I found it dismissive but your call how you express yourself on an open forum.
And as for the rest of my post? Care to answer? Belfast just like Burnley?
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
And as for the rest of my post? Care to answer? Belfast just like Burnley?
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
How can 'feck around' be dismissive? Would you have responded if I had said 'messed around'? Would you have claimed THAT to be dismissive? Or are you just taking up with me because I used a well-known Irish word?
Sorry mate, I'm not buying it...
40 million voted in the 1975 referendum. 17,378,581 or 67.23% voted Yes, to remain. 8,470,073 32.70% voted No, to leave. 2:1 was quite a big majority. That seems to have been a democratic vote. But why bother? It did not shut up the people who thought it was the wrong result.
Ultimately Cameron called a referendum to end division in the Tory Party - not a great success, one might think.
We do keep having general elections. Theresa May called an election 2 years into a 5 year parliament, to try to get the vote to go the way she wanted it to. The outcome was an exercise of democracy.
What is an aberration in the British Electoral system, and which has royally effed things up, is having referendums, rather than letting our elected Members of Parliament do the job we elect them to do. I think it is often harder to pull the wool over the eyes of the House of Commons, and the Lords, than it is to befuddle the electorate, with promises of £350million a week for the NHS and restoring sovereignty, which is then given to the executive in Henry VIII legislation, without parliamentary scrutiny.
But what would I know? I am one of the 48%.
Old Blue, I know we don't agree on this, but by your logic
(1) once there is a general election there would never be another, because that would disturb the democratic outcome; and
(2) there would not have been a 2015 referendum because it had been a very clear democratic outcome in 1975.
But I will keep voting Labour, because I think it is a mistake to elect a Tory government.
There are few areas in life where you cannot say - "this was all a horrible mistake, I have changed my mind". Ask Ronald Koeman.
As Churchill said in the House of Commons in 1947 "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
"All those others" includes in my view deciding important issues of principle by referendum (especially for the polictical expediency of one party).
I will keep optimistic that my fellow citizens will realise, before it is too late, that while the EU is far from perfect, there is precious little that the current collection of Brexit negotiators are going to deliver to us which will be better for us and our children than changing our minds about leaving. That seems to me part of what grown ups can and should do, from time to time, when it really matters.
Still looks like a cliff to me.
Last edited:
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
JammyP,
I'll not reply to every single thing you have posted, but I will comment on some.
"...to befuddle the electorate, with promises of £350million a week for the NHS..." As I have posted several time before (and somehow some on here either disagree with it, or cannot see it), the £350 million was an equivalent amount, not any kind of promise. For the simple reason that the two sides in the Referendum were canvassing entities, and could not give any kind of Governmental guarantee as to the future spending of the Government, nor any direction as to where any money would be spent. It was the equivalent cost of an NHS hospital.
"...but by your logic..." Whoa! Hold on a minute. Claiming to know my logic?
Anyway, let's proceed.
"...once there is a general election there would never be another, because that would disturb the democratic outcome..." You ascribe that thinking to ME? You ARE joking. You set that against my supposed logic? Come on, be serious. Read my other posts.
"...there would not have been a 2015 referendum because it had been a very clear democratic outcome in 1975..." I think (hope!) we all know by now why Cameron set his mind on a Referendum. He thought he would carry the day with it. He was proven wrong. Yes there was a clear vote in the 1970s. I was one who voted. Read up on it at the time. No mention of political unity at the time. No mention of a central European legal process being imposed on the UK. That happened, and we (the ordinary population) had no choice but to follow what the politicians had signed up to at the outset, and what transpired subsequently. Then David C made his move, and it didn't go the way he expected.
I will keep voting Labour as well, JP.
As for your last paragraph, I think the attitude of some of the top bods in the EU while we were still in, (and one might add their pronouncements in the last 16 months up to present) has swayed some people towards leaving. Probably a case of, 'it's time for change', and Cameron opened the window of opportunity to vote on that change. Another thing which now barely gets a mention is that in the weeks/months preceding the vote, Cameron claimed he would get all kinds of concessions from the EU. When he returned he dressed it up as best he could, but it became apparent that he got little, and it seemed from what was portrayed in/on the media that the top movers & shakers in the EU were not prepared to accede to a lot/most of what Cameron was angling for. So on that issue, it seemed that Cameron was claiming a lot more than he actually achieved, and it really looked to me like our role in the EU was minor, of a very diminished status.
I hope some of the above explains things better, JP, perhaps better than I have previously done...
I'll not reply to every single thing you have posted, but I will comment on some.
"...to befuddle the electorate, with promises of £350million a week for the NHS..." As I have posted several time before (and somehow some on here either disagree with it, or cannot see it), the £350 million was an equivalent amount, not any kind of promise. For the simple reason that the two sides in the Referendum were canvassing entities, and could not give any kind of Governmental guarantee as to the future spending of the Government, nor any direction as to where any money would be spent. It was the equivalent cost of an NHS hospital.
"...but by your logic..." Whoa! Hold on a minute. Claiming to know my logic?
Anyway, let's proceed."...once there is a general election there would never be another, because that would disturb the democratic outcome..." You ascribe that thinking to ME? You ARE joking. You set that against my supposed logic? Come on, be serious. Read my other posts.
"...there would not have been a 2015 referendum because it had been a very clear democratic outcome in 1975..." I think (hope!) we all know by now why Cameron set his mind on a Referendum. He thought he would carry the day with it. He was proven wrong. Yes there was a clear vote in the 1970s. I was one who voted. Read up on it at the time. No mention of political unity at the time. No mention of a central European legal process being imposed on the UK. That happened, and we (the ordinary population) had no choice but to follow what the politicians had signed up to at the outset, and what transpired subsequently. Then David C made his move, and it didn't go the way he expected.
I will keep voting Labour as well, JP.
As for your last paragraph, I think the attitude of some of the top bods in the EU while we were still in, (and one might add their pronouncements in the last 16 months up to present) has swayed some people towards leaving. Probably a case of, 'it's time for change', and Cameron opened the window of opportunity to vote on that change. Another thing which now barely gets a mention is that in the weeks/months preceding the vote, Cameron claimed he would get all kinds of concessions from the EU. When he returned he dressed it up as best he could, but it became apparent that he got little, and it seemed from what was portrayed in/on the media that the top movers & shakers in the EU were not prepared to accede to a lot/most of what Cameron was angling for. So on that issue, it seemed that Cameron was claiming a lot more than he actually achieved, and it really looked to me like our role in the EU was minor, of a very diminished status.
I hope some of the above explains things better, JP, perhaps better than I have previously done...
To describe a section of the electorates wish to have a second informed vote as “fecking around” is, for me, dismissive. People have a democratic right to call for things that you may not like.
To answer your question, I posted to ask you are question which you haven’t yet had time to answer...
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
I've answered. Don't be so argumentative...
Did you? Where?
Smiled at the argumentative line, it is a forum for debate surely?
I am just curious as to whether you have now changed your view regarding special consideration for Ireland? Before you said no to it but in light of May’s recognition of the need for it, just wondering how you see it now?
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
We now have evidence that Theresa May triggered Article 50 before she understood exactly how it works
Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G20 summit on July 7, 2017, in Hamburg, Germany.(Photo by Stefan Rousseau - Pool/Getty Images)
LONDON - The narrative surrounding Prime Minister Theresa May right now says that her government is defined by the strategic error she made on April 18, 2017, when she called for a snap election in June, believing she would increase her majority in the House of Commons and crush Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party.
Of course, the opposite happened: May's Conservative government lost outright control of Parliament. May clings on, but MPs within her own party are already discussing when, not if, she must be deposed as leader.
That narrative is wrong.
The record books will show that the sudden, unscheduled general election was not her worst decision. Rather, it came six months earlier on October 2, 2016, when she triggered Article 50before she properly understood how Article 50 actually works. (Article 50 governs the Brexit process: It sets a two-year deadline ending in March 2019, in which the UK must negotiate a trade pact with the EU before leaving. If no agreement is reached, the UK will be forced out of the EU on the most disadvantageous terms possible.)
"I would not agree unequivocally to invoke Article 50 unless you know how Article 50 is going to work"
We got evidence of that error yesterday in the testimony of Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU in Brussels, who left that post in January of this year. Rogers was answering questions from the Commons Treasury select committee. He told the panel that May made a crucial error one year ago, The Times and Politico both reported:
Sir Ivan said:
"I did say last autumn I would not agree unequivocally to invoke Article 50 unless you know how Article 50 is going to work because the moment you invoke Article 50, the 27 [other EU countries] dictate the rules of the game and they will set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them.
"My advice as a European negotiator was that that was a moment of key leverage and if you wanted to avoid being screwed on the negotiations in terms of the sequencing, you had to negotiate with the key European leaders and the key people at the top of the institutions and say: 'I will invoke Article 50 but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it is going to operate and it's got to operate like this otherwise this is not going work for me.'"
Ivan Rogers, at rear, when he was advising former PM David Cameron's government.PA
Business Insider began arguing one year ago that this little-noticed aspect of Article 50 - that the deadline curtails the talks whether the parties like it or not - is the key to the entire process. (We updated that argument here and hereand here.)
The negotiation deadline in Article 50 is more important than the substance of the talks themselves. Any member of the 28-nation bloc that triggers Article 50 is automatically ejected from the EU with or without a deal after two years. The EU is incentivised to demonstrate to other European countries that exiting the EU leaves you in a worse position than staying inside. So it is actually to the EU's advantage to not negotiate at all, and just let the UK flop out of the EU with no deal.
The only way for an Article 50 country to emerge with an advantage is if that nation negotiated the structure of its trade deal before triggering the deadline. (The EU's "no prenegotiations" stance is a political principle, not a law.)
Without an advance deal in place, Article 50 is simply a trap that lets the EU punish anyone who tries to leave.
May's decision let the EU "set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them"
Rogers isn't some random left-wingremoaner. He was the Tories' own chief advisor on negotiations until he got fed up with his own government's blindnessas to how Europe actually works.According to Politico, he specifically advised May not to trigger Article 50 without getting an agreement in placebefore the trigger was pulled. He testified that he was opposed by "various people in London":
... May's decision to invoke Article 50 at the end of March gave the EU the opportunity to "set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them," Rogers said.
It was that October decision that laterforced May to admit this month that "no deal" was now a possibility that the government is preparing for. "No deal," as some Leavers are slowly starting to realise, is, in reality, the "punishment deal" that puts Britain in the worst-case scenario.
It is this awful blunder - not the election - that is shaping up to be May's most significant historic legacy.
- Jim Edwards
- Oct. 26, 2017, 5:53 PM
- 21,977
- Most people think Theresa May's biggest mistake was calling the snap election in which her government lost MPs.
- In fact, it was the decision she made on October 2, 2016, to trigger Article 50 without fully understanding how that gives an advantage to the EU in the Brexit talks.
- Her former chief Europe negotiator, Sir Ivan Rogers, just testified that May pulled that trigger against his advice. It's as close as we'll ever get to proof that May did not know the consequences of the decision.
- The decision is the reason Britain is heading for a "no deal" Brexit that will damage the UK economy.
LONDON - The narrative surrounding Prime Minister Theresa May right now says that her government is defined by the strategic error she made on April 18, 2017, when she called for a snap election in June, believing she would increase her majority in the House of Commons and crush Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party.
Of course, the opposite happened: May's Conservative government lost outright control of Parliament. May clings on, but MPs within her own party are already discussing when, not if, she must be deposed as leader.
That narrative is wrong.
The record books will show that the sudden, unscheduled general election was not her worst decision. Rather, it came six months earlier on October 2, 2016, when she triggered Article 50before she properly understood how Article 50 actually works. (Article 50 governs the Brexit process: It sets a two-year deadline ending in March 2019, in which the UK must negotiate a trade pact with the EU before leaving. If no agreement is reached, the UK will be forced out of the EU on the most disadvantageous terms possible.)
"I would not agree unequivocally to invoke Article 50 unless you know how Article 50 is going to work"
We got evidence of that error yesterday in the testimony of Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU in Brussels, who left that post in January of this year. Rogers was answering questions from the Commons Treasury select committee. He told the panel that May made a crucial error one year ago, The Times and Politico both reported:
Sir Ivan said:
"I did say last autumn I would not agree unequivocally to invoke Article 50 unless you know how Article 50 is going to work because the moment you invoke Article 50, the 27 [other EU countries] dictate the rules of the game and they will set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them.
"My advice as a European negotiator was that that was a moment of key leverage and if you wanted to avoid being screwed on the negotiations in terms of the sequencing, you had to negotiate with the key European leaders and the key people at the top of the institutions and say: 'I will invoke Article 50 but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it is going to operate and it's got to operate like this otherwise this is not going work for me.'"
Ivan Rogers, at rear, when he was advising former PM David Cameron's government.PABusiness Insider began arguing one year ago that this little-noticed aspect of Article 50 - that the deadline curtails the talks whether the parties like it or not - is the key to the entire process. (We updated that argument here and hereand here.)
The negotiation deadline in Article 50 is more important than the substance of the talks themselves. Any member of the 28-nation bloc that triggers Article 50 is automatically ejected from the EU with or without a deal after two years. The EU is incentivised to demonstrate to other European countries that exiting the EU leaves you in a worse position than staying inside. So it is actually to the EU's advantage to not negotiate at all, and just let the UK flop out of the EU with no deal.
The only way for an Article 50 country to emerge with an advantage is if that nation negotiated the structure of its trade deal before triggering the deadline. (The EU's "no prenegotiations" stance is a political principle, not a law.)
Without an advance deal in place, Article 50 is simply a trap that lets the EU punish anyone who tries to leave.
May's decision let the EU "set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them"
Rogers isn't some random left-wingremoaner. He was the Tories' own chief advisor on negotiations until he got fed up with his own government's blindnessas to how Europe actually works.According to Politico, he specifically advised May not to trigger Article 50 without getting an agreement in placebefore the trigger was pulled. He testified that he was opposed by "various people in London":
... May's decision to invoke Article 50 at the end of March gave the EU the opportunity to "set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them," Rogers said.
It was that October decision that laterforced May to admit this month that "no deal" was now a possibility that the government is preparing for. "No deal," as some Leavers are slowly starting to realise, is, in reality, the "punishment deal" that puts Britain in the worst-case scenario.
It is this awful blunder - not the election - that is shaping up to be May's most significant historic legacy.
We now have evidence that Theresa May triggered Article 50 before she understood exactly how it works
- Jim Edwards
- Oct. 26, 2017, 5:53 PM
- 21,977
Prime Minister Theresa May and German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G20 summit on July 7, 2017, in Hamburg, Germany.(Photo by Stefan Rousseau - Pool/Getty Images)
- Most people think Theresa May's biggest mistake was calling the snap election in which her government lost MPs.
- In fact, it was the decision she made on October 2, 2016, to trigger Article 50 without fully understanding how that gives an advantage to the EU in the Brexit talks.
- Her former chief Europe negotiator, Sir Ivan Rogers, just testified that May pulled that trigger against his advice. It's as close as we'll ever get to proof that May did not know the consequences of the decision.
- The decision is the reason Britain is heading for a "no deal" Brexit that will damage the UK economy.
LONDON - The narrative surrounding Prime Minister Theresa May right now says that her government is defined by the strategic error she made on April 18, 2017, when she called for a snap election in June, believing she would increase her majority in the House of Commons and crush Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party.
Of course, the opposite happened: May's Conservative government lost outright control of Parliament. May clings on, but MPs within her own party are already discussing when, not if, she must be deposed as leader.
That narrative is wrong.
The record books will show that the sudden, unscheduled general election was not her worst decision. Rather, it came six months earlier on October 2, 2016, when she triggered Article 50before she properly understood how Article 50 actually works. (Article 50 governs the Brexit process: It sets a two-year deadline ending in March 2019, in which the UK must negotiate a trade pact with the EU before leaving. If no agreement is reached, the UK will be forced out of the EU on the most disadvantageous terms possible.)
"I would not agree unequivocally to invoke Article 50 unless you know how Article 50 is going to work"
We got evidence of that error yesterday in the testimony of Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU in Brussels, who left that post in January of this year. Rogers was answering questions from the Commons Treasury select committee. He told the panel that May made a crucial error one year ago, The Times and Politico both reported:
Sir Ivan said:
"I did say last autumn I would not agree unequivocally to invoke Article 50 unless you know how Article 50 is going to work because the moment you invoke Article 50, the 27 [other EU countries] dictate the rules of the game and they will set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them.
"My advice as a European negotiator was that that was a moment of key leverage and if you wanted to avoid being screwed on the negotiations in terms of the sequencing, you had to negotiate with the key European leaders and the key people at the top of the institutions and say: 'I will invoke Article 50 but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it is going to operate and it's got to operate like this otherwise this is not going work for me.'"
Business Insider began arguing one year ago that this little-noticed aspect of Article 50 - that the deadline curtails the talks whether the parties like it or not - is the key to the entire process. (We updated that argument here and hereand here.)
The negotiation deadline in Article 50 is more important than the substance of the talks themselves. Any member of the 28-nation bloc that triggers Article 50 is automatically ejected from the EU with or without a deal after two years. The EU is incentivised to demonstrate to other European countries that exiting the EU leaves you in a worse position than staying inside. So it is actually to the EU's advantage to not negotiate at all, and just let the UK flop out of the EU with no deal.
The only way for an Article 50 country to emerge with an advantage is if that nation negotiated the structure of its trade deal before triggering the deadline. (The EU's "no prenegotiations" stance is a political principle, not a law.)
Without an advance deal in place, Article 50 is simply a trap that lets the EU punish anyone who tries to leave.
May's decision let the EU "set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them"
Rogers isn't some random left-wingremoaner. He was the Tories' own chief advisor on negotiations until he got fed up with his own government's blindnessas to how Europe actually works.According to Politico, he specifically advised May not to trigger Article 50 without getting an agreement in placebefore the trigger was pulled. He testified that he was opposed by "various people in London":
... May's decision to invoke Article 50 at the end of March gave the EU the opportunity to "set up the rules of the game in the way that most suits them," Rogers said.
It was that October decision that laterforced May to admit this month that "no deal" was now a possibility that the government is preparing for. "No deal," as some Leavers are slowly starting to realise, is, in reality, the "punishment deal" that puts Britain in the worst-case scenario.
It is this awful blunder - not the election - that is shaping up to be May's most significant historic legacy.
To be fair, no matter when she triggered it, the EU held all the cards anyway. Despite the Brexiteer fairy tale that the EU would be desperate to bend over to our whims because we buy German cars or something.
orchard
Player Valuation: £60m
We'll never know now mate. I can understand why the Eu are getting sick of us after making a lot of concessions over the duration of our membership.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
What is this 'special consideration' you talk about that I have supposedly commented on?
This is what I’m referring to @Old Blue 2. Now that May has acknowledged our unique standing, along with the EU and our own Unionist and Nationalist politicians, I’m curious if you still hold the same opinion?
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
You ever been to East Anglia?
You ever been to Cornwall and the West Country?
You ever been to Yorkshire or Lancashire (as was)?
You ever been to the North-East of England?
Yes to all.
You ever been to Crossmaglen?
You ever been to Strabane?
You ever been to Roslea?
Have you ever been away? Sang Paul Heaton.
Your point?
- Status