Brexit discussion thread II

solodeogloria · 06-10-2017 11:49AM

swampgas wrote: »

The EU don't want to compromise on the fundamental structure of the EU. That's their position, they simply don't think it's reasonable to risk the EU system for the sake of a break-away country that is doing so for internal party political reasons rather than anything else. What's rather perplexing is that Brexiters think that they can dictate what's reasonable to the other 27 EU countries, especially after spending many years denigrating the EU and blaming it for much of the UK's woes.

The UK used to have a name for realpolitik. That seems to have disappeared, the current UK government seems driven almost purely by ideology. It's as if a cult has taken over the running of the state.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else on boards thinks is reasonable - what matters is what the EU-27 consider to be reasonable. And it doesn't look like the UK is being in any way successful in their efforts to win the EU-27 over to their way of thinking. If anything their amateurish, inept and arrogant approach has had the opposite effect, they are alienating the very people they need to negotiate with.

Good morning!

Your point about the fundamental structure of the EU would apply if Britain was going to stay (like Cameron's 2016 negotiation).

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas · 06-10-2017 11:51AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

While ideology plays a part, it is the overweening ambition of May, Davis, Johnson and other Tories that is driving Brexit. They have placed personal advancement and party above country. Traitors.

Interesting point. IMO the ideology of Brexit was just a convenient bandwagon for Johnson, however I think May and Gove genuinely want out. The EU constrains their ability to ride roughshod over the rights of their fellow citizens, and their instinct seems to be to strive for absolute authoritarian rule. With them and Tory Party friends in the driving seat of course.

Fratton Fred · 06-10-2017 11:54AM

Samaris wrote: »

I suspect that the other countries are also not-so-gently putting the boot in to indicate that they aren't going to be treated as just agreeing to whatever the UK and EU come up with if it affects them too. They are demanding a say in the whole matter as they're not going to be left holding the baby if the UK then finds it can't afford to import their specific quotas. As they point out, at current if one country's market takes less [lamb, say], the quota can just be reshuffled to another European country. If the UK market takes less, then it presumably rots.

Import Quotas are maximum limits, not minimum ones. If you agree a quota, there is no obligation to buy that amount, just that you will not apply tariffs until that level has been imported.

To me, this looks more like the other countries are putting the boot as much in to the eu as they are the UK, in fact, maybe even less so, as the eu is notoriously restrictive when it comes to food import quotas.

If the eu keep the same quotas, then this means they are obliged to allow the same amount of cheap imports in, but covering a much smaller market, which puts eu food producers at risk. Hence why the article says that the eu could face a show down with either the eu, or its own farmers.

swampgas · 06-10-2017 11:55AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Your point about the fundamental structure of the EU would apply if Britain was going to stay (like Cameron's 2016 negotiation).

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

I'd be more inclined to agree if the UK didn't seem to be wanting to hang onto many of the benefits of full EU membership. They're not looking for an FTA, they're looking for EU-lite.

They won't even accept the fact that a hard border is a likely consequence of pulling NI out of the SM and CU. It's hard to negotiate with people who simply won't face reality.

LeinsterDub · 06-10-2017 12:29PM

ambro25 wrote: »

These news links, and those of yesterday-......

Solo between this post and mine there have been 15 likes(at the time of writing) in about 3 hours . People are clearly interested so I'm going to push you again to answer the question why are you optimistic?

jm08 · 06-10-2017 12:32PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Part of the UK leaving the EU means that the UK will deal with its own quotas. That's a good arrangement. I think the UK should extend a generous hand to the concerns of other countries when this gets raised in Geneva to show that genuinely speaking it is seeking to be an outward looking trading nation.

The UK imports about 85,000 tonnes of sheep and goat meat from New Zealand which is 40% of the EU's quota, and over 50% of the entire EU's imports for these products from a report from the NFU (on page 14). There is obviously some way of measuring consumption.

So New Zealand are entirely right to say that divvying out a portion isn't keeping things the same. The quotas need to be done with consideration of current trade.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

40% (2014) of UK produced lamb goes to the EU (mainly France). This is seen as an opportunity for Irish farmers to claim that French market.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/leaving-eu-would-be-major-threat-to-sheep-industry

As far as I know, NZ got such a large EU quota because of its association with UK as a former colony. The issue for NZ now is that they know the UK will not be importing lamb as UK will have lost their EU premium (fresh) lamb market and will be looking for countries to export to rather than import.

swampgas · 06-10-2017 12:37PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

To me, this looks more like the other countries are putting the boot as much in to the eu as they are the UK, in fact, maybe even less so, as the eu is notoriously restrictive when it comes to food import quotas.

Honestly, did anyone expect it to be any different? International politics and trade is cut-throat. The UK has put itself into a terribly weak position, and is going to be hammered for it.

Smaller countries understand this implicitly. Is the UK only now starting to realise that being a member of the EU isn't so bad after all?

blanch152 · 06-10-2017 12:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Your point about the fundamental structure of the EU would apply if Britain was going to stay (like Cameron's 2016 negotiation).

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

His point is absolutely relevant. For the EU, preserving the structure when one country leaves is an absolute redline, otherwise other countries will want to leave.

So we have some redlines held by 27 countries, and different redlines held by one country. Can anyone guess where the balance of negotiating power lies?

Gerry T · 06-10-2017 01:03PM

Good point, the deal other countries have done is with the EU, so if the EU drops it's quota then those countried will want to drop theirs. That's prob the outcome, but the EU will export less with the UK gone, so in the end it will be a zero sum change. But there will be extensive negioations the EU will have to do to agree the new low tarrif quotas with 3rd countries.
The big challenge for the UK is their bargaining power is so far less as the amount they import is far less unless they decide to greatly increase the % of low tarrif imports they take to "buy" low tarrifs for their exports. All the UK need is to employ a load of experienced trade negioators to get that done quickly.

breatheme · 06-10-2017 01:13PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The UK have put forward a reasonable position in respect to all 3 issues. The UK reasonably doesn't want to put itself under EU jurisdiction after Brexit, and the UK reasonably wants to tie payments to transition.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK have put forward a somewhat reasonable proposal on one issue: EU citizens' rights. (Whether you agree or disagree with the proposal, that's another issue. But it is a concrete proposal with points that can be debated and that I personally think is ok. Not stellar, but ok.)
They have not proposed anything reasonable on the Irish border at all. It's one thing to say "we'd like to keep an open border" but they haven't answered the question: "how?"
Nor have they proposed anything (reasonable or unreasonable) regarding the exit bill. There hasn't even been a position paper on the issue. The EU have said that they expect the settlement to include the UK's participation in the EU budget, the termination of the UK's participation in EU institutions and in other activities/funds/facilities/projects/etc. Let's add them up and call this number x. The UK have not said "we are willing to pay x" but they also haven't said "we think x is too high" they haven't even disagreed and said "we won't pay x, but we're willing to pay..." they have said nothing, nothing on the issue. I'd even invite May's government to disagree and retaliate, because hey, at least it gets the ball running, but they have been consistently silent on the matter.

Nody · 06-10-2017 01:54PM

breatheme wrote: »

They have not proposed anything reasonable on the Irish border at all. It's one thing to say "we'd like to keep an open border" but they haven't answered the question: "how?"
Nor have they proposed anything (reasonable or unreasonable) regarding the exit bill. There hasn't even been a position paper on the issue. The EU have said that they expect the settlement to include the UK's participation in the EU budget, the termination of the UK's participation in EU institutions and in other activities/funds/facilities/projects/etc. Let's add them up and call this number x. The UK have not said "we are willing to pay x" but they also haven't said "we think x is too high" they haven't even disagreed and said "we won't pay x, but we're willing to pay..." they have said nothing, nothing on the issue. I'd even invite May's government to disagree and retaliate, because hey, at least it gets the ball running, but they have been consistently silent on the matter.

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and they have spent time telling EU what they think they should not pay based on EU's position. They have not however presented an alternative to EU's position paper on what should be included to my knowledge but the above has been acknowledged.

Gerry T · 06-10-2017 02:15PM

Nody wrote:

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and

Reading the article it was a presentation picking holes in the EU paper without presenting their own position. It also doesn't mean the presentation details are factual, this is the UK we're talking about, so that presentation I'm guessing is more fiction than fact. So it would seem the UK didn't (that link is from A month back) and still doesn't have a position paper.

breatheme · 06-10-2017 03:13PM

Nody wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

They have not proposed anything reasonable on the Irish border at all. It's one thing to say "we'd like to keep an open border" but they haven't answered the question: "how?"
Nor have they proposed anything (reasonable or unreasonable) regarding the exit bill. There hasn't even been a position paper on the issue. The EU have said that they expect the settlement to include the UK's participation in the EU budget, the termination of the UK's participation in EU institutions and in other activities/funds/facilities/projects/etc. Let's add them up and call this number x. The UK have not said "we are willing to pay x" but they also haven't said "we think x is too high" they haven't even disagreed and said "we won't pay x, but we're willing to pay..." they have said nothing, nothing on the issue. I'd even invite May's government to disagree and retaliate, because hey, at least it gets the ball running, but they have been consistently silent on the matter.

Sorry to say this but you're actually wrong on that one; UK has presented a position but it's not public and they have spent time telling EU what they think they should not pay based on EU's position. They have not however presented an alternative to EU's position paper on what should be included to my knowledge but the above has been acknowledged.

Your own link backs me up: "Brexit negotiations at an impasse over the issue of the divorce bill, with the UK refusing to name a figure."
So, uh, thanks for the support, I guess?

Nate--IRL-- · 06-10-2017 03:18PM

breatheme wrote: »

Your own link backs me up: "Brexit negotiations at an impasse over the issue of the divorce bill, with the UK refusing to name a figure."
So, uh, thanks for the support, I guess?

And further down...

"Negotiations were not over specific figures, but on the way that the final sum will be calculated."

Nate

breatheme · 06-10-2017 03:31PM

But again, what is the UK's position? "The EU is wrong" is a bit of a start I guess, but... how do they propose to calculate the final sum? To be fair, the article does state the UK said they cannot give a figure "till October at the earliest" so it should be coming soon... so I'll wait to see what they have to say about that. The main point though, is that they haven't settled down the three main issues.

Enzokk · 06-10-2017 03:33PM

breatheme wrote: »

Your own link backs me up: "Brexit negotiations at an impasse over the issue of the divorce bill, with the UK refusing to name a figure."
So, uh, thanks for the support, I guess?

My guess is that you are wrong to say that they have said nothing. All they have said is that the EU's proposal is wrong and gone through it line by line on why they think it is wrong. You are correct that other than that they haven't done much in regards to the Brexit bill. They haven't proposed their own method of calculating the bill which is what they agreed to do.

Its amazing how the Conservatives are paying now for the past 7 years and they probably wished they didn't need to be in power to deal with the problems on the horizon. George Osborne was quick to blame Labour for the economy and proposed and set up the OBR and its forecasts would play a role in his budgets. Now that they have overestimated the past 7 years of growth it is the current Chancellor that has to deal with the fall out.

Britain is facing a budget 'bloodbath' due to slow growth

This story was linked by Ambro earlier today as well.

According to the FT, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will next Tuesday release new analysis showing that it has drastically overestimated productivity in recent years, which in turn will lead it to offer more pessimistic than expected forecasts of growth at November's budget.

This will wipe out Hammond's ability to set aside money to smooth Britain's exit from the EU. Hammond last year pledged to build up a £27 billion war chest to help boost growth during Brexit. But if growth is slower, there will be less money collected in tax receipts and therefore less to set aside.

Funny that this is exactly what the Tories blamed Labour for 7 years ago,

Mr Osborne said the newly formed independent Office for Budget Responsibility would publish economic and fiscal forecasts, rather than the government - the first of which would come out before the Budget.

He predicted it would create a "rod for my back down the line and for future chancellors" but said the current system did not produce "good Budgets", and Labour's economic forecasts had mostly been wrong and "almost always in the wrong direction".

Osborne to give details of £6bn spending cuts next week

So this will probably mean no public sector pay rises as the people were expecting/hoping for. This would mean less tax receipts which again will mean less money for the next budget, and so the spiral continues.

At the same time as the domestic turmoil they have to deal with Brexit which will put pressure on the economy and will impact their future forecasts. So is this just a small bump in the road or the start of the spiral that will have an eventual impact on the way Brexit is approached?

The Rape of Lucretia · 06-10-2017 06:42PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

While ideology plays a part, it is the overweening ambition of May, Davis, Johnson and other Tories that is driving Brexit. They have placed personal advancement and party above country. Traitors.

Johnson yes, but I think that misreads May and others.

There is a masochistic, stiff upper lip as we go over the top, syndrome at play there with some. May and others know that they are doing the wrong thing for Britain, but are trying to do that wrong thing, as best as they can.
They know also that there is no glory going for it - on the contrary their legacy will be likely widely condemned even by those who support them today. But here too, they are driven by a sense of duty to carry out the will of the people, and be democratic as they see it, no matter what, and their brief is to serve the people of the UK, helping them shoot themselves in the head, because that is what they decided collectively that they wanted to do.
Its admirable in a sad way.

The Rape of Lucretia · 06-10-2017 06:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Britain is leaving the EU so the question is about relating to the EU as a third party. Therefore stuff like ECJ jurisdiction is unreasonable. The UK is leaving the EU - being subject to a EU court is obviously out of the question.

The UK have made several moves so far in response to concerns. The EU on the other hand are insisting on quasi-EU membership. That's inherently unreasonable.

The UK aren't dictating anything to anyone they are simply saying that there are things that are unreasonable for a non-EU country in the EU's proposals.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

1) Being subject to an EU court is neither obviously nor obscurely out of the question. The UK can choose to abide by its decisions in return for certain accesses to the EU.

2) As we have discussed several times, the UK has made no moves. It has hardly even outlined where it would move from, let alone to. The EU is not insisting on anything. In return for some of the UK requests, it put a price on them, which is only fair, and because those prices relate to what full members of the EU would pay, of course, then, it is 'quasi-EU' membership. But only because the EU want quasi-Eu membership in the first place. To accuse the EU of this is entirely warped.

3) The UK can decline any elements it doesnt like in the EU's proposals. It is a negotiation - to which either can say 'no thanks' - which is not being unreasonable. If the UK doesnt like the EU's offers, then it declines them. It should not whine about it being unreasonable not to be offered an option that they would like.

The Rape of Lucretia · 06-10-2017 07:01PM

swampgas wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to agree if the UK didn't seem to be wanting to hang onto many of the benefits of full EU membership. They're not looking for an FTA, they're looking for EU-lite.

They won't even accept the fact that a hard border is a likely consequence of pulling NI out of the SM and CU. It's hard to negotiate with people who simply won't face reality.

This is why there is no true negotiation going on. The UK side, quite apart from in-fighting in the tory party, opportunist power searchers, the tory party still fighting a non-existant contest with labour/Corbin because that is their autonomic reflex at this stage - their negotiation team and political leadership is like a group of shell-shocked soldiers.
And still struggling to come to terms the reality of the horror that the Brexit vote imposed on their country. They see the horror ahead. They are on a treadmill of still driving things in that direction. They know they are part of it yet cannot stop themselves. It is a waking nightmare that is traumatising themselves. It is no wonder there is no sense or logic to the events one would normally call 'negotiations'.

solodeogloria · 06-10-2017 07:08PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

1) Being subject to an EU court is neither obviously nor obscurely out of the question. The UK can choose to abide by its decisions in return for certain accesses to the EU.

2) As we have discussed several times, the UK has made no moves. It has hardly even outlined where it would move from, let alone to. The EU is not insisting on anything. In return for some of the UK requests, it put a price on them, which is only fair, and because those prices relate to what full members of the EU would pay, of course, then, it is 'quasi-EU' membership. But only because the EU want quasi-Eu membership in the first place. To accuse the EU of this is entirely warped.

3) The UK can decline any elements it doesnt like in the EU's proposals. It is a negotiation - to which either can say 'no thanks' - which is not being unreasonable. If the UK doesnt like the EU's offers, then it declines them. It should not whine about it being unreasonable not to be offered an option that they would like.

Good evening!

1) It is obviously out of question because it is incompatible with the UK taking back control of its own laws. Being subject to the ECJ effectively means that the UK hasn't really left the European Union. The European Union still don't seem to have understood that the UK isn't looking for quasi-EU membership.

2) This isn't true. You know it's not true. The UK gave agreed to give direct effect to EU nationals to appeal to the Supreme Court where any changes are attempted to the legislation. The UK have also proposed joint arbitration. They have also said that there will be no budgetary shortfall for member states until 2020 provided that transitional terms are given. These are highly reasonable and constitute significant progress in my view.

The EU are insisting on ECJ oversight of the UK (unreasonable) and the UK paying large sums of money for nothing in return (unreasonable).

3) A negotiation should involve two parties willing to compromise (the UK has very clearly) to come to common terms. The EU seems to want to dictate terms to the UK. I think there either has to be a new attitude in Brussels or the UK has to say sod off and work towards WTO terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 06-10-2017 07:29PM

Samaris wrote: »

Could you maybe tell the politicians that the hard work should have begun about two years ago?

[removed the non-"unhelpful sneering nonsense" for length]

By the way, it is worth following some of the foreign papers (although Google translate can be a bit entertaining - German papers seem to translate better than French if Le Monde is anything to go by) for what Europeans actually think about the whole thing. There has been a lot of interference with the anglophone media and while there are honest and truthful accounts out there, it is useful to get a perspective from media outside the anglophone bubble.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm chopping off the unhelpful sneering nonsense at the start and the end of this post. We could really do with much less of this.

I saw this at lunchtime and it's been mildly bemusing me since that you saw anything to get offended about in a completely innocuous comment about reading European media. I don't know whether you reckoned it was a dig, but as a matter of fact, it wasn't. It is useful to get a European perspective on international affairs, especially those involving Europe.

I'll take the politicians one, although really, they deserve it.

Enzokk · 06-10-2017 07:31PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

1) It is obviously out of question because it is incompatible with the UK taking back control of its own laws. Being subject to the ECJ effectively means that the UK hasn't really left the European Union. The European Union still don't seem to have understood that the UK isn't looking for quasi-EU membership.

2) This isn't true. You know it's not true. The UK gave agreed to give direct effect to EU nationals to appeal to the Supreme Court where any changes are attempted to the legislation. The UK have also proposed joint arbitration. They have also said that there will be no budgetary shortfall for member states until 2020 provided that transitional terms are given. These are highly reasonable and constitute significant progress in my view.

The EU are insisting on ECJ oversight of the UK (unreasonable) and the UK paying large sums of money for nothing in return (unreasonable).

3) A negotiation should involve two parties willing to compromise (the UK has very clearly) to come to common terms. The EU seems to want to dictate terms to the UK. I think there either has to be a new attitude in Brussels or the UK has to say sod off and work towards WTO terms.

Any opinion on the fact that the UK trade figures now show that they export more than 50% to the EU once you take gold out of equation?

I don't know why you keep harping on about the ECJ when you only have your opinion that they are biased because it will be 27 to 1. That is not what biased means in this context and you only have to look at their decisions and whether there has been bias shown on their rulings. Seeing that cannot show this, please stop posting tripe on here.

What the UK really wants is to leave the ECtHR because that is the court that stops them from deporting people. That has nothing to do with the ECJ, which has found in favour of UK arguments when it comes to rulings that they have been involved in.

Capt'n Midnight · 06-10-2017 09:12PM

Random distractions for Team GB.

Further tariff of 80% imposed on import of C-Series

Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland and Ireland 'are Brexit allies'

Scotland's first minister told business leaders in Dublin she will argue for the Irish border to remain open in the wake of the UK's split from Europe.

Business Live: Pound slides further

UK productivity sees further fall

In contrast, the ONS said, manufacturing output fell while hours grew, so labour productivity in manufacturing declined by 1.3% during the quarter.

On an annual basis, covering the 12 months after the UK voted to leave the EU, hourly output fell 0.3% from June 2016 to June 2017.

But it's OK because
Theresa May says cabinet 'fully behind' her leadership

Conservative MP Nigel Evans told the BBC's Daily Politics that if Grant Shapps "can't get 48 signatures, he should just shut up: "In my chats to MPs at Westminster nobody wants an early leadership election. We just simply don't want that."

blanch152 · 06-10-2017 09:18PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

1) It is obviously out of question because it is incompatible with the UK taking back control of its own laws. Being subject to the ECJ effectively means that the UK hasn't really left the European Union. The European Union still don't seem to have understood that the UK isn't looking for quasi-EU membership.

2) This isn't true. You know it's not true. The UK gave agreed to give direct effect to EU nationals to appeal to the Supreme Court where any changes are attempted to the legislation. The UK have also proposed joint arbitration. They have also said that there will be no budgetary shortfall for member states until 2020 provided that transitional terms are given. These are highly reasonable and constitute significant progress in my view.

The EU are insisting on ECJ oversight of the UK (unreasonable) and the UK paying large sums of money for nothing in return (unreasonable).

3) A negotiation should involve two parties willing to compromise (the UK has very clearly) to come to common terms. The EU seems to want to dictate terms to the UK. I think there either has to be a new attitude in Brussels or the UK has to say sod off and work towards WTO terms.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It seems to me that the UK wants preferential access to the EU markets, it wants financial passporting for the City of London and it wants its citizens to be able to retire to Spain but it doesn't want to pay for these privileges by submitting to the ECJ and joining the Single Market and customs union as well as paying its contributions.

As you say yourself, if the UK doesn't want to pay the price set by the EU, then we can revert to WTO terms.

Professor Moriarty · 06-10-2017 09:28PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Johnson yes, but I think that misreads May and others.

There is a masochistic, stiff upper lip as we go over the top, syndrome at play there with some. May and others know that they are doing the wrong thing for Britain, but are trying to do that wrong thing, as best as they can.
They know also that there is no glory going for it - on the contrary their legacy will be likely widely condemned even by those who support them today. But here too, they are driven by a sense of duty to carry out the will of the people, and be democratic as they see it, no matter what, and their brief is to serve the people of the UK, helping them shoot themselves in the head, because that is what they decided collectively that they wanted to do.
Its admirable in a sad way.

I see where you're coming from but remember that May was advocating Remain prior to the referendum. This makes her cowardly ambition all the more hypocritical and traitorous.

One could see some twisted blind 'bravery' in their silly jingoistic act of self-harm - if it was limited to self-harm. However, there is nothing admirable in a Little Englander elite selfishly endangering the GFA, damaging my country's economy and punching a hole in an institution that has been very good for my country and for Europe in general.

The Rape of Lucretia · 06-10-2017 09:40PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but remember that May was advocating Remain prior to the referendum. This makes her cowardly ambition all the more hypocritical and traitorous.

I cant agree there. There is nothing wrong with being a Remainer, yet then moving to PM and implementing the Brexit. In fact, it is quite a thing to take on. Following that logic, would mean any future member of govt must be a Brexit believer ? Nah. Sure, she siezed her opportunity for the top job - who wouldnt. But is applying herself to implementing the mandate. To have taken the job and then operating to reverse out of it would have been the devious cynical thing to do.
She isnt great. But she's alright. I have a certain respect for her. Mad and all as the whole Brexit thing itself is.

(Boris on the other hand....there is an ego on the rampage).

solodeogloria · 06-10-2017 09:45PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I cant agree there. There is nothing wrong with being a Remainer, yet then moving to PM and implementing the Brexit. In fact, it is quite a thing to take on. Following that logic, would mean any future member of govt must be a Brexit believer ? Nah. Sure, she siezed her opportunity for the top job - who wouldnt. But is applying herself to implementing the mandate. To have taken the job and then operating to reverse out of it would have been the devious cynical thing to do.
She isnt great. But she's alright. I have a certain respect for her. Mad and all as the whole Brexit thing itself is.

(Boris on the other hand....there is an ego on the rampage).

Good evening!

I don't know why it is so hard to understand. Theresa May became Prime Minister in the aftermath of Brexit, where the people voted to leave the European Union. Of course she was going to favour the democratic verdict of the people and implement it.

Why would you reverse out of what the British people wanted?

It's obvious and I think increasingly it is more and more obvious that Britain wasn't suited to membership of the European Union to begin with.

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty · 06-10-2017 09:50PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I cant agree there. There is nothing wrong with being a Remainer, yet then moving to PM and implementing the Brexit. In fact, it is quite a thing to take on. Following that logic, would mean any future member of govt must be a Brexit believer ? Nah. Sure, she siezed her opportunity for the top job - who wouldnt. But is applying herself to implementing the mandate. To have taken the job and then operating to reverse out of it would have been the devious cynical thing to do.
She isnt great. But she's alright. I have a certain respect for her. Mad and all as the whole Brexit thing itself is.

(Boris on the other hand....there is an ego on the rampage).

Boris is a clever fool who happened to be born rich and attend Eton. He has nothing else going for him other than misplaced arrogance.

May is a dishonest hypocrite. She could have stood by her beliefs and let someone else take over. How can a person of principle possibly argue vehemently against Brexit and then, for reasons of personal ambition only, argue vehemently for Brexit one month later? Sorry, such a person has no integrity and doesn't deserve respect.

listermint · 06-10-2017 09:54PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't know why it is so hard to understand. Theresa May became Prime Minister in the aftermath of Brexit, where the people voted to leave the European Union. Of course she was going to favour the democratic verdict of the people and implement it.

Why would you reverse out of what the British people wanted?

It's obvious and I think increasingly it is more and more obvious that Britain wasn't suited to membership of the European Union to begin with.

The more anti-democratic types hoping and praying for staying in the European Union will be sorely disappointed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Democracy involves truth.

Not mistrust collusion and sinister input from third parties and foreign governments.

But sure if that's your version of Democracy you deserve the tory party and all the pain they bring.

But sure won't really matter, handy number heading off back to the EU with a passport when all goes belly up easy exit.

The Rape of Lucretia · 06-10-2017 10:26PM

listermint wrote: »

Democracy involves truth.

Not mistrust collusion and sinister input from third parties and foreign governments.

But sure if that's your version of Democracy you deserve the tory party and all the pain they bring.

But sure won't really matter, handy number heading off back to the EU with a passport when all goes belly up easy exit.

This is the core of the contradiction in Brexit. It wasnt democratic. It has the illusion of being democratic on the basis of having been one man one vote.

But there was no informed, honest, analysis, or debate of the merits or not of Brexiting. A disservice was done to the British voter on such a complex matter. As I have said before, the British electorate as a whole is not really sophisticated or mature enough to handle democracy (not that I am against them having it despite that). And this was exploited by opportunists who stood to gain personally, by a gutter media exploiting the ignorant to whip up a bit of nationalist zenophobic fervour just for the fun of it, by Empire nostalgists, and by politicians just playing a game. It was a horrendous spectacle. But playing with fire, and the UK has been burnt.
The politicians are by and large still just playing a game of politics.

There was an extraordinarily cynical and manipulative attitude, of the end justifying the means, what ever lies or misinformation are spread - with the get out that is being used now that it has gone indeed belly up - 'well, it was democratic'.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments