Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

andarkian posted:

Seriously Huge, have you travelled to India, Australia, China and many, many other countries where Visas are required before you are allowed anywhere near their territory? I believe we still trade with them.

We trade with them under WTO regulation or under EU negotiated treaties ... but May and Jonson and Fox are talking about negotiating free trade agreements and the message coming from India and Australia is that as part of negotiations they will be wanting freer movement for workers and students. 

andarkian posted:

Sleepwalking through 43 years of continual delegation of control of this country to Brussels has done permanent damage to the infrastructure and institutions of this country. Our unwavering acceptance and implementation of all diktats, Blair's blithe revocation of a gradual opening of our borders to Eastern Europeans have all had a permanent and not necessarily beneficial impact on our society. If we had been given the choice on the cultural appropriation and dilution through, say, a Referendum I guarantee we would have not tacitly accepted it, this I equally apply to EU and non-EU immigration. 

You appear to be ignorant that being part of the EU has brought many benefits to the UK economy.  Even immigration for the most part has BOOSTED the economy.

Delegation and derogation of responsibility for the failings of the NHS, transport, etc, etc. is the work of many governnents since the end of WWII, but the acceleration of the process has been particularly noticeable as our integration with the EU has proceeded apace.

Coincidence vs causality.  Given that there have not been the same failings in national health, transport, etc. in countries such as France and Germany; it is patently the failing of the UK governments - successive governments not just the current one yes though there was more investment in public sector under Blair and Brown than any other government since the mid-70s - not the fault of the EU.

Your personal grievance with the Tories is of no interest to me, and I doubt whether it "exasperated" any issues. If we had stuck with the idea of a European Economic Community I would probably be still for that institution. The creeping federal control is upsetting people all over the EU and it is the EU's own fault. 

So yes ... exit at any cost!

But can you answer me a simple question ... is there any point at which the government should say "No, Brexit is wrong?"

andarkian posted:

Huge posted:

Just a question...

What happens now if many other countries (as with India) require almost free access to the UK for their citizens before countenancing a trade deal?

Should we massively loose trade opportunities and seriously diminish our economy, or should we open our borders to many more migrants?

Seriously Huge, have you travelled to India, Australia, China and many, many other countries where Visas are required before you are allowed anywhere near their territory? I believe we still trade with them.

I think the point was that the UK will want/need to trade more, or on more favourable terms, with them to compensate for losses in EU trade post-Brexit, and it is negotiation for that that may bring a demand for from some of them for greater freedom of migration for their people. IIRC there was a suggestion a few months ago thatbIndia had already mooted the idea.

Eloise posted:

andarkian posted:

Seriously Huge, have you travelled to India, Australia, China and many, many other countries where Visas are required before you are allowed anywhere near their territory? I believe we still trade with them.

We trade with them under WTO regulation or under EU negotiated treaties ... but May and Jonson and Fox are talking about negotiating free trade agreements and the message coming from India and Australia is that as part of negotiations they will be wanting freer movement for workers and students. 

The one thing you will not be getting in any of the countries you mention is free movement of Labour from us to them. Tell you what, I will sign up tomorrow to a free migration policy that allows a quid pro quo. So, for example if 1,000 of UK citizens decide to go and work in Australia or Somalia, or wherever, then we will freely allow the same amount of movement from their countries. That way we will not denude struggling countries of their experienced talent for our benefit. Hopefully, it would also minimze the number of unemployed from consuming our benefits. 

andarkian posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

andarkian posted:

Huge posted:

Just a question...

What happens now if many other countries (as with India) require almost free access to the UK for their citizens before countenancing a trade deal?

Should we massively loose trade opportunities and seriously diminish our economy, or should we open our borders to many more migrants?

Seriously Huge, have you travelled to India, Australia, China and many, many other countries where Visas are required before you are allowed anywhere near their territory? I believe we still trade with them.

I think the point was that the UK will want/need to trade more, or on more favourable terms, with them to compensate for losses in EU trade post-Brexit, and it is negotiation for that that may bring a demand for from some of them for greater freedom of migration for their people. IIRC there was a suggestion a few months ago thatbIndia had already mooted the idea.

 

Oops, I stuffed up my response trying to minimise the amount of history I enclose. India mooting the idea of freedom of migration is a one sided bargain. Show me the thousands of people clamouring to get from this country to India to work and live. If you ever wanted to see bureaucracy, intransigence, protectionism and blatant discrimination then look no further than India. We are only needed as an offshore shelter for Indian billionaires and opportunistic Indian citizens. Levelling the playing field between the UK and India will not harm the U.K. in any way, but will cut opportunities for Indians. 

Andarkian, I have made a minor edit to your post to remove a comment that has caused some offence. 

Richard Dane posted:

Andarkian, I have made a minor edit to your post to remove a comment that has caused some offence. 

No problem Richard, I can take it! ��

The New Tory Brexit Party are frantically determined to further it's grip on power by the insane signing of Article 50 regardless to how hard it will be for the people of the UK. They obviously don't give a toss for The People, it's only blinkered interest is the opportunity for New Tory Brexit Party power grab.

David Davis really knows how to take the Percentage, i know he's only a typical useless Tory bastard, but he [and others] really shouldn't repeatedly lie the big fat whopper about the all New Tory Brexit Party's decision of Article 50 signing being the will of a people - It's not, it's only suggests the political will of the 17.4m electorate who actually voted Leave, while 30 million of the electorate did not vote for it. (Plus more when you dial in the 16 & 17 year olds who were undemocratically excluded from the referendum). So the Will of the People is clearly to the stay in the EU.

It would seem the Tories have deployed their opportunist chance to seize control of the narrow and fluke Leave result from the very flawed electoral referendum procedure; and like a rugby player snatching a ball to run with it down the pitch shoving all reason, logic, and sensible judgement aside in it's blinkered determination to score a try for future Tory Brexit nasty party ideology.

We urgently need another referendum vote, a big decider just to be sure, would be dead easy to do and cost us a lot less than signing away our liberty with Article 50.

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

The New Tory Brexit Party are frantically determined to further it's grip on power by the insane signing of Article 50 regardless to how hard it will be for the people of the UK. They obviously don't give a toss for The People, it's only blinkered interest is the opportunity for New Tory Brexit Party power grab.

David Davis really knows how to take the Percentage, i know he's only a typical useless Tory bastard, but he [and others] really shouldn't repeatedly lie the big fat whopper about the all New Tory Brexit Party's decision of Article 50 signing being the will of a people - It's not, it's only suggests the political will of the 17.4m electorate who actually voted Leave, while 30 million of the electorate did not vote for it. (Plus more when you dial in the 16 & 17 year olds who were undemocratically excluded from the referendum). So the Will of the People is clearly to the stay in the EU.

It would seem the Tories have deployed their opportunist chance to seize control of the narrow and fluke Leave result from the very flawed electoral referendum procedure; and like a rugby player snatching a ball to run with it down the pitch shoving all reason, logic, and sensible judgement aside in it's blinkered determination to score a try for future Tory Brexit nasty party ideology.

We urgently need another referendum vote, a big decider just to be sure, would be dead easy to do and cost us a lot less than signing away our liberty with Article 50.

Debs

 

Blimey, and I get accused of being racist. You really do hate the will of the democratic majority, as well as the 'Tory Brexit nasty party.' Time for you to have another lie down in this comfortable Padded Cell. 

Debs,

As I'm no expert on EU treaty provisions, I rely on the media for information and there seems to be some doubt as to whether the effect of Article 50 is irreversible once signed; i.e. once signed is exit from the EU an assured certainty, even if terms cannot be agreed.  If this is the case, then your comment "the insane signing of Article 50 regardless to how hard it will be for the people of the UK" has grounding in fact, but your assertion that this is to further the Tories grip on power doesn't quite fit, as the most effective way to do that would have been to call a general election shortly after Mr Corbin survived his night of the long knives.  Rather triggering A50 has become a matter of ideology.

Also, within the written terms of the referendum, your assertion "So the Will of the People is clearly to the stay in the EU" is also not so, even if in a more general (but untested) way it is likely to be so.  If A50 allows for reversal once the terms of exit are known, then I believe that a second referendum on those terms is warranted; if not then another referendum now would be just a rerun of the previous flawed process.

It's also true that holding a referendum was an abrogation of Parliaments duty to the people; the issue was too complicated to be explained using the limited 'sound bite' methods favoured by the majority of politicians and the news media of this country.  This country is a representative democracy and not a democracy; we do not have the infrastructural provisions to act as a democracy and if parliament thinks this referendum was appropriate, it should now have a free vote to determine whether it should disband itself in favour of an internet based voting system open to all citizens.  If it doesn't wish to do this it should shoulder it's responsibilities and require that the executive provide a detailed final position on exit before it permits A50 to be triggered.  That is Parliament should do it's duty to the people and require to know the terms of exit before allowing exit to occur - anything else is simply irresponsible.

Would anyone here willingly sign a contract where all the clauses of the contract say "To Be Determined".

andarkian posted:

Blimey, and I get accused of being racist. You really do hate the will of the democratic majority, as well as the 'Tory Brexit nasty party.' Time for you to have another lie down in this comfortable Padded Cell. 

You use the term "the will of the democratic majority" as though the section of the population eligible to vote in the referendum is the complete and full definition of those required to establish an absolute democratic majority.  It was only the democratic will of those who voted in the referendum, no more, no less.

Within the terms of the referendum that was sufficient to determine the outcome of the referendum; but it's not not sufficient to determine "the will of the democratic majority" in absolute terms.

........  a lie down might be a good idea.  

Debs:  Re 16 & 17 year olds "who were undemocratically excluded from the referendum,"   Just because Scotland allowed 16-17 years olds specifically for their independance referendum,  it doesn't embody it into UK law.  I'm not disagreeing its a subject that does require consideration.

Also as only 36% of 18 to 24-year-olds cast their vote in the EU referendum,  meaning 64% could not be bothered,  I'm not sure 16-17 year olds would sway the result

Huge posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, and I get accused of being racist. You really do hate the will of the democratic majority, as well as the 'Tory Brexit nasty party.' Time for you to have another lie down in this comfortable Padded Cell. 

You use the term "the will of the democratic majority" as though the section of the population eligible to vote in the referendum is the complete and full definition of those required to establish an absolute democratic majority.  It was only the democratic will of those who voted in the referendum, no more, no less.

Within the terms of the referendum that was sufficient to determine the outcome of the referendum; but it's not not sufficient to determine "the will of the democratic majority" in absolute terms.

In this very imperfect world we all make subjective decisions based on our own preferences, particularly prevalent in matters Hi Fi. In this instance, the Referendum,  the rules of engagement were predefined by the UK government and we, the eligible electorate, were asked to make as democratic a decision as is possible on this subject.

Whether a Remainer or a Brexiteer we were permitted to cast our votes for whatever happened to be our preference on the day prescribed. Now, it is irrelevant whether you believe 16 or 17 year olds should or should not have had a vote, they didn't. It also does not matter what you or I might perceive the likely decisions of the non-voters, they just didn't vote.

The decision is made the die is cast and by Wednesday, hopefully Article 50 will be enacted and as both sides i.e. the EU and the UK government  are reluctant to even consider exit terms before this happens am afraid the contractual terms will have to begin to be hammered out post A50 facto. 

andarkian posted:

Huge posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, and I get accused of being racist. You really do hate the will of the democratic majority, as well as the 'Tory Brexit nasty party.' Time for you to have another lie down in this comfortable Padded Cell. 

You use the term "the will of the democratic majority" as though the section of the population eligible to vote in the referendum is the complete and full definition of those required to establish an absolute democratic majority.  It was only the democratic will of those who voted in the referendum, no more, no less.

Within the terms of the referendum that was sufficient to determine the outcome of the referendum; but it's not not sufficient to determine "the will of the democratic majority" in absolute terms.

In this very imperfect world we all make subjective decisions based on our own preferences, particularly prevalent in matters Hi Fi. In this instance, the Referendum,  the rules of engagement were predefined by the UK government and we, the eligible electorate, were asked to make as democratic a decision as is possible on this subject.

Whether a Remainer or a Brexiteer we were permitted to cast our votes for whatever happened to be our preference on the day prescribed. Now, it is irrelevant whether you believe 16 or 17 year olds should or should not have had a vote, they didn't. It also does not matter what you or I might perceive the likely decisions of the non-voters, they just didn't vote.

The decision is made the die is cast and by Wednesday, hopefully Article 50 will be enacted and as both sides i.e. the EU and the UK government  are reluctant to even consider exit terms before this happens am afraid the contractual terms will have to begin to be hammered out post A50 facto. 

Then it's the absolute duty of parliament to approve or reject those terms once they become known; and it would be completely inappropriate for the executive to attempt to undermine Parliament's sovereign authority (as pointed out by and a stated primary objective of the brexiteers!).

andarkian posted:

Huge posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, and I get accused of being racist. You really do hate the will of the democratic majority, as well as the 'Tory Brexit nasty party.' Time for you to have another lie down in this comfortable Padded Cell. 

You use the term "the will of the democratic majority" as though the section of the population eligible to vote in the referendum is the complete and full definition of those required to establish an absolute democratic majority.  It was only the democratic will of those who voted in the referendum, no more, no less.

Within the terms of the referendum that was sufficient to determine the outcome of the referendum; but it's not not sufficient to determine "the will of the democratic majority" in absolute terms.

In this very imperfect world we all make subjective decisions based on our own preferences, particularly prevalent in matters Hi Fi. In this instance, the Referendum,  the rules of engagement were predefined by the UK government and we, the eligible electorate, were asked to make as democratic a decision as is possible on this subject.

Whether a Remainer or a Brexiteer we were permitted to cast our votes for whatever happened to be our preference on the day prescribed. Now, it is irrelevant whether you believe 16 or 17 year olds should or should not have had a vote, they didn't. It also does not matter what you or I might perceive the likely decisions of the non-voters, they just didn't vote.

The decision is made the die is cast and by Wednesday, hopefully Article 50 will be enacted and as both sides i.e. the EU and the UK government  are reluctant to even consider exit terms before this happens am afraid the contractual terms will have to begin to be hammered out post A50 facto. 

On this occasion I would agree with that analysis, Andarkian. I'm not sure HMG will get its way to table Art50 as early as Weds but the essential point is that it will be tabling Art50 soon.  I can't see it being thwarted in that aim.  We're then in a different game - the real negotiations. I'm not sure HMG's strategy of keeping this very tight because it relies on the EU commission and representatives of all the 27 other member states to play along. I suspect in practice these will be lots of leaks and press briefings as to what's going on in the negotiations.  That will keep the media very interested, some playing up the 'outrageous demands' of the EU, and some of the EU media and commentators playing up the 'unreasonable, unrealistic demands' of the UK. There will be much smoke and posturing and it will probably hard for any of us to really judge what's going on.  Still, it will likely keep this thread alive for a good time yet.      

Huge posted:

 

 

Then it's the absolute duty of parliament to approve or reject those terms once they become known; and it would be completely inappropriate for the executive to attempt to undermine Parliament's sovereign authority (as pointed out by and a stated primary objective of the brexiteers!).

I was advised by my MP about 10 days ago, that once A.50 is triggered, there is no provision for reversing the decision to Leave. It is irreversible. I was appalled and dismayed. Especially when further advised that this interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty was arrived at by the UK's own legal advisors.

This makes the PM's promise that Parliament will be asked to vote at the end of the Brexit negotiations somewhat limiting. I had anticipated, as I believe you do, that any meaningful vote should consider the possibility of Remaining within the EU if terms and circumstances clearly indicated this would be in the best interest of the UK as a whole.

The HoL has proposed an amendment that would give Parliament the obligation to approve or reject the negotiated terms of Leaving with the right to decide to Remain as an option. This appears to contradict my first paragraph above, so perhaps the situation is not as clear-cut as Brexiteers would like.

Perhaps the situation will become clear when Parliament debates the HoL's proposed amendment tomorrow ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Huge posted:

 

 

 

I was advised by my MP about 10 days ago, that once A.50 is triggered, there is no provision for reversing the decision to Leave. It is irreversible. I was appalled and dismayed. Especially when further advised that this interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty was arrived at by the UK's own legal advisors.

 

I think that might be a convenient interpretation for the Brexiteers, Don. It might be technically accurate to say that the Treaty does not provide for the withdrawal of an Art 50 submission, therefore the decision is irreversible, but I suspect the Treaty it is simply silent on the matter.

I strongly suspect that if, during negotiations, the UK signalled informally that it wanted to withdraw its Art50 submission, the EU Commission and other member states would fall over themselves to find a legal device to allow that to happen.  

Unfortunately, I can't see that situation ever arising. 

MDS posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Huge posted:

 

 

 

I was advised by my MP about 10 days ago, that once A.50 is triggered, there is no provision for reversing the decision to Leave. It is irreversible. I was appalled and dismayed. Especially when further advised that this interpretation of the Lisbon Treaty was arrived at by the UK's own legal advisors.

 

I think that might be a convenient interpretation for the Brexiteers, Don. It might be technically accurate to say that the Treaty does not provide for the withdrawal of an Art 50 submission, therefore the decision is irreversible, but I suspect the Treaty it is simply silent on the matter.

I strongly suspect that if, during negotiations, the UK signalled informally that it wanted to withdraw its Art50 submission, the EU Commission and other member states would fall over themselves to find a legal device to allow that to happen.  

Unfortunately, I can't see that situation ever arising. 

I have highlighted those parts that match my own interpretation of A.50 and I think we are aligned in hoping (believing) it is reversible. It would also appear that the HoL must be thinking along similar lines, given their proposed amendment to the A.50 Bill that will be debated tomorrow.

I actually agree with most of what you say above (not so sure that Junckers would fall over himself !) and uUnfortunately, I think your final sentence above is a realistic prediction.

Don Atkinson posted:

MDS posted: 

I think that might be a convenient interpretation for the Brexiteers, Don. It might be technically accurate to say that the Treaty does not provide for the withdrawal of an Art 50 submission, therefore the decision is irreversible, but I suspect the Treaty it is simply silent on the matter.

I strongly suspect that if, during negotiations, the UK signalled informally that it wanted to withdraw its Art50 submission, the EU Commission and other member states would fall over themselves to find a legal device to allow that to happen.  

Unfortunately, I can't see that situation ever arising. 

I have highlighted those parts that match my own interpretation of A.50 and I think we are aligned in hoping (believing) it is reversible. It would also appear that the HoL must be thinking along similar lines, given their proposed amendment to the A.50 Bill that will be debated tomorrow.

I actually agree with most of what you say above (not so sure that Junckers would fall over himself !) and uUnfortunately, I think your final sentence above is a realistic prediction.

There is a difference in opinion depending who you ask (and I suspect depending on their motivation / wishful thinking). 

Lord Kerr, the person who wrote Article 50, has stated that he feels that the process is reversible.

Huge posted:

andarkian posted:

Blimey, and I get accused of being racist. You really do hate the will of the democratic majority, as well as the 'Tory Brexit nasty party.' Time for you to have another lie down in this comfortable Padded Cell. 

You use the term "the will of the democratic majority" as though the section of the population eligible to vote in the referendum is the complete and full definition of those required to establish an absolute democratic majority.  It was only the democratic will of those who voted in the referendum, no more, no less.

Within the terms of the referendum that was sufficient to determine the outcome of the referendum; but it's not not sufficient to determine "the will of the democratic majority" in absolute terms.

In this very imperfect world we all make subjective decisions based on our own preferences, particularly prevalent in matters Hi Fi. In this instance, the Referendum,  the rules of engagement were predefined by the UK government and we, the eligible electorate, were asked to make as democratic a decision as is possible on this subject.

Whether a Remainer or a Brexiteer we were permitted to cast our votes for whatever happened to be our preference on the day prescribed. Now, it is irrelevant whether you believe 16 or 17 year olds should or should not have had a vote, they didn't. It also does not matter what you or I might perceive the likely decisions of the non-voters, they just didn't vote.

The decision is made the die is cast and by Wednesday, hopefully Article 50 will be enacted and as both sides i.e. the EU and the UK government  are reluctant to even consider exit terms before this happens am afraid the contractual terms will have to begin to be hammered out post A50 facto. 

Over and Out! Now for the wee sleekit fishy beastie up North! Time she got her come uppance. 

andarkian posted:

Over and Out! Now for the wee sleekit fishy beastie up North! Time she got her come uppance. 

How can you manage such a sensible measured response... followed by such racist idiocy?

Eloise posted:

andarkian posted:

Over and Out! Now for the wee sleekit fishy beastie up North! Time she got her come uppance. 

How can you manage such a sensible measured response... followed by such racist idiocy?

What are you talking about you numpty?  Am born and bred Scottish, just happen to be occupying England at the moment.

Now that the referendum result has been followed by support from both houses can we assume that the focus will now change from resisting to supporting brexit and pushing for the best possible deal for the country?  Have we come to the end of this epic thread now that the answer is known?

I doubt it.