Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Oh dear Resurrection, another implied ad hominem attack?  Can't you do any better than that?

Even by your own standards that reply was weak, it showed all the amassed fortitude of a limp lettuce!

Perhaps because in reality you recognise that it's true?

My Dearest Huge,

I always appreciate your stinging retorts as they resurrect me from my summer slumbers.... momentarily. What’s ad hominem about giving Duncan some good tips on how to pique the interest of non political anoraks like myself? 

 

No worries, Huge & RR - I love the smell of an ad-hominem attack in the mornings (or afternoons, come to that). It's invariably the sign that by playing the man, not the ball, the attacker has either i) run out of credible argument or reasoning, or ii) is too intellectually lazy...

It's going to be interesting the next few days - already the Daily Telegraph are describing Brexit as "Broken" and seeking scapegoats to blame. Worth seeing their 30 minute documentary at:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/po...britain-mess-should/

It will require registration with the DT to view, but it's not behind a paywall. You can form your own judgements, but for me the overriding message is that the Tory party and Civil Service were totally unprepared for a Brexit victory in the referendum, and thanks to the inability of the prime Brexiteers to stop fighting for themselves for the party leadership, they inadvertently elected a Remainer to guide the country through the Brexit process - a Remainer who has sabotaged the process. The powerful message is that Brexit was "holed below the waterline" at that point. Quite a statement from the DT.

Should make for an interesting backdrop to the meeting at Chequers tomorrow... oh, to be a fly on the wall!

Duncan Mann posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

Resurrection posted:

Huge posted:

 

 

 

It will require registration with the DT to view, but it's not behind a paywall. You can form your own judgements, but for me the overriding message is that the Tory party and Civil Service were totally unprepared for a Brexit victory in the referendum, and thanks to the inability of the prime Brexiteers to stop fighting for themselves for the party leadership, they inadvertently elected a Remainer to guide the country through the Brexit process - a Remainer who has sabotaged the process. The powerful message is that Brexit was "holed below the waterline" at that point. Quite a statement from the DT.

Should make for an interesting backdrop to the meeting at Chequers tomorrow... oh, to be a fly on the wall!

...and that was at least partly because Cameron's government instructed the Civil Service that it was not to prepare for a Brexit victory.  Cameron has a lot to answer for for the mess that the UK is in today in relation to Brexit.  That said, he cannot be blamed for the failure of TM's government to progress preparations and negotiations.  

Huge posted:

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

Huge - it doesn't alter the number of people who voted leave and that they outnumbered those who voted remain. The mis-deeds of the Vote Leave campaign besmirches to some degree the conduct of those involved but I can't see how it amounts to a credible argument that enough Leave voters would have voted differently if the Vote Leave campaign has spent circa £800k less than it did.  I'm struggling to see how this Electoral Commission decision shifts decisively the justification to have a second or confirmatory referendum, which both main parties have rejected.  

As I said in my earlier post, I'd like it to different, but let's not delude ourselves or cling to false hopes.

MDS posted:

Huge - it doesn't alter the number of people who voted leave and that they outnumbered those who voted remain. The mis-deeds of the Vote Leave campaign besmirches to some degree the conduct of those involved but I can't see how it amounts to a credible argument that enough Leave voters would have voted differently if the Vote Leave campaign has spent circa £800k less than it did.  I'm struggling to see how this Electoral Commission decision shifts decisively the justification to have a second or confirmatory referendum, which both main parties have rejected.  

As I said in my earlier post, I'd like it to different, but let's not delude ourselves or cling to false hopes.

The simple truth is that no-one can state with any accuracy how the result might have been different if the Vote Leave campaign hadn't played dirty with Russian money - but the point I was trying to make earlier (somewhat laboriously, so you might have missed it) is that the result is so tainted that (irrespective of any legal proceedings and/or calls for a further Referendum) it unshackles MPs from an obligation to deliver a hard Brexit off the back of the "people's vote" much vaunted by the Brexiteers. Given that we know there is a preponderance of Remainer MPs in the HOC, the best we can hope for now is that they develop some cajones and vote for a damage limitation soft Brexit (aka Norway option); I don't think that there is any possible that Art 50 is going to be rescinded. This isn't the worst possible outcome, though tremendous damage has been done, and I believe we should focus in the next decades on getting our political house in order, by means of a proper constitution and democratic controls, before we even think about closer ties with the EU again...

I pretty much agree, Duncan. The best we can hope for in the current political climate is a soft Brexit. None of our political leaders have the balls to stand up and say 'Brexit is a bloody stupid idea which will damage the UK economy for decades and, while an advisory referendum showed that a smallish minority of people voted for it, what has become very clear since is that consequences of exit are even more dire and wide-ranging than was thought in June 2016 so they are not going to stand by and watch the UK go over the cliff'. Ex-Prime Ministers Blair and Major have pretty much said that. Cameron knew it and ran away. May nor Corbyn have the courage or leadership to do what they probably know is in the UK's best interests.       

Huge posted:

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

Yes, I have to admit that in the weird Huge world the people of this country are not just an inconvenience but  are simply an irrelevance. Semantics from a liberal left point of view trumps any or all reality. At some point you will have to come out of your self selected sterile sanctuary and face the cold reality of human existence in his country. Populism is currently submerged beneath the false reality of Labour and Conservative controlled politics but that will not last for much longer as both parties will probably tear themselves apart and a new and not necessarily better reality will follow.  

Huge posted:

All it means is that the government no longer has a direct mandate to take us out of the EU (other than a marginal electoral victory fought in circumstances that no longer apply).  No one can now truthfully claim that exiting the EU is the will of the British people, as, due to the electoral fraud, the true will of the British people is still unknown.

In effect the situation is as though the referendum had never occurred.

Parliament still has the right to take us out of the EU, no matter what the opinion of the British people may be.

All this changes is to greatly strengthen the case for a second referendum on whether to accept the terms of the EU negotiation, hard exit under WTO rules, or cancel the article 50 activation, since the first result is no longer morally or legally valid.

But only from your own perspective, which is one that I will never subscribe to, as you well known, and inflicting such a choice on the British people would only result in your own utter humiliation. Your logic may be interesting but your conclusions are hopeless.

Duncan Mann posted:

MDS posted:

Huge - it doesn't alter the number of people who voted leave and that they outnumbered those who voted remain. The mis-deeds of the Vote Leave campaign besmirches to some degree the conduct of those involved but I can't see how it amounts to a credible argument that enough Leave voters would have voted differently if the Vote Leave campaign has spent circa £800k less than it did.  I'm struggling to see how this Electoral Commission decision shifts decisively the justification to have a second or confirmatory referendum, which both main parties have rejected.  

As I said in my earlier post, I'd like it to different, but let's not delude ourselves or cling to false hopes.

The simple truth is that no-one can state with any accuracy how the result might have been different if the Vote Leave campaign hadn't played dirty with Russian money - but the point I was trying to make earlier (somewhat laboriously, so you might have missed it) is that the result is so tainted that (irrespective of any legal proceedings and/or calls for a further Referendum) it unshackles MPs from an obligation to deliver a hard Brexit off the back of the "people's vote" much vaunted by the Brexiteers. Given that we know there is a preponderance of Remainer MPs in the HOC, the best we can hope for now is that they develop some cajones and vote for a damage limitation soft Brexit (aka Norway option); I don't think that there is any possible that Art 50 is going to be rescinded. This isn't the worst possible outcome, though tremendous damage has been done, and I believe we should focus in the next decades on getting our political house in order, by means of a proper constitution and democratic controls, before we even think about closer ties with the EU again...

 Very few people in this country voted on fine principles. They voted on gut feel, resentment and self interest and  that won't change with your extenuated argumentation. Your EU is a busted flush that needs to retreat very quickly to becoming an EEC.

Well news reports this evening are saying that the PM has succeeded in getting the Cabinet to agree on a desired EU deal.  Given the divisions, I'd say well done to her for achieving that. The description of what has been agreed is a bit high level but it looks like alignment with EU on goods but wriggle-room on services and movement of people. I couldn't see anything on capital.  I'll be interested to see the EU's reaction to what the Cabinet has agreed because the consistent and sustained position of the EU commission and EU political leaders has that the 'four freedoms' are indivisible and can't be cherry-picked.   Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.

A (small) step forward.

I wasn't convinced by JR-M's half-hearted endorsement of the proposals and I rather suspect the other 59 of the 60 Eurosceptic MPs will carefully consider their voting rights when MPs get their "meaningful" opportunity later this year.

Of course, getting the agreement of Barnier and the EU Commission will be a doddle (ha-ha !) as will the endorsement of the MEPs and even one or two little Belgian Hamlets (Canada ?) will be only too willing to agree to almost anything, now that the Cabinet is speaking with one voice...............

..................there's a lot of water to pass under the bridge yet !

MDS posted:

Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Eloise posted:

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Don’t fall into the hard brexiteers’ trap of believing that all leavers voted for such a hard Brexit.

Certainly some did, but the intentions of voters cannot be known when they are given a stark binary choice.

Right up until the day, even hard leave campaigners were explicitly saying that’d we’d remian in the single market, whatever happened.

When it comes to JRM and his ilk, please don’t play their game for them. 

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Across a whole swathe of legislation, wherever the UK does not already have legislation mirroring the EU (e.g where it just references EU legislation, it is presently very active, with large chunks of the civil service doing nothing else, preparing new British laws  ... mirroring all those EU ones. And the primary reason? The EU won’t trade with countries that don’t have at least equivalent laws in place, across anything to do with trade, consumer protection, food safety, farming etc etc. So even out of the EU, the UK has to follow EU law, or adandon desire to trade in many fields.

Dave***t posted:

Eloise posted:

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Don’t fall into the hard brexiteers’ trap of believing that all leavers voted for such a hard Brexit.

Certainly some did, but the intentions of voters cannot be known when they are given a stark binary choice.

Right up until the day, even hard leave campaigners were explicitly saying that’d we’d remian in the single market, whatever happened.

When it comes to JRM and his ilk, please don’t play their game for them. 

Yes, when I voted for the Conservatives last year it certainly wasn’t for the Conservatives that are currently overstaying their welcome in Westminster. I really think we should have a rewind on 2017 with a thorough investigation into May’s leadership, decision making processes and her congenital need to appease everyone but the British people. If necessary, and the prevalent polls look positive, with a completely new leader and the removal of all Remainers, we should rerun the General Election. How’s about that then, as someone who is thankfully not around any more used to say. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Across a whole swathe of legislation, wherever the UK does not already have legislation mirroring the EU (e.g where it just references EU legislation, it is presently very active, with large chunks of the civil service doing nothing else, preparing new British laws  ... mirroring all those EU ones. And the primary reason? The EU won’t trade with countries that don’t have at least equivalent laws in place, across anything to do with trade, consumer protection, food safety, farming etc etc. So even out of the EU, the UK has to follow EU law, or adandon desire to trade in many fields.

So, by your ‘reasoning ‘ the EU won’t trade with China, US, Canada, India, Australia etc?

Dave***t posted:

Eloise posted:

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Don’t fall into the hard brexiteers’ trap of believing that all leavers voted for such a hard Brexit.

Certainly some did, but the intentions of voters cannot be known when they are given a stark binary choice.

Right up until the day, even hard leave campaigners were explicitly saying that’d we’d remian in the single market, whatever happened.

When it comes to JRM and his ilk, please don’t play their game for them. 

Well, the Remain campaign stressed that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. Anybody who voted would have been bombarded with Remain material including the Government leaflet.

However, some passionate Brexiteers do advocate adopting the Norway or Switzerland model.

PeterJ posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Across a whole swathe of legislation, wherever the UK does not already have legislation mirroring the EU (e.g where it just references EU legislation, it is presently very active, with large chunks of the civil service doing nothing else, preparing new British laws  ... mirroring all those EU ones. And the primary reason? The EU won’t trade with countries that don’t have at least equivalent laws in place, across anything to do with trade, consumer protection, food safety, farming etc etc. So even out of the EU, the UK has to follow EU law, or adandon desire to trade in many fields.

So, by your ‘reasoning ‘ the EU won’t trade with China, US, Canada, India, Australia etc?

How do you conclude that from my statement?  (Which, by the way,  was a statement of fact as to what is happening, not reasoning of mine - again you seem to seek to distort what I have said.)

Of course UK will want to trade with other counrtries - but it also wants to trade with Eu, so has to comply with EU rules regardless. My point was that because of that UK will still have to emulate much of EU law (and knowing that is in the process of ensuring continuity after Brexit). So for those who thought Brexit meant freedom from EU legislative requirements, they were under a misapprehension - and worse, UK will be without any ability to seek to influence developing EU law, which it often has successfully modified or moderated in the past.

Eloise posted

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Maybe we can all agree that we have been completely failed by those whom we have entrusted to govern us: both remainer and leaver politicians; the civil service etc.

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Maybe we can all agree that we have been completely failed by those whom we have entrusted to govern us: both remainer and leaver politicians; the civil service etc.

Absolutely agree, but are you lot not watching the football? I’m Scottish  by the way and Deli Ali has just made it 2-0 to England! ????

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Maybe we can all agree that we have been completely failed by those whom we have entrusted to govern us: both remainer and leaver politicians; the civil service etc.

Agree with the former, emphatically not the latter - there is a very real danger of the very politicians responsible for the Brexit Fur cup seeking to scapegoat the civil service - indeed the Daily Telegraph Brexit documentary I flagged up in an earlier post attempts to do just this, deflecting the responsibility away from those responsible - the Tory Party, who called the ill conceived Referendum.

As other commentators have noted recently, the Civil Service were specifically told by Cameron they could not prepare for a Brexit vote; since then, they have not received a brief from politicians to prepare for a hard Brexit, apparently as Phil Hammond would not justify expenditure on such preparations. Of course, it is easy to see with hindsight, that this could only result in hard Brexit being an extremely high risk (and therefor unacceptable) strategy, but clearly a ploy on Hammond's part to frustrate a hard Brexit - and emphatically not an aspersion on the civil servants...

Don't worry everyone, Teresa May has stated yesterday at Chequers; that they have come to an agreement that is in the UK interest, and will be acceptable to the EU.

So the only possible conclusion from that is we reject bonkers Brexit completely and remain a member state of the EU  

naim_nymph posted:

Don't worry everyone, Teresa May has stated yesterday at Chequers; that they have come to an agreement that is in the UK interest, and will be acceptable to the EU.

So the only possible conclusion from that is we reject bonkers Brexit completely and remain a member state of the EU  

 

Yes, but quite the opposite conclusion.

Resurrection posted:

Just have been - Brilliant!!!

Can we make Gareth Southgate PM?

Eloise posted:

MDS posted:

Still a step forward seems to have been achieved, within the Cabinet at least.

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

How indeed, Eloise! The EFTA/Norway/Canada options are a crap arrangement for the UK, compared to what we had as a full member of the EU. I suspect most Brexiteers bought the three Brexiters cakeism assurances, lock stock and barrel, and are only beginning to realise now that we'd have been much better off staying in the EU, and using our energies to fix its undoubted inadequacies. Trouble is, they voted Leave, so a tad difficult for them to to accept this mentally, and certainly to verbalise it. Don't expect any apologies from a Brexiter!

Duncan Mann posted:

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted

Well they’ve achieved agreement on something the EU will almost certainly reject...

I’m not sure though if I don’t agree with JR-M... it appears the proposal has U.K. accepting large portions of EU regulation, without any say over what that regulation will be.  How can this be a step forward or what many Leavers voted for?

Maybe we can all agree that we have been completely failed by those whom we have entrusted to govern us: both remainer and leaver politicians; the civil service etc.

Agree with the former, emphatically not the latter - there is a very real danger of the very politicians responsible for the Brexit Fur cup seeking to scapegoat the civil service - indeed the Daily Telegraph Brexit documentary I flagged up in an earlier post attempts to do just this, deflecting the responsibility away from those responsible - the Tory Party, who called the ill conceived Referendum.

As other commentators have noted recently, the Civil Service were specifically told by Cameron they could not prepare for a Brexit vote; since then, they have not received a brief from politicians to prepare for a hard Brexit, apparently as Phil Hammond would not justify expenditure on such preparations. Of course, it is easy to see with hindsight, that this could only result in hard Brexit being an extremely high risk (and therefor unacceptable) strategy, but clearly a ploy on Hammond's part to frustrate a hard Brexit - and emphatically not an aspersion on the civil servants...

 

Mostly agree with you but hindsight would not have been needed by anybody with at least half a brain. However, the Foreign Office have always seemed to act against national interests. Ollie Robbins has damaged our negotiating position by undermining DD etc. Also, the Civil Service has always fought for status quo being change averse. All of these things could have been overcome by firm political leadership.