Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

If Farage comes back into politics, UKIP will demolish the Tory vote.......

Hopefully he’ll be otherwise engaged by then, once his part in the huge hedge fund short on the pound and the Arron Banks money trail are fully investigated by the authorities.

The maggot said last night that he’d come back into full time politics next March if he felt that he wasn’t getting the Brexit he wanted btw. The dishonest turd.

 

[orchard]

I wonder what percentage of the 'out' vote endorse Minford's vision:

Philip Hammond and Greg Clark are no fools, so why did they sit there nodding through this crippling negotiating position? Because, like everyone else, they were pretending. They know the EU will never allow a single market deal on goods without services. How often must they repeat that the EU’s four freedoms of goods, capital, services and labour are indivisible? The only “soft” in her plan is the expectation she must be softly pliable when it confronts EU reality.
Why did any of the Brexiters pretend to accept this plan? Because they too know that it won’t survive a first brush with the EU. So what’s their endgame? The same as ever: no deal, crash out, walk away. The reason they brought no plan to the Chequers table was because that would draw them into the mire of negotiation and compromise. That’s not for the likes of Boris Johnson and David Davis.
In their Brexlandia, there is only clean-break purity. No use telling them that, on 30 March 2019, that means instant no flying, no food, no meds, no money: their ends justify these terrible means. Of course no active politician is foolish enough to admit this, so let’s turn to one of their founding mentors.

What irony that ‘metal bashing' places that voted Brexit would be the big losers from the true Brexiteer vision​

Patrick Minford CBE, former Thatcher adviser and leader of Economists for Brexit, is willing to spell out to me what Brexit politicians dare not. Their goal is no tariffs, no barriers, no regulations, open free trade with the world. That, he claims, cuts 20% off food prices in tariffs and roughly the same again in removing all regulatory barriers. What of food quality? As long as it’s labelled, let the consumer decide. What of farmers bankrupted by cheap imports? Big farmers will do more efficient biotech farming (GM, etc); small inefficient farmers will go to the wall or be paid to protect the environment.

What of manufacturing, facing a tidal wave of cheap, imported, unregulated goods? That’s an insignificant 10% of our economy, so let cheaper countries do the “metal bashing”, as we import cheaper cars: we will do high-value intellectual work. And what of all those “metal-bashing” jobs? Here he uses a favourite phrase: the “reallocation of labour”, just like all those “reallocations” of the 1980s on which he advised Thatcher, when unproductive mines, steel works and shipyards closed. Look, he says, over those years most of the 35% employed in manufacturing have been “reallocated”, with a growth in city financiers, consultants and all other services. But what of the people and the places destroyed in the process?
Yes, he admits, the 1980s was a “big shock”, but it rid us of “hopelessly uncompetitive” industries. That’s what unilateral open free trade would do again, clearing out overprotection from global competition with, he claims, a huge economic boost. Short-term pain means long-term gain: a second coming of Thatcher’s 1980s.

Labour poised to vote down Brexit deal


Read more
That’s the vision that dare not speak its name among Brexiteer MPs – for good reason. What irony that “metal bashing” people and places that voted Brexit would be the big losers from the true Brexiteer vision. How the nation’s heart-strings were tugged with promises of new freedoms for farmers and fishermen, but they will be doomed too, fishermen unable to sell fish to the EU.
The true heart of Brexit is a vision that is the precise opposite of the one they missold in the referendum. This is what their freedom and sovereignty means: no protections, only an unfettered market. May offers an unrealistic Brexit that must bend to EU rules. But the Tory resigners want to turn their great referendum hoax into a crash-out, no deal, close to the dystopian vision cherished by Economists for Brexit. In the end, people need a final vote between a safe haven close to the EU, or this wild free market Brexit. Borisism must be seen off.
• Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The EU will trash this ‘third way’ and make another mountain of demands for concessions, which May will give in to, until we are back in the EU but worse off than before. I will not vote again as it no longer means anything......but that means nothing to those who must be obeyed........just remember, you had a chance to express your country’s free will, a chance to grow in the world, a chance for your families to experience something greater than the EU, you will never have this chance again........

Whatever the final deal ends up being I’m convinced now that the right thing to do is to put it back to the people. As ironically those who’ve decried the idea of a second vote of any description are now likely to warm to the idea.
Accept the deal or not.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I wonder what percentage of the 'out' vote endorse Minford's vision:

Philip Hammond and Greg Clark are no fools, so why did they sit there nodding through this crippling negotiating position? Because, like everyone else, they were pretending. They know the EU will never allow a single market deal on goods without services. How often must they repeat that the EU’s four freedoms of goods, capital, services and labour are indivisible? The only “soft” in her plan is the expectation she must be softly pliable when it confronts EU reality.
Why did any of the Brexiters pretend to accept this plan? Because they too know that it won’t survive a first brush with the EU. So what’s their endgame? The same as ever: no deal, crash out, walk away. The reason they brought no plan to the Chequers table was because that would draw them into the mire of negotiation and compromise. That’s not for the likes of Boris Johnson and David Davis.
In their Brexlandia, there is only clean-break purity. No use telling them that, on 30 March 2019, that means instant no flying, no food, no meds, no money: their ends justify these terrible means. Of course no active politician is foolish enough to admit this, so let’s turn to one of their founding mentors.

What irony that ‘metal bashing' places that voted Brexit would be the big losers from the true Brexiteer vision​

Patrick Minford CBE, former Thatcher adviser and leader of Economists for Brexit, is willing to spell out to me what Brexit politicians dare not. Their goal is no tariffs, no barriers, no regulations, open free trade with the world. That, he claims, cuts 20% off food prices in tariffs and roughly the same again in removing all regulatory barriers. What of food quality? As long as it’s labelled, let the consumer decide. What of farmers bankrupted by cheap imports? Big farmers will do more efficient biotech farming (GM, etc); small inefficient farmers will go to the wall or be paid to protect the environment.

What of manufacturing, facing a tidal wave of cheap, imported, unregulated goods? That’s an insignificant 10% of our economy, so let cheaper countries do the “metal bashing”, as we import cheaper cars: we will do high-value intellectual work. And what of all those “metal-bashing” jobs? Here he uses a favourite phrase: the “reallocation of labour”, just like all those “reallocations” of the 1980s on which he advised Thatcher, when unproductive mines, steel works and shipyards closed. Look, he says, over those years most of the 35% employed in manufacturing have been “reallocated”, with a growth in city financiers, consultants and all other services. But what of the people and the places destroyed in the process?
Yes, he admits, the 1980s was a “big shock”, but it rid us of “hopelessly uncompetitive” industries. That’s what unilateral open free trade would do again, clearing out overprotection from global competition with, he claims, a huge economic boost. Short-term pain means long-term gain: a second coming of Thatcher’s 1980s.

Labour poised to vote down Brexit deal


Read more
That’s the vision that dare not speak its name among Brexiteer MPs – for good reason. What irony that “metal bashing” people and places that voted Brexit would be the big losers from the true Brexiteer vision. How the nation’s heart-strings were tugged with promises of new freedoms for farmers and fishermen, but they will be doomed too, fishermen unable to sell fish to the EU.
The true heart of Brexit is a vision that is the precise opposite of the one they missold in the referendum. This is what their freedom and sovereignty means: no protections, only an unfettered market. May offers an unrealistic Brexit that must bend to EU rules. But the Tory resigners want to turn their great referendum hoax into a crash-out, no deal, close to the dystopian vision cherished by Economists for Brexit. In the end, people need a final vote between a safe haven close to the EU, or this wild free market Brexit. Borisism must be seen off.
• Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

You know your argument has more holes than a Swiss cheese when the best you do in terms of an Economic ‘expert’ is Minford ffs.

His model has been absolutely destroyed by other economists over the years and he’s still using it.

However, that piece is spot on, have the Leave at any cost, you lost get over it crowd actually thought for one second about why these hard line Brexiteers are so against us maintaining the same standards level as we currently have with the EU on goods and agri products? They’re dressing up the proposed continuation of alignment with those standards and regulations as somehow being an infringement of our Sovereignty. We can’t apparently ‘take back control’ whilst we maintain that alignment.

When what they really mean, is that to do the trade deals that they want with far flung emerging markets and the likes of the US, they’ll have to lower those standards and open the flood gates to the U.K. for substandard cheap crap, which will affect our own higher cost base producers here......but we can sell them services in return.....so taking back control, will actually mean bending over and allowing other nations to dictate just how far we lower the bar in terms of quality standards, shaft our own producers, but the City boys will clean up, so it’s sound.

How can’t people see this ffs?

Brexit a vote against the establishment.

 

[orchard]

You know your argument has more holes than a Swiss cheese when the best you do in terms of an Economic ‘expert’ is Minford ffs.

His model has been absolutely destroyed by other economists over the years and he’s still using it.

However, that piece is spot on, have the Leave at any cost, you lost get over it crowd actually thought for one second about why these hard line Brexiteers are so against us maintaining the same standards level as we currently have with the EU on goods and agri products? They’re dressing up the proposed continuation of alignment with those standards and regulations as somehow being an infringement of our Sovereignty. We can’t apparently ‘take back control’ whilst we maintain that alignment.

When what they really mean, is that to do the trade deals that they want with far flung emerging markets and the likes of the US, they’ll have to lower those standards and open the flood gates to the U.K. for substandard cheap crap, which will affect our own higher cost base producers here......but we can sell them services in return.....so taking back control, will actually mean bending over and allowing other nations to dictate just how far we lower the bar in terms of quality standards, shaft our own producers, but the City boys will clean up, so it’s sound.

How can’t people see this ffs?

Brexit a vote against the establishment.

Because one can't reason with someone who adopted a position irrationally? Couple that with the level of discourse/ information that some of the 'out' voters expose themselves to and it's quite understandable.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Because one can't reason with someone who adopted a position irrationally? Couple that with the level of discourse/ information that some of the 'out' voters expose themselves to and it's quite understandable.

What this 2 year plus debate has clearly demonstrated, is that when your entire position is based on ‘belief’ then seemingly no amount of facts, figures, expert opinion et al makes a jot of difference. As long as you continue to ‘believe’ then none of it matters it seems.

However, at some point reality starts to collide with ‘belief’, and that’s now happening. Whilst the truly entrenched will never admit that they were wrong on this, and even when reality does fully collide with their ‘belief’, they’ll merely point the finger and blame everyone but themselves. They’ve started blaming Remainers already, we didn’t ‘believe’ enough apparently and it’s our lack of ‘belief’ that will cause Brexit to be a bit crap......interesting ‘logic’.

Surely, those less buried in the dogma and ideology are now starting to realise that this is a turd in a presentation case? They ‘won’ what exactly? Reality will dawn on these people, and hopefully when the time comes their blame will be apportioned correctly.

 

[orchard]

What this 2 year plus debate has clearly demonstrated, is that when your entire position is based on ‘belief’ then seemingly no amount of facts, figures, expert opinion et al makes a jot of difference. As long as you continue to ‘believe’ then none of it matters it seems.

However, at some point reality starts to collide with ‘belief’, and that’s now happening. Whilst the truly entrenched will never admit that they were wrong on this, and even when reality does fully collide with their ‘belief’, they’ll merely point the finger and blame everyone but themselves. They’ve started blaming Remainers already, we didn’t ‘believe’ enough apparently and it’s our lack of ‘belief’ that will cause Brexit to be a bit crap......interesting ‘logic’.

Surely, those less buried in the dogma and ideology are now starting to realise that this is a turd in a presentation case? They ‘won’ what exactly? Reality will dawn on these people, and hopefully when the time comes their blame will be apportioned correctly.

May refused a few calls made for a more accurate vote for the public and the house yesterday, justified by the recent poor polling, on the basis that c80pc of people voted for a party that was pro-Brexit. This must be pretty close to her last line of defence.
I think one of the worst motives is to not be a 'rule taker'. Eu rules are our rules, ones to which we've contributed. Outside of the eu we'll have very little say on the rules we'll need to adopt to trade with China, us, or the eu.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

May refused a few calls made for a more accurate vote for the public and the house yesterday, justified by the recent poor polling, on the basis that c80pc of people voted for a party that was pro-Brexit. This must be pretty close to her last line of defence.
I think one of the worst motives is to not be a 'rule taker'. Eu rules are our rules, ones to which we've contributed. Outside of the eu we'll have very little say on the rules we'll need to adopt to trade with China, us, or the eu.

Those same rules have now been adopted into British law under the withdrawal bill. So they’re now definitely ‘our’ rules, so that somehow now makes them Ok.....not that anyone could name one that they wanted rid of anyway....

We don’t want Johnny Foreigner telling us what to do! Unless it the Sherman’s and there’s a trade deal on the table, in which case we’ll drop our trousers and grab our ankles. Rule Britannia.

 

[peteblue]

Whatever the final deal ends up being I’m convinced now that the right thing to do is to put it back to the people. As ironically those who’ve decried the idea of a second vote of any description are now likely to warm to the idea.
Accept the deal or not.

For what purpose ? Apparently a vote doesn’t mean anything......

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

For what purpose ? Apparently a vote doesn’t mean anything......

For the purpose of clarity. To clarify that once the actual tangible reality of what ‘out’ looks like in terms of the final deal, is laid out in full detail, ask whether this is what you the people actually want or not.

 

[orchard]

For the purpose of clarity. To clarify that once the actual tangible reality of what ‘out’ looks like in terms of the final deal, is laid out in full detail, ask whether this is what you the people actually want or not.

It's like Idiocracy from the wrong age group. 'We won the vote' = we won the Nation, come here my precious...

 

[Tubey]

For the purpose of clarity. To clarify that once the actual tangible reality of what ‘out’ looks like in terms of the final deal, is laid out in full detail, ask whether this is what you the people actually want or not.

The irony of Boris and co. having a problem with the 'Chequers Deal' is funny really - I thought the referendum vote was 'clear', so as long as we leave the European Union in some way then the referendum is being 'honoured', isn't it?

This is why a second vote is needed and, to be frank, even Brexiteers should be supporting it if they believe their view is right and popular - because the second vote would now simply be a chance to say that the 'Chequers Deal' is nonsense for them.

So a two-tiered question is needed:

1 - Do you want to leave the European Union under the terms of the 'Chequers Deal'?
2 - If 'No', do you want to leave the European Union under WTO rules - e.g. a 'Hard Brexit'?
3 - If 'No', do you want to remain in the European Union?

 

[orchard]

The irony of Boris and co. having a problem with the 'Chequers Deal' is funny really - I thought the referendum vote was 'clear', so as long as we leave the European Union in some way then the referendum is being 'honoured', isn't it?

This is why a second vote is needed and, to be frank, even Brexiteers should be supporting it if they believe their view is right and popular - because the second vote would now simply be a chance to say that the 'Chequers Deal' is nonsense for them.

So a two-tiered question is needed:

1 - Do you want to leave the European Union under the terms of the 'Chequers Deal'?
2 - If 'No', do you want to leave the European Union under WTO rules - e.g. a 'Hard Brexit'?
3 - If 'No', do you want to remain in the European Union?

You can't split the out vote, brexit means brexit.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

It's like Idiocracy from the wrong age group. 'We won the vote' = we won the Nation, come here my precious...

They seem to think that their ‘win’ somehow excludes anyone who didn’t want the most extreme exit possible from having a say in how Brexit is actually delivered. The narrative now appears to be, that if you’re not on board with the idea that a ‘no deal’ Brexit is somehow the most desirable outcome, then you’re somehow undemocratic and are diluting the ‘winners’ ‘win’. No hypocrisy in that position at all......

 

[Tubey]

You can't split the out vote, brexit means brexit.

It's already split - 'hard' and 'soft'.

They just don't seem to understand their own mantra. The referendum was about leaving the EU, but that's not good enough for the race-to-the-bottom mob like Davis and Johnson, so they don't want to recognise it as legitimately leaving the EU.

So, in theory, they should vote against leaving the EU now. The need for a second vote is obvious, especially due to the fact that Theresa May has undermined the sovereignty of parliament throughout this whole process, meaning the concept of a 'meaningful' vote in the Commons is ludicrous at this point.