Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Not easy to give difinitive answers before any deal that may be done. But remainers could at last actually accept what has happened and then try to support and encourage others to make the most of whatever oppprtunities that do present themselves. Alternatively they can continue to snipe from the sidelines achieving absolutely diddly squat. Bit like the Labour Party and their supporters right now
nicko31
Well-known member
Its what you have to do to keep your job...
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,791
Not easy to give difinitive answers before any deal that may be done. But remainers could at last actually accept what has happened and then try to support and encourage others to make the most of whatever oppprtunities that do present themselves. Alternatively they can continue to snipe from the sidelines achieving absolutely diddly squat. Bit like the Labour Party and their supporters right now
Like Ppf, It's very simple. Each time Johnson manages to get definitive agreement to on one of these 'opportunities' (ie something that is actually better than we currently have), you highlight it, and we will all encourage and support it
With him now deciding to negotiate the US trade deal alongside the EU one, and the other 40 EU trade deals to be replaced by the end of 2020, we should expect to see these improvements flying thick and fast (rather akin to Ppf on his way to Benidorm).
With all this detail to be negotiated across all these trade deals in 11 months, we should see some definitive answers pretty soon, don't you think ?
I wonder which we will get first, some detail on any of the replacement trade deals or threats of 'no deal'
Last edited:
Not easy to give difinitive answers before any deal that may be done. But remainers could at last actually accept what has happened and then try to support and encourage others to make the most of whatever oppprtunities that do present themselves. Alternatively they can continue to snipe from the sidelines achieving absolutely diddly squat. Bit like the Labour Party and their supporters right now
That doesn't sound like the future we were promised. What happened to the 'easiest deals in the world', 'sunny uplands' etc.... and what changed you from an 'ardent remainer'?
I think we will hear a lot more of the 'well we're here now, so stop complaining' argument rather than the 'this will be great' argument from the Leave lobby; but are excuses and blame (everyone else) culture really oven ready?
Last edited:
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
Not easy to give difinitive answers before any deal that may be done. But remainers could at last actually accept what has happened and then try to support and encourage others to make the most of whatever oppprtunities that do present themselves. Alternatively they can continue to snipe from the sidelines achieving absolutely diddly squat. Bit like the Labour Party and their supporters right now
Brexit was sold to the public as a package with firm benefits for the country. When asked three years later to suggest specific examples of the benefits, you say that is impossible to say before any deal "that may be done". It looks like someone is finally admitting that the country signed a blank cheque in 2016 - we were told that there would be huge advantages; now you say it depends on what trading agreement we can cobble together with one of our vastly more powerful neighbours.
When that deal, whatever it is, is signed, will you then delay judgement until you see what other deals we make to replace the agreements we currently have with over 100 countries as members of the EU?
Oh, and you raise the old charge of Remainers 'not accepting' the referendum result. I have accepted it since about 4am on 24 June 2016. What I cannot do is accept that it is in my country's interests. Are you all right with that?
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
Or a literate man, or working man, apparently.
What you don't seem to understand is that people who do have jobs may have a bit of concern about the risk of losing them and want something a little more tangible than belief
I'd give up gracefully if I was you
Regards
DF
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
And this the man who feels able to comment on the current atmosphere in the Amex when he hasn't been near the place for about two years.
Like Ppf, It's very simple. Each time Johnson manages to get definitive agreement to on one of these 'opportunities' (ie something that is actually better than we currently have), you highlight it, and we will all encourage and support it
With him now deciding to negotiate the US trade deal alongside the EU one, and the other 40 EU trade deals to be replaced by the end of 2020, we should expect to see these improvements flying thick and fast (rather akin to Ppf on his way to Benidorm).
With all this detail to be negotiated across all these trade deals in 11 months, we should see some definitive answers pretty soon, don't you think ?
I wonder which we will get first, some detail on any of the replacement trade deals or threats of 'no deal'
So I do not have to do this multiple times I will answer all three as best I can.
I was an ardent remainer, and still believe that the UK would be better in the EU than out. What changed? Firstly the whinging and whining from those who lost the referendum, it was a democratic vote FFS. And anyone saying it was not legally binding would have argued the toss if the result had gone the other way. But that did not make me switch sides. It was the antics of MPs who did everything they could to thwart the will of the electorate, refusing to vote anything that was put in front of them through, and even taking part in legal challenges to the Brexit process. MPs are there to serve not dictate, it was a disgusting abuse of power.
And no doubt somebody will say that I only switched sides so easily because I had nothing to lose. Trust me when I say that the effect the referendum had on the value of the pound when I was moving over here hurt me very substantially.
I cannot put definitives in front of anyone, I do not have a crystal ball. I have not researched any advantages from Brexit as I was on the other side. But there will be advantages, may not as many as there are disadvantages, and it is up to individuals, companies and government to maximise them. Alternatively the UK could just sit and whinge, whilst the rest of the world keeps turning. The decision is taken, make the most of it.
Interesting piece of rhetoric.... but still not the firm assurance of a bright future that won the Leave vote. Individuals, companies (but of course not government) can in this view conveniently be blamed if it doesn't go according to plan. It will always be because they didn't 'maximise it' or 'make the most of it.' Nice work!
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
You are right that MPs are there to serve, but if they firmly believe that Brexit is bad for the country then thwarting was the right thing for them to do. As has been said many times before the referendum was not legally binding but advisory.
The Opposition parties in Parliament are there to oppose, by definition.
Bob!
Coffee Buyer
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,640
Most of those MP's voting against May's deal were not trying to 'stop brexit', merely trying to stop what they saw as a bad brexit deal, and trying to move towards a more sensible brexit
Not easy to give difinitive answers before any deal that may be done. But remainers could at last actually accept what has happened and then try to support and encourage others to make the most of whatever oppprtunities that do present themselves. Alternatively they can continue to snipe from the sidelines achieving absolutely diddly squat. Bit like the Labour Party and their supporters right now
There are no opportunities as far as I can see, only constraints. Constraints to our economy, environment and health.
Lincoln Imp
Well-known member
- Feb 2, 2009
- 5,964
Thank you for a measured reply. Can I pick you up on the point above. I don't ask you to agree with me, but I do ask to consider whether I make a case and perhaps in the light of that to trim your invective.
One of the few general requirements formally placed on MPs - their covenant with the public if you like - is to always act in what he or she feels is the national interest. Consider that alongside Edmund Burke's words to the electors of Bristol 250 years ago:
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.
Until recently, the issue of what MPs do what felt was 'in the general good' rarely arose. The common criticism of them was the exact opposite: that they were mere robots, trudging through the lobbies in search of an easy life, career development, personal gain, party approval.
23 June 2016 changed that. Because of Cameron's decision - made for party political reasons - to ask the public whether they wanted something without specifically defining what it was, MPs found themselves faced with a brief so absurdly loose that there were even questions (from some) about whether it was even intended. Suddenly, MPs were faced with the task of deciding what was good for the people, not for their careers. I would argue that they rose to this challenge. As the lady from - I think - De Welt said in a Radio 4 interview, the antics in the House in 2019 were seen across Germany as a magnificent example to the world of parliamentary democracy.
Some anti-Brexit MPs voted for whatever deal was placed in front of them, it's nice to think because they felt the disturbances that would result from Brexit being stopped would be even less in the national interest than going ahead with it. (A principled stance, although I'm cynical enough to think that many of the turners were like Sajid Javid, trimming and head-standing in order to keep the Jaguar parked outside his house.) Others argued that once a specifically-defined agreement was reached it should be put back to the public. Others (ERG mainly) said that the deal was too weak. Others said it was too strong. The LibDems were to say that the public should be asked to support them in the view that Brexit should be axed (that went well).
The point is, discussion raged. Many of those involved - the Anna Soubrys and Chuka Umannas - battled for what they thought was right in the certain knowledge that doing so would destroy their careers. No feather-bedding here. Off-stage, when the pro-Brexit government lied and cheated and cut corners to get its way, people put their hands in their pockets to get the law of the land applied. It's hard to marshall disagreement with that either.
Eventually the government, faced with a logjam of honestly-held opposite opinions, asked MPs to allow it to ask the public to vote for a set of representatives s more amenable to its view. The MPs agreed and the people, in part because they were exhausted by the whole thing and appalled by the alternative, gave the government what it wanted.
We now return, after three years of fierce argument and controversy, to normal service. MPs will do as they are told. Careers will proceed, legislation will drift through, the House will slumber. This to me is the real abuse of power.
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
Pretty pink fairy
Banned
- Jan 30, 2008
- 31,981
I assume 'tha' is an attempt to use Yorkshire slang as in 'tha' means 'you', Dim Fekker; but your comment still makes no sense; the 'project doom and gloom' bit is just cut and pasted from a Johnson speech with no thought for its meaning.
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,667
You'd think you'd know how to use a hashtag after all that time you spend on racist Youtube sites Das Reich
daveinplzen
New member
- Aug 31, 2018
- 2,846
What I see now from Brexiteers, is a realisation of the magnitude of the **** up they have created, with a plea now of 'oh well, its done now, we have to all get behind it'. Along with astonishment that people are not happy with that