Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

So between U.K. still sticking to Common Fisheries Policy during transition and the iconic (for which read pointless) blue passports likely to be printed in Netherlands... is there any good news on Brexit?

Eloise posted:

So between U.K. still sticking to Common Fisheries Policy during transition and the iconic (for which read pointless) blue passports likely to be printed in Netherlands... is there any good news on Brexit?

You’re right, Eloise! Theresa May is a spineless, appeasing apparatchik of the EU, In fact she has been spineless since her days as Home Secretary. She is a disgrace to leadership.

I don’t see any really good news. 

It strikes me that Boris, who has successfully upset EU members (and quite a few Conservative MPs) now seems determined to enrage Russia (and weaken the International support we currently enjoy) .

So I guess with Boris concentrating on Russia, he is probably unable to spend quite as much time upsetting the EU.

small mercy, perhaps !

+1 for Owen Smith 

It's a shame Owen is not leader of the Labour Party, at least we'd have someone worth voting for.

Debs

Well he stood for leader and got trounced, Debs.  While I would very much like a second referendum, I must say my sympathies are with Corbyn here. You can't be on the front bench advocating a policy that contradicts what the party executive have debated and agreed.  Maybe Owen should join the Lib Dems.

Apparently he spoke up on behalf of a 'majority of Labour Party members'  who also want a 2nd referendum. If this is true, and i hope it is,  then it's jolly decent of them to want to let the UK people decide. Perhaps they are aware that Brexit is not in the national interest, and definitely not the will of the people, it seems to be nothing more than a fast track vehicle to fully exploit Tory Party policy for the next 1000 year Reich.

Owen Smith's comments speaks volumes on how most LP members don't want brexit [let alone most people within the UK] and this feeds into the sad fact that JC should not be giving kudos to the undemocratic Tory-UKIP Brexit goose-step towards the cliff edge.

Also has to be said; it was a ridiculously fraudulent referendum, and that achieved a knife edge fluke result, and since June 2016 people have learned a huge amount about the disadvantages of actually going ahead with it, so in the interest of fair play and legitimate democracy we really do need another referendum.

Debs

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave)  are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave)  are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

As usual, you want to airbrush reality as well as the result of the Referendum. Last poll I saw wanted the implementation of Brexit, ie the one voted for not whatever mythology you have dredged up today, as soon as possible and by a large majority. 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

naim_nymph posted:

+1 for Owen Smith 

It's a shame Owen is not leader of the Labour Party, at least we'd have someone worth voting for.

Debs

With respect, I see this as a confusion between what we want from Brexit policy and what Smith was actually up to. That confusion is precisely what Smith wanted to cause, and he acted more out of the interests of a cynical, destructive wing of his party than out of concern for the country.

Smith effectively dared Corbyn to sack him, and did so in a way which was calculated to try to damage Corbyn either way.

If Smith had been a back bencher at the time of his comments, there would be no issue. This has been explicitly said, eg by Abbot on Any Questions. But he was not. He was - had agreed to be - a member of the shadow cabinet and was - had agreed to be - therefore bound by collective responsibility. That means you make your case in cabinet, but don't try to fight cabinet fights in public. If you can't win the fight in cabinet, you step down and make your case from the back benches.

Smith and his backers (witness eg Umunna cropping up immediately afterwards) know this absolutely. This makes the actual issue immaterial - it was either sack Smith or be as weak as May by being unable to stand up to or stop shadow ministers saying whatever they like and get away with it (cf Boris, etc.).

I say the above as someone who strongly supports a second referendum. I hope Labour policy shifts to supporting one, ie to what Smith was ostensibly advocating. And at the same time I emphatically agree that Smith was acting in a calculatedly divisive way which demanded that he was sacked.

Spot on, Dave.

I agree with Dave's assessment of Smiths motive, and I also agree that ministers/shadow ministers must resign if they can't cope with Party policy.

But the bigger issue is that of "the will of the people" and whether we really know what "the will of the people" is and what "the will of the people" will be once a "deal" has been established as a basis for the UK to leave the EU.

Agreed, Don. I firmly believe that whatever the deal or lack thereof, there is zero democratic mandate for the precise form of Brexit proposed without a second vote. To claim otherwise based on 'the will of the people' is utter rubbish.

I think it a pity that the result of the referendum seems to have paralysed both main parties, neither of whom seem prepared to have the courage to recognise the damage likely to be done to the UK and the lives of the people they represent.  It seems it's only in the House of Lords that there seems to be an appetite to look through the rhetoric to the substance of the issues.  The best-case that many of our political class seem prepared to aim for is a soft exit.    

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave) are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

As usual, you want to airbrush reality as well as the result of the Referendum. Last poll I saw wanted the implementation of Brexit, ie the one voted for not whatever mythology you have dredged up today, as soon as possible and by a large majority. 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Well, true to form as I said above....."....Brexiteers .....are shreiking out all over the place, terrified that......"

If the "Deal" is a good one, and in anycase the majority of the Electrorate are in favour of leaving regardless of the "Deal", then there is nothing for you to be concerned about if we held another Referendum. OK, it costs a few Bob or so, but if it were arranged for mid-May next year, that would give both sides plenty of time to explain the benefits of the deal or the benefits of Remaining to the Electorate. No need to put the Transition on hold, or anything else - other that the actual "Leave-Button"

Nothing for you to worry about. No need to continue the frantic shreiking !

Don Atkinson posted:

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Debs you're forgetting that a lot of traditional Labour supporters in the North voted Leave.

I very much doubt if Debs is forgetting that.

What Debs has said is so very true. The few "true" Brexiteers (Mogg, Gove, Boris, Redwood IDS etc  plus extremists who did vote to leave) are shreiking out all over the place terrified that common sense and decency will prevail, leading to another referendum once we are aquainted with the "final deal" as to whether we should leave or remain.

And instead of 650 MPs voting like sheep - "to implement the will of the people" it's about time they stood up, explained the facts clearly and then let the Electorate re-decide - and it would have to be a majority of the Electorate (not just those who vote) that wopuld be needed before we leave.

As usual, you want to airbrush reality as well as the result of the Referendum. Last poll I saw wanted the implementation of Brexit, ie the one voted for not whatever mythology you have dredged up today, as soon as possible and by a large majority. 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Well, true to form as I said above....."....Brexiteers .....are shreiking out all over the place, terrified that......"

If the "Deal" is a good one, and in anycase the majority of the Electrorate are in favour of leaving regardless of the "Deal", then there is nothing for you to be concerned about if we held another Referendum. OK, it costs a few Bob or so, but if it were arranged for mid-May next year, that would give both sides plenty of time to explain the benefits of the deal or the benefits of Remaining to the Electorate. No need to put the Transition on hold, or anything else - other that the actual "Leave-Button"

Nothing for you to worry about. No need to continue the frantic shreiking !

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result.

Not you personally, you understand, just the shower you aligned with who threatened us with all sorts of dire consequences if  we didn't, as Cameron was always keen to say, 'do the right thing.' Well, we did, and Cameron is history and so is the EU for us.  How does it feel to be one of the 20% who want a rerun? And even for just one moment I would not want to be you. (I like to keep it musical)

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Resurrection posted: 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Why should we believe you? That may apply to you, and maybe some others, but The ONLY people I know personally that voted to leave did so to register their dislike of the way the EU was going, not expecting to “win”, and ALL now regretting what they did, all the more so as more facts have emerged over time as to what it is s likely to mean in practice the more they regret what they did.

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result. 

 

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Why should we care what you want? The only thing that matters is what is right fot UK, and, regardless of my personal feelings, and those of a bunch of people who voted on the basis of lies, deceipt, misinformation and lack of information, Brexit is increasingly evident as BAD for the UK, so wrong.

BTW, I have NO political affiliation, sipupport NO party, have NO interest in politics of any sort, but I do want a prosperous Nd successful country, which I very much fear Brexit will NOT deliver. 

If you want to argue otherwise, please advance solid reasons as to what positive benefit Brexit has to offer (and maintainng sovereignty is not adequate - that I think all sides want, but Brexit is not the only way of ensuring it.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted: 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Why should we believe you? That may apply to you, and maybe some others, but The ONLY people I know personally that voted to leave did so to register their dislike of the way the EU was going, not expecting to “win”, and ALL now regretting what they did, all the more so as more facts have emerged over time as to what it is s likely to mean in practice the more they regret what they did.

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result. 

 

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Why should we care what you want? The only thing that matters is what is right fot UK, and, regardless of my personal feelings, and those of a bunch of people who voted on the basis of lies, deceipt, misinformation and lack of information, Brexit is increasingly evident as BAD for the UK, so wrong.

BTW, I have NO political affiliation, sipupport NO party, have NO interest in politics of any sort, but I do want a prosperous Nd successful country, which I very much fear Brexit will NOT deliver. 

If you want to argue otherwise, please advance solid reasons as to what positive benefit Brexit has to offer (and maintainng sovereignty is not adequate - that I think all sides want, but Brexit is not the only way of ensuring it.

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 17.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, repatriation of hugely needed funds, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country. This is called self determination without the need to crawl to a drunk called Juncker or a usurper of power called Selmayr. Only the most narrow minded, intransigent EUrophile is unable to recognise the inherent democratic deficits of the EU . 

Resurrection posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Resurrection posted: 

Believe me, the Brexiteers knew what they wanted and it ain’t nothing like you  noisy  REmainers keep telling us we want.

Why should we believe you? That may apply to you, and maybe some others, but The ONLY people I know personally that voted to leave did so to register their dislike of the way the EU was going, not expecting to “win”, and ALL now regretting what they did, all the more so as more facts have emerged over time as to what it is s likely to mean in practice the more they regret what they did.

Resurrection posted:

Ha! Ha! Don. I don't want another referendum and you won't get one. You blew your one and only chance partly by being over presumptions about the final result. 

 

Sadly, for you and your like minded thinkers, I am the inconvenient spectre at your barren feast  and the only proper answer to this tedious argument.

Why should we care what you want? The only thing that matters is what is right fot UK, and, regardless of my personal feelings, and those of a bunch of people who voted on the basis of lies, deceipt, misinformation and lack of information, Brexit is increasingly evident as BAD for the UK, so wrong.

BTW, I have NO political affiliation, sipupport NO party, have NO interest in politics of any sort, but I do want a prosperous Nd successful country, which I very much fear Brexit will NOT deliver. 

If you want to argue otherwise, please advance solid reasons as to what positive benefit Brexit has to offer (and maintainng sovereignty is not adequate - that I think all sides want, but Brexit is not the only way of ensuring it.

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 17.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, repatriation of hugely needed funds, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country. This is called self determination without the need to crawl to a drunk called Juncker or a usurper of power called Selmayr. Only the most narrow minded, intransigent EUrophile is unable to recognise the inherent democratic deficits of the EU . 

Whilst I readily agree that the EU is far from perfect, and vehemently oppose the creeping loss of sovereignty through the apparent ulterior motive of a “united states of europe” that is being pursued by those that have the power in the EU, it also brought positives including free movement of people and goods. What is needed is fixing the negatives, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

As I have suggested before, and not countered by you, your stance of not wanting to have another referendum is clearly based on a fear that the original majority will have evaporated now that people have a much clearer idea of what Brexit really means, which was definitely not evident in the lies, deceit, miss-information and ignorance that abounded back at the time of the referendum. If that were not the case, would it not be better to have a second, confermatory referendum (along the lines of “right, now you know what Brexit really means, please confirm it is what you really want”). Then, if a majority support it, the Government can go ahead regardless of consequences,  and those of us who believe it isat best misguided, let alone totally foolhardy, will simply have no option but to shut up and accept it - which surely is what you want.

And please don’t trot out the “we won” rubbish again - it was not a war, or even a competition, but a vote on the future of the country.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 17.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, repatriation of hugely needed funds, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country. This is called self determination without the need to crawl to a drunk called Juncker or a usurper of power called Selmayr. Only the most narrow minded, intransigent EUrophile is unable to recognise the inherent democratic deficits of the EU . 

Whilst I readily agree that the EU is far from perfect, and vehemently oppose the creeping loss of sovereignty through the apparent ulterior motive of a “united states of europe” that is being pursued by those that have the power in the EU, it also brought positives including free movement of people and goods. What is needed is fixing the negatives, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

As I have suggested before, and not countered by you, your stance of not wanting to have another referendum is clearly based on a fear that the original majority will have evaporated now that people have a much clearer idea of what Brexit really means, which was definitely not evident in the lies, deceit, miss-information and ignorance that abounded back at the time of the referendum. If that were not the case, would it not be better to have a second, confermatory referendum (along the lines of “right, now you know what Brexit really means, please confirm it is what you really want”). Then, if a majority support it, the Government can go ahead regardless of consequences,  and those of us who believe it isat best misguided, let alone totally foolhardy, will simply have no option but to shut up and accept it - which surely is what you want.

And please don’t trot out the “we won” rubbish again - it was not a war, or even a competition, but a vote on the future of the country.

IB - I have no idea what a post Brexit UK will look like and make no pretences that I do. My vote was based on  my perception of the history of the EU, its impact on the UK, its future direction and its current structure. In short, I don't and didn't like it. I did live for five years in Belgium and travelled significantly. My passport was checked every time I left and arrived at Zaventem. I never felt that it was over intrusive and the real security that real borders gave to each country within then then EEC was worth the trivial hassle. When the borders opened I was initially happy as people like me and probably you posed no threat to anyone and was happy making a positive contribution to the companies and countries I worked in. The creeping political federalism was not on the agenda at that time and I was happy in the belief that the EEC was a positive influence for its members even though, as usual, the UK overpaid membership dues.

Anyone with a firing neurone can see that the open border scenario has been open door time to undesirables and the mass migrations encouraged by the likes of Tony Blair has destabilised almost every country in the EU. The rise of populism throughout Europe as well as anti-EU sentiment emphasises the disquiet felt and alienation of the masses to their political masters. If a Referendum was granted to any country not directly feeding from the EU's trough I suspect that Juncker would have much negotiating to do to stop the rats jumping off the ship.

It is an inherent dislike and distrust of what the EU has become that drives many of us to vote to leave it.

Looks like the U.K. could be excluded from Galileo. This has been a long time coming, with a high U.K. input, both financially and technically. It is the EU equivalent of the USA GPS.

Most of us enjoy the free use of GPS, and with WAAS and EGNOS augmentation we have a very accurate positioning system. But we are dependent on USA good will for the basic systems and even more so for the precise positioning coding that is available for military use.

The U.K. needs to negotiate FULL membership of Galileo or set up and fund its own system. Neither will be cheap.

Resurrection - I think the arguments you have advanced as to why you originally voted to leave, and would do so again if there were another referendum, are mostly rational (I'll come back to the small qualification). I respect your right to hold those views. There will be many others who voted leave for similar reasons and whose views haven't changed.  But IB is arguing that there will be some who voted leave on different and possibly less-considered grounds, e.g. the money 'Leave' said the NHS would get, and would likely vote differently if they had known at the time of the referendum what they know today.   I've certainly met people who have volunteered that they wish they had voted to stay not leave.  So the democratic argument that IB makes -  asking people: 'this is the deal we've negotiated, are you still sure you want to leave?' seems to me perfectly respectable. I concede that it is difficult politically, but that's a problem for our politicians.

Coming back to my qualification, I think the statistics on immigration over the years since the Conservative party came to power rather undermine the rhetoric about 'taking control of our borders' because those statistics show that immigration from non-EU countries is in every year well above the targets set by HMG.  In other words, the Conservatives have demonstrated very clearly that it has failed miserably to control immigration where it has full control so why should anyone have any confidence in it doing any better when those same failing controls are applied to immigration from EU countries?     

Don Atkinson posted:

Looks like the U.K. could be excluded from Galileo. This has been a long time coming, with a high U.K. input, both financially and technically. It is the EU equivalent of the USA GPS.

Most of us enjoy the free use of GPS, and with WAAS and EGNOS augmentation we have a very accurate positioning system. But we are dependent on USA good will for the basic systems and even more so for the precise positioning coding that is available for military use.

The U.K. needs to negotiate FULL membership of Galileo or set up and fund its own system. Neither will be cheap.

Yes, I read about that today, Don.  But on this topic at least it was reported that ministers are very keen to stay part of Galileo so hopefully they will find a way of doing so during the detailed negotiations to come. 

Resurrection posted:

Solid ideas? Really, what more do I have to argue than the will of 56.4 million people? I do not have to rationalise sovereignty, border control, the ability to conclude our own judicial will and our own trade deals, or even who may or may not come into this country.

Putin delivers the above. But I doubt you'd want to live in Russia.

Has Theressa May hit a lucky streak.

She gives a speech expaining to the EU how much they need the UK’s cooperation to deter any threat from Russia.

Within a couple weeks Russia unleash a nerve agent attack in the UK, just as the Brexit negotiations are reaching crunch time.

What’s the chances of that happening??????