Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:52 AM

Actually, it's incorrect to consider democracy and populism as comparable. Democracy is an agreed system of government whereas populism is merely a campaigning mechanism, generally intended to over-simplify and appeal to people's basest instincts and prejudices. Obsessively demonising your opponents, sloganising (e.g. that bus and the Farage poster) and mantras (e.g. "fake news," "make America great again") and a rabble-rousing gutter press are the main tools of populism. Populism degrades democracy by riding on its back. That's precisely how Nazi Germany proceeded. We should be very watchful.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:20 AM

"Roll on 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019."

Yup. And there's a nice little bit of irony that has gone over your head. The moment of our leaving is actually midnight.

EU time. Heheh.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:15 AM

I far prefer your take on populism to Iains', Jim.

"Democracy:a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

Sure. Except that you've indicated repeatedly that you don't believe in it. You've called the 48% who voted remain losers who should stop moaning and trying to overturn what you regard incorrectly as a democratic decision, and you've said that the 28% of the electorate who didn't vote (even though they still pay their taxes, etc) are feckless and undeserving can't-be-bothereds whose opinions don't count and who don't deserve to have any say. Your brand of "democracy" is for winners only and the rest can go hang. And in the next breath you defend the populism that brought us Trump and Farage. I suppose you're going to tell us next what a great leader Boris would be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

Populism is the cynical use of people's prejudices to gain decisions that otherwise would have been unobtainable.
Short answer: Rubbish
Long answer: RUBBISH

Most people base decisions on how they understand the situation, and what they need to do to change it. That is why the majority voted for brexit. They no longer wished to remain in the EU.
Your feeble attempts to undermine that decision by an increasingly strident pack of lies will never alter that reality. Calling them stupid, recist, bigoted, little englanders and all the other crap you hurl about with gay abandon does not change the majority position to leave.
Roll on 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 05:02 AM

Populism means never having to say sorry - to borrow an old caption
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM

Populism is the cynical use of people's prejudices to gain decisions that otherwise would have been unobtainable
Hitler chose the Jews, Farage chose immigration
A recent example of the use of Populism when a no-hoper candidate in the Irish Presidential election targeted Travelers and the lesser well of and shot his expectations from virtually nothing to 22% of the vote
Trump appealed to the Redneck States
None of this has the slightest thing to do with democracy - it's about diverting the attention away from the main problems of society and scapegoating the weakest

It is reckoned that there is a Nigel Farage in most of the European countries now - hence the rise of fascism
The "Democratic States" have made sure there is no alternative system as yet - America chose napalm and Agent Orange
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 04:11 AM

There seems to be great confusion between the terms "democracy" and "populism"

Democracy:a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Populism: A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. 'In the context of electoral politics as practiced there, populism is attractive to politicians of all shades.'

The two could not be more different. There may be confusion in your mind but that would surprise few here.

As yet democracy is unsurpassed as a means of government. Very little point in criticising it unless you have a viable alternative.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 18 - 03:36 AM

There seems to be great confusion between the terms "democracy" and "populism"
AS somebody has pointed out Trump was elected 'democratically', moved the nuclear clock forward a couple of notches and put the Klan back on the American Streets
Similar things have happened in Britain after Brexit (substitute Tommy Robinson for The Klan)
Hitler was put into power democratically, plunged the world into war and chalked up six million hits for his democratic cause
Some here need to examine their own consciences when they espouse certain causes and fling about certain accusations Bobad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Neil D
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 10:53 PM

There has been little coverage of the confidence vote here in the U S with the sentencing of Trump's lawyer to 3 yrs sucking up all the news time, but I did learn that May survived. I've been reading this thread and other sources, and I think I'm beginning to understand where things stand at present. The conflict between hard and soft Brexiteers is dividing the conservatives, while Labour/Liberal are hoping for the situation to deteriorate to the point where they get a redo on the original Brexit vote. I'm sure this is a broad brush understanding, lacking much in the way of nuance, but that's where I'm at.
   In the original Brexit vote in 2016, Scotland voted 63% to remain and Northern Ireland 56%. England (51%) and Wales (52%) voted leave. Exiting the EU was very unpopular in S and NI, presumably because of the predicted negative economic impact on those countries, but the much larger population of England made it's vote the only one that mattered. This had to seem like a real kick in the teeth to the Scots coming less than 2 years after they themselves were begged not to leave the UK, and capitulated. In the wake of the Brexit vote 2 years ago, there was a lot of talk that Scotland would hold a new referendum. Some, JP Morgan analysts for example, predicted that Scotland would be long gone from UK before Brexit could be achieved, while others said the Scottish economy was too weak at the time to consider leaving (the UK). There was also some speculation that the EU wasn't that enthused about accepting an independent Scotland, especially member nations with their own separatist movements. Think Spain.
    So. Where does that stand now? Obviously, 2 years on, Scotland is still part of the UK, so has independence been shelved for now? Might it be taken up later, even after Brexit? And what about Northern Ireland? Could they be allowed to have their own independence referendum? NI independence would certainly solve the backstop issue. Or is leaving the UK something the majority in NI would NEVER consider for fear of being absorbed by the Republic of Ireland?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:59 PM

Nigel Farage in fact said while the result was being awaited that, if the Remainers won, as he thought likely, the struggle to reverse that would begin immediately. And he'd have been quite entitled to do that.

I've been trying to think of any other choice we make in our lives which eliminates any chance of changing our mind. Apart from something like jumping off a roof.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:43 PM

Or, to be embarrassingly more accurate, the will of 38% of the electorate. Setting aside the fact that referendums are extremely undemocratic (Jesus might agree with me whereas Barabbas wouldn't), a move to change the fundamental status quo in a nation requires the bar to be set very high indeed. We've been a member of the EU for almost half a century, during which time we've enjoyed prosperity, security and peace in Europe. Unarguable. Cameron's 50-50 vote was extremely skewed. A vote to leave, shattering the status quo, was virtually irreversible once the assumed mandate had been carried out (until it is, I suppose there's hope). A vote to remain would have been challenged again and again for decades and would have been easy and cheap to reverse. That simply can't be right.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:35 PM

The government could of course put together a multi-choice referendum, or a two stage one. But they've no intention of doing so. And they'd need to get legislation to do it through parliament, which might be difficult.

I can see them going round in circles right up until the end of March. At that point, with No Deal imminent, given that there is so wide opposition to No Deal in the Commons, I can imagine a majority vote by MPs to cancel Article 50, and to hold a referendum to approve or overturn that, with Remain or No Deal Exit as the options.
...........

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 09:14 PM

A question of such national import should require a 2/3 majority at least, IMO. Barring that, in the case of a yes vote, a second vote on the exit details should be required. But of course, these requirements would have to have been established prior to the vote. As it stands it is incumbent that the results of the vote, such as it was, be accepted as representing the will of the voters.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 08:39 PM

I was just looking up the difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. According to the internet, a referendum is a yes or no decision to be voted on by all citizens legally empowered to vote. The result is binding. A plebiscite is a yes or no decision to be voted on by all citizens legally empowered to vote. The result is not binding.
I was under the impression that the Brexit vote two years ago was non-binding, although the Government treated it as binding and this began the laborious unhappy process that has led us to the present situation.

. . .
Okay, now I've looked it up in Wikipedia, which has an excellent article on just the matters I'm concerned with. It's a bit more complicated than what I wrote above.

Could the government put together a multiple choice referendum which would put to the electorate the primary choices they have before them. That vote would be decidedly final and take it out of the hands of the politicians who seem to be unpopular no matter which direction the country is to go. If the outcomes can be put in simple understandable terms, why not have the public in a situation where there is no one to blame but themselves. After all a referendum is what got us here.

Then vote for the politicians the electorate thinks can best execute the referendum choice. As usual.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 08:18 PM

Sorry Greg but a majority of the voters decided the issue.

Yup.

Just like a "majority" of voters put that piece of dirt Trump in the White House.

You SHOULD be sorry.

"Fred"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:33 PM

Mossback is not Greg. Sorry.

The EU will not intervene in any effort we make to become a member of EFTA. That's what I meant and it was pretty clear. Nothing to do with our departure from EFTA all those many decades ago. Stop being silly again, Nigel.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:16 PM

My Renault Kangoo was a write off after going through a deep puddle.

As Tom and Ray Magliozzi, the hosts of APR's Car Talk program used to say regarding French made cars; "the French copy no one and no one copies the French".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:00 PM

I don't really think facts have much to do with anything. Theres a sort of random facts aspect. Every buggers got facts and statistics to prove their point of view.

Its down to gut feeling.

I knew before we went in it wouldn't work.

All the industrial decline I've seen since, somewhere in the mix you could spot the fine Italian hand of the EEC/EU. If you weren't looking for it, you wouldn't have seen it. And the south eastern part of our country (its economy bolstered by foreign investment and property speculation have never had reason to look for it.

Its too big, too long, too unwieldly a process for any fact fuelled bean counting expert to have noticed. But my god, I've seen it happening the communities I lived most of my life in and grew up in. Steel,   fishing, textiles, cars, motorbikes, heavy engineering, ship building and re-fitting.....all down to villainous trade unions, rotten management, corrupt politicians.

You can carry on telling yourself that if it fits your set of predjudices...

Great news about the Fiat Panda and the Fiat 500 failing every safety standard. My Renault Kangoo was a write off after going through a deep puddle.
Wolsey, Reliant Scimitar, Triumph, Austin, Morris, Singer....never mind the competition will give them something to think about.

Those are my predjudices.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:57 PM

Atta boy, Bobad!

A classic Trump/Rudy Giuliani response if ever there was one !

Truth isn't truth, and a majority isn't a majority.

Sorry Greg but a majority of the voters decided the issue. You seem to be a little confused about the concepts of majority and democracy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:32 PM

From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:37
The Norway option is not an option for two reasons. First, Norway will not let us become members of EFTA on the same terms because they know we'll swamp it (not my opinion: they've said so). The EU has nothing to do with that.

And why are we not members of EFTA?
Because we left to join the EEC in 1972 (having been a founder member of EFTA from 1960). So as the EU is the current form of the EEC I would say that us not being members of EFTA is very much to do with the EU.

For those who want facts to back up opinions: EFTA through the years

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:24 PM

From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM
Hmmmmmmmm
Over 40% of Conservative MP's voted to out the present leader Teresa May.
Yes, it was 'over 40%'. But with 317 Conservative MPs eligible to vote, she polled 200. That is 63%, so yes, it is over 40%, but accurately representing your figures might allow you to make a more convincing argument.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Mossback
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:24 PM

Atta boy, Bobad!

A classic Trump/Rudy Giuliani response if ever there was one !

Truth isn't truth, and a majority isn't a majority.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:45 PM

the refenfum [sic] majority was short of being a majority of the electorate by a good few million,far larger than the margin of victory

Totally irrelevant in a democratic vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:37 PM

The Norway option is not an option for two reasons. First, Norway will not let us become members of EFTA on the same terms because they know we'll swamp it (not my opinion: they've said so). The EU has nothing to do with that. Second, brexiteers will very gleefully point out that "we did not vote to stay in the single market, to allow free movement, to keep paying money to the EU and to have no say in rule-making." Finally, and even worse in the eyes of brexiteers, the "Norway-plus" option also involves staying in the customs union. It's remain without the bollocks. It'll do me if we really have to leave, but it ain't gonna happen!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:23 PM

The thing is, 100% of the Tory MPs voted, whereas only 74% of those entitled to vote in the referendum. So the refenfum majority was short of being a majority of the electorate by a good few million, far larger than the margin of victory.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: bobad
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:52 PM

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.

Not at all, in both cases the issue being voted on was decided by a majority of the votes - you know, the way it works in a democracy.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:45 PM

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.
Probably your comprehension.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:38 PM

Hmmmmmmmm

Over 40% of Conservative MP's voted to out the present leader Teresa May.

She has retained her position.

Less than 40% of the electorate voted to leave the EU and yet we are told we have to follow that vote.

Is there something slightly amiss I wonder.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 02:33 PM

"Rees Moog "
Love it - why does the idea of a 'Moog Sympathiser conjure up thought of electronic music
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 02:30 PM

The Norwegian situation is an interesting one. They rejected full membership of the EU in 1994.
Does Norway have free trade with EU?
As member of the European Free Trade Association ( EFTA ), Norway seeks to conclude bilateral Free Trade Agreement in the so-called EFTA framework. This means that Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein can negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with a respective third country via EFTA .

Thus they avoided The Maastricht Treaty, known formally as the Treaty on European Union, the international agreement responsible for the creation of the European Union. They pay €0.40billion annually for the privilege.While not formally a single market membership fee, this money is linked to trade relations with the EU. Norway's EU minister said last year that “We gain from being a member of the single market. Norway is also in the Schengen area whereas the UK has never been a part of it. Norway is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU.
    Personally I would be happy to see some brexit result approximating the Norway model. But I doubt the EU would agree, too many in Brussels and Strasbourg would be trampled in the rush to follow us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 01:48 PM


Rees Moog seems to be against any form of backstop as he says the whole thing is the fault of the EU, not of Brexiteers, which seems to mean he doesn't mind a hard border down the middle of Ireland

That is my understanding, but I would put it more strongly. He opposes a hard border, but sees the entire UK responsibility being not to implement one on our side. If international law requires one - which some dispute - he is willing to delay enough to force the EU side to implement it. Then it is entirely the EU's responsibility - "we have not implemented a hard border."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 07:17 AM

"To be fair, Jim, the British do not speak with one voice. "
Of course it doesn't - it is open to historical prejudices and misinformation - the problem here is that there was no study of how Britain should exit Europe, no game plan for the future and no discussion of the likely consequences
One of the things never considered was the debt Britain owes to its former colonies, some of whom are at war with the despots who rule them
Instead of assisting former colonial citizens to repair the mess left behind by the fallen empire, the British State is licencing arms to be used against their bettering their lot while, at the same time, blocking the entry of refugees from the wars created by the situation we left behind
This cynical and predatory behaviour s not only inhuman, but it has given rise to world-wide terrorism

Ireland is not untypical of what is happening - a partitioned nation moving slowly towards reconciliation which is quite likely to be thrown into further conflict by the re-introduction of solid borders.
The effect of Brexit reaches far beyond the shores of Britain   
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:56 AM

To be fair, Jim, the British do not speak with one voice. Daily Mail readers, apparently, want Rees Moog as the next Prime Minister.

The backstop issue is the one Theresa May is focussed on, presumably because she needs the Northern Ireland DUP's support and they won't support a solution that leaves them treated differently from the rest of the UK in terms of customs arrangements with the UK.

While we are still in the EU the border on the island of Ireland has no customs importance; there is free movement of goods and services. When we are not in the EU, the border will be a border between the EU and the UK.

In theory this means there should be border checks on goods crossing the border, but imposing such checks would be in breach of an agreement between the UK and the Irish Republic, and is seen as likely to bring about a return to higher levels of sectarian violence.

So the aims in terms of that are to agree a trade deal with the EU that keeps the border as open as it is now, which seems to mean pretty much a 'free trade' agreement, which seems to mean that goods we send across that border must reach EU standards, which is what Rees Moog and co want to be free from (especially in respect of finance and chemicals).

In the event that a deal isn't reached by a certain date, the backstop kicks in and specifies that there must be no 'hard border' across the island of Ireland.

I'm thinking that both the Republic and the UK must have within their 'no deal' planning, thoughts about how to address the political violence with which we may be faced if we crash out with no agreement that supports a no hard border option.   The Republic is recruiting potential customs officers already, though as it is sometimes said that border posts may be a target it seems a job for the brave!

The DUP are concerned that solutions to the no hard border problem will result in a customs border between the island of Ireland and GB, which they do not want as they see it as weakening the union.

This seems to me to be an intractible problem, and I don't know what Johnson or Rees Moog would do about it, and my guess is that they won't get rid of May before Brexit because nobody else knows what they would do about it, simply because it is intractible, so they are happy to let May continue until we crash out, which is what some of them want. Then she can get the blame.

Rees Moog seems to be against any form of backstop as he says the whole thing is the fault of the EU, not of Brexiteers, which seems to mean he doesn't mind a hard border down the middle of Ireland.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:30 AM

"Credible successor? What is this mythical construct? You clutch at straws!"

I clutched at nothing. A rereading of my post will confirm.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:18 AM

We do now know a lot more about the damage the brexit will cause. So now is time for a more informed vote, a People's vote. Time for a government of National Unity to be appointed, to withdraw Article 50, and hold a People's vote in 2019.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 06:13 AM

The Britit people were never asked to vote on the future we now know is quite likely

Is the above sense or nonsense? To know something is quite likely is to know jack shit!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:42 AM

Best thing to come out of Brexit if it brings on a Labour Government

"She needs to go now,"
So musch for democratic voting
I watched those arrogant twots lastt night all claiming to speak for the British people - just like here - when in faxcct all they are speaking for is their own Litle England view
The Britit people were never asked to vote on the future we now know is quite likely - they would have had to be a nation of lemmings to do so
It is deeply insulting to the British people to suggest any of this has anything to do with them - nothing new there from these flag-waggers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 05:40 AM

Well Iains, you are clearly wrong that stalling helps no one. By your own admission it helps Corbyn. By extension many of us will feel that this helps us.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:20 AM

May has some rather vital legislation to get passed by parliament.
Stalling this helps no one. Delaying until January is not going to achieve anything useful, it merely enables Corbyn to call for a vote of no confidence in the government, and the outcome of that would be anybody's guess.
May's hubris may well lead to both her and her governments downfall.
She needs to go now, and I am sure many others view the situation the same way. Interesting times!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:15 AM

This situation is different. They say she's theoretically safe for twelve months. I reckon she's safe until 29/3/19. After that it depends on whether we have left or not. If we have left the EU by then, whoever replaces her will not be to blame directly for the result. They will start with a clean sheet. It will be relatively safe to replace her.

If we have not left, the situation is more fluid and more difficult to predict. Her replacement will then be responsible for leaving or not leaving. That would be a much more vulnerable position.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 04:05 AM

It should be gratifying to se the right tearing each others throats out, but somehow, it sends a shiver down the spine to think it is jackals like these who represent the British people
Nice to be able to open Mudcat and see it in the raw

I never thought I'd say this, but May is the only politician to emerge from this mess with a shred of dignity - Parliament seems to be made up of elected Iain-alikes with every bit as little grasp of humanity and political responsibility
Bring on THE GREAT TWATSBY I say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Dec 18 - 03:50 AM

Thatcher won by 53 votes and was gone a week later. Who had ever heard of Major at that time? May has won by 83. You really think she has the continued confidence of her party?

Credible successor? What is this mythical construct? You clutch at straws!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:51 PM

She is damaged Tory goods only if there is a credible successor waiting in the wings. Which there isn't. She is damaged in the country, that's for sure. But she was anyway. Nothing has changed, frankly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:31 PM

As the May vote had around 140 spineless mps on the government payroll, then adopting remainiacs logic. May lost by a vote of approx. 100 to 50.
I think she is damaged goods no matter how the spinmeisters present it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:30 PM

Despite the fact that she on with a reasonable majority, Lord Snooty and the Bash Street Brexiteers are demanding that she resign
"Yes means yes" only when it suits some people, it would appear
What a friggin' shower of articulated arseholes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:29 PM

I am sure you will cope with the disappointment."
With the growth of career politicians the result is no real surprise.

Interesting. So you think when a Tory MP is focused on progressing their career - which necessarily includes future elections and judgement by voters - they think their best bet is to stick with Teresa May.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:27 PM

"There can be no march to federalism while the UK is a member of the EU. Do you ever listen?"

"Are you trying to convince me or yourself, by endless repetition?"

Neither. I'm trying to get through those cloth ears of yours to whatever resides within your cranium that no major shift in direction, policy or law can be pushed through, as long as we are members, and as a large and influential member state, without our consent. Veto is a four-letter word in your lexicon, I suppose.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 05:02 PM

"I am sure you will cope with the disappointment."
With the growth of career politicians the result is no real surprise.

By the way certain versions of the backstop, if implemented, would in my view be treasonous by way of depriving the sovereign of her crown.
(Crown of Ireland Act 1542:)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:49 PM

When (not "if") Labour puts a motion of no confidence, it will all be down to the UDP. If they abstain the motion should pass. And with Theresa May still intent on her deal, with the non-exit backstop, the DUP can be expected to abstain.

And there is no prospect of the EU (especially Ireland) giving way on that part of the backstop.

Stuff about the EU being unreasonable in negotiating doesn't stand up to examination. It's the reverse, if anything, far more flexible than the UK. A year ago the UK essentially agreed to the backstop, to continue until and unless some alternative could be cobbled together to provide a permanent guarantee against a hard border, and did so specially in order to allow other negotiations to proceed - then after going ahead with those negotiations it has tried to backslide on it.

The £39 billion isn't a charge for an agreed withdrawal which can be dispensed with in a no deal exit, it's a debt which we'd be duty bound to pay however we leave. If the UK defaulted on that debt it would be acting illegally, and would do enormous damage to it's reputation. Financially it would be a rogue state, and no one would be likely to trust it. The old label "Perfidious Albion" would be revived, and justly so. And this would be a country hoping to set up favourable trade agreements round the world?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Dec 18 - 04:40 PM

There's far too much of this 'treason' shite from Brexiteers. I've lost count of the times Brexiteers have told me I should be 'arrested, marched out, and shot for treason'. Clearly, their intellect doesn't extend to an understanding of what the offence of treason actually consists of.