would presumably have won. And two and a half years later I suppose some people would have been standing on soapboxes proclaiming that Appeasement means Appeasement, that we should turn our back on European involvement. Will of the people and all that.

I don’t know why there would even have been a referendum on that but if there had been and appeasement had won then that democratic vote should be respected and an appeasement treaty should have been signed and concluded. If there had been a separate referendum later on and it transpired that the concluded appeasement treaty was no longer wanted and the no longer wanted gang won then that vote should be respected as well and “no more appeasement” should be concluded by the government. Everyone is happy(maybe not Adolf), democracy has been respected.

I wonder what would have happened if appeasement had won in 1937 though and then a load of headless chickens had started whining saying the appeasement treaty must not be signed and concluded, we don’t agree with that referendum result the thicko public have given, they are clearly poorly educated, screw the democratic result and do it again before we sign and conclude the appeasement treaty.
Any idea how that might have played out?

 

[lawros left foot]

[MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] , why do you repeatedly state that we joined the common market in 1974, when all references i can find say we joined on 1st January, 1973. Also, my memory of it was 1973.
Unfortunately, I am old enough to remember.

 

[Baldseagull]

From your rather long winded deflection on the subject I will take it that you finally agree Mogg was not talking about a second referendum that could occur after a first binary referendum giving a decision to leave or remain in a renegotiated EU had already happened and was not saying this second referendum, under the circumstances, could occur after negotiations to leave were completed.

I have accepted all along that he was talking about a different referendum question, but I do not accept that the logical principle he argued on is significantly different. I know you agree at heart because you refused repeated requests to explain the logical reasoning of that instance, because to do so would be showing that it would be logical in this instance.

 

[pastafarian]

I have accepted all along that he was talking about a different referendum question, but I do not accept that the logical principle he argued on is significantly different. I know you agree at heart because you refused repeated requests to explain the logical reasoning of that instance, because to do so would be showing that it would be logical in this instance.

You havnt because you maintained the circumstances were the same/similar.
I don’t agree at heart, and neither does he,what he is saying now isn’t logical applied as the same logic with regard to what he is saying then, as they are different scenarios with different logic on the method and he has always maintained the logic that a decision to Leave or Remain in a binary IN/OUT referendum should be the final step and decision. If you were applying your version to where we are today you would be yelling for a third referendum not the second one you want.
He is talking about(in the video) renegotiations of membership to stay IN via a 3 way vote, before a secondary binary deciding referendum on IN/OUT, and not the negotiations to Leave after a binary deciding referendum on IN/OUT. He is not talking about the scenario or applied logic on where we are today with the circumstances we are in, even though some people have been fooled into believing he is. Including you.

 

[dingodan]

Yeah, one day, and one day the Sun will go supernova. An EU army won't happen until the Government and people of the UK and every other member state want it to.
To claim remaining means we will have to have an EU army is utter bollocks, however much Farage says it, Juncker wants it or Verhofstadt recommends it.

I guess the difference is that you care about what's on the end of your nose. I care about what is further ahead.

"This train with no breaks doesn't run out of track for another thousand miles, relax" is not a good argument as far as I am concerened.

 

[dingodan]

Brexiteers on the one hand tell us to get out of the sinking shoddy EU ship now before it drags us down and at the same time, on the other hand, tell us to buckle up as the EU ship is about to take off into space and start firing missiles.

Never heard of a submarine?

 

[Baldseagull]

I guess the difference is that you care about what's on the end of your nose. I care about what is further ahead.

"This train with no breaks doesn't run out of track for another thousand miles, relax" is not a good argument as far as I am concerened.

This train does not run out of track for another thousand miles, and we have full control of the brakes, relax.

 

[Baldseagull]

You havnt because you maintained the circumstances were the same/similar.
I don’t agree at heart, and neither does he,what he is saying now isn’t logical applied as the same logic with regard to what he is saying then, as they are different scenarios with different logic on the method and he has always maintained the logic that a decision to Leave or Remain in a binary IN/OUT referendum should be the final step and decision. If you were applying your version to where we are today you would be yelling for a third referendum not the second one you want.
He is talking about(in the video) renegotiations of membership to stay IN via a 3 way vote, before a secondary binary deciding referendum on IN/OUT, and not the negotiations to Leave after a binary deciding referendum on IN/OUT. He is not talking about the scenario or applied logic on where we are today with the circumstances we are in, even though some people have been fooled into believing he is. Including you.

I guess by your long winded reply you still have not stated the reason a second referendum in the first instance "might make more sense"

 

[dingodan]

This train does not run out of track for another thousand miles, and we have full control of the brakes, relax.

Yeah you're right, I'll just pop of back to my cabin and go back to sleep. Hope I don't wake up and find the breaks have become qualified majority voting or anything.

 

[The Rivet]

How many days now?

 

[Albion my Albion]

1537 hours

64 days

 

[The Rivet]

QT tonight...... Sonia Sodha, the sonic mouth with no soda froth!