Backstop

Lefty Bicek

troyzer wrote: »

Well, it is. Because Germany hasn't taken anything close to a leading role in the Brexit negotiations. It's been coming mainly from Brussels.

The statement you made which I asked you to clarify was -

Their unfounded belief that the EU is a German pawn was one of the main reasons they left...

If it's a reason that they left, your reference here to Brexit negotiations after they left, is irrelevant, and fails to answer the question.

But then you go on to say that -

... Germany is the most powerful member of the EU which itself has always been a Paris-Berlin Axis...

Yet people can at the same time hold the childish view of Germany as some kind of contrite, neurotic Santa.

ps Let's hope Boris and Jacob haven't seen you put the words 'Germany' and 'Axis' in the same sentence. It could stir up some very well-founded suspicions.

troyzer

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

The statement you made which I asked you to clarify was -



If it's a reason that they left, your reference here to Brexit negotiations after they left, is irrelevant, and fails to answer the question.

But then you go on to say that -



Yet people can at the same time hold the childish view of Germany as some kind of contrite, neurotic Santa.

ps Let's hope Boris and Jacob haven't seen you put the words 'Germany' and 'Axis' in the same sentence. It could stir up some very well-founded suspicions.

Germany is the most powerful country and does exert influence but the EU is not its puppet.

This was what I was trying to say. The UK equate its power with utter dominance and I don't think it has this status in Europe.

Mad_maxx

FTA69 wrote: »

Because they still need somewhat decent relations with their neighbours; international diplomacy isn’t just about telling people to f*ck off. You can do that if you’re Putin and constantly in a row anyway. You can’t do it when you’re an isolated country in Europe who has shat on your neighbours who can put the screws on economically if they want.

Doing what you say could provoke economic sanctions, UN condemnation and also reignite a conflict within UK borders they’d be obliged to participate in again. Doesn’t sound too appealing does it?

Wouldn't happen as America would veto it, the usa is oceans closer to the UK than any other country in Europe.

The U. S wants brexit as it weakens Europe

troyzer

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Wouldn't happen as America would veto it, the usa is oceans closer to the UK than any other country in Europe.

The U. S wants brexit as it weakens Europe

This particular administration with its loathing for multilateralism may want Brexit to weaken Europe but normal politicians don't.

Brexit is a disaster for Atlanticism which relied on the US having a strong voice in Europe via the UK which largely agreed with it on security matters. There is no Atlantic voice left in Europe now. The French have never been Atlantacist in nature, the Germans don't have the military and Italy is going into meltdown. The rest of the countries are far too small to fill the vaccum.

Folkstonian

jmayo wrote: »

Actually sometimes they were just plain lucky.
When you look through some of Britain's military history it is littered with cockups in no small part due to incompetent leadership from their aristocratic officers.

The madness of World War 1 being the pinnacle of that stupidity.

You’ve been watching too many episodes of Blackadder. The British militwry command were certainly not incompetent in World War One.

Lefty Bicek

troyzer wrote: »

Germany is the most powerful country and does exert influence but the EU is not its puppet.

This was what I was trying to say. The UK equate its power with utter dominance and I don't think it has this status in Europe.

Well, I really wanted a simple answer as to what the people who made the 'pawn' reference on the IT podcast, gave as their reasons for doing so.

In fact, who are they ? Always a consideration.

The formation of the Euro to meet the needs of the German economy, and the benefit that continues to accrue to Germany from that, is power-politics. Where you have power-politics, you will have pawns.

The Brits have their historical view of Germany, and a well-justified caution about them does condition that.

Mutter Angela's solo-run on opening the floodgates, shows that German hand-wringing about their disgraceful past makes them do imbecilic things.

The bigger issue is that it is ignorant to call Brexit 'stupid' or 'mad' as so many do, on the grounds of the economic impact. It isn't just the economy, stupid. There are decades of research on that, to the point where some analysts suggest that a re-run of the vote might still be extremely close.

troyzer

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Well, I really wanted a simple answer as to what the people who made the 'pawn' reference on the IT podcast, gave as their reasons for doing so.

The formation of the Euro to meet the needs of the German economy, and the benefit that continues to accrue to Germany from that, is power-politics. Where you have power-politics, you will have pawns.

The Brits have their historical view of Germany, and a well-justified caution about them does condition that.

Mutter Angela's solo-run on opening the floodgates, shows that German hand-wringing about their disgraceful past makes them do imbecilic things.

The bigger issue is that it is ignorant to call Brexit 'stupid' or 'mad' as so many do, on the grounds of the economic impact. It isn't just the economy, stupid. There are decades of research on that, to the point where some analysts suggest that a re-run of the vote might still be extremely close.

I know this is going to sound lazy but I can't remember the exact details of the argument to rehash them.

If you want, you can listen here. It's pretty good so I recommend people listen to it anyway.

As far as the rest of your comment goes, that's just general criticism of Germany. Whether or not the British had a reason to believe the likes of Volkswagen and BMW could single handedly hand them a good deal is seperate from your argument and is still ludicrous.

Have a listen anyway and tell me what you think.

Lefty Bicek

troyzer wrote: »

I know this is going to sound lazy but I can't remember the exact details of the argument to rehash them.

If you want, you can listen here. It's pretty good so I recommend people listen to it anyway.

As far as the rest of your comment goes, that's just general criticism of Germany. Whether or not the British had a reason to believe the likes of Volkswagen and BMW could single handedly hand them a good deal is seperate from your argument and is still ludicrous.

Have a listen anyway and tell me what you think.

Thanks for the link, I will listen to it this evening and not comment again until I have done so.

Raheem Euro

Theresa May
Chin up old girl. 48 fewer christmas cards to do.

Capt'n Midnight

Aegir wrote: »

why would they need carriers? who is likely to be invading the Falklands in the foreseeable future?

They don't need carriers. A few dozen Harriers on the back of a container ship is enough to put the frighteners up most small countries. Six billion pounds worth of carriers won't scare anyone until they have operational aircraft. (ie. double the original price)

BTW the Falklands now have an airbase. Because of the possibility of oil , and the fishing.


HS2 , the train line that will save 20 minutes from London to Manchester is also likely to double in price to over £100Bn , enough to pay for EU membership for bleedin' ages.

end of the road

Raheem Euro wrote: »

Theresa May
Chin up old girl. 48 fewer christmas cards to do.

just in, she has survived the confidents vote on her leadership. 200 yes 117 no

Capt'n Midnight

end of the road wrote: »

just in, she has survived the confidents vote on her leadership. 200 yes 117 no

117 fewer Christmas card stamps, it all adds up.

TCM

end of the road wrote:

just in, she has survived the confidents vote on her leadership. 200 yes 117 no

Cannot be challenged for another year. However Brexit crash out is imminent, unless there is somehow another referendum. No agreement Brexit will lead to a hard border and sadly a return to the "troubles" as a physical boarder will not be tolerated by hard line republicans.

theguzman

TCM wrote: »

Cannot be challenged for another year. However Brexit crash out is imminent, unless there is somehow another referendum. No agreement Brexit will lead to a hard border and sadly a return to the "troubles" as a physical boarder will not be tolerated by hard line republicans.

No it won't as they have no support either side of the border like they had back in the troubles. I'm sure the British have learned the lesson and are hardly going to go back to the likes of Bloody Sunday making martyrs of a whole new generation which would give the hardliners the support they crave.

A hard border would not be good but I think it would hasten a United Ireland, if the economy here collapsed again and there was trouble and the British Army deployed then it would be back to the troubles as there would be plenty in the south with nothing to do and easily recruited to go North causing trouble however.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BTW the Falklands now have an airbase. Because of the possibility of oil , and the fishing.
.

“Now” has an airbase?

RAF Mount Pleasant was established 30 years ago and was built because a country 500km away keeps threatening to invade every time their government needs to distract its people from their own incompetence. It has **** all to do with oil or fishing.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

“Now” has an airbase?

RAF Mount Pleasant was established 30 years ago and was built because a country 500km away keeps threatening to invade every time their government needs to distract its people from their own incompetence. It has **** all to do with oil or fishing.

Don't be giving the British any ideas now..........

Fann Linn

theguzman wrote: »

No it won't as they have no support either side of the border like they had back in the troubles. I'm sure the British have learned the lesson and are hardly going to go back to the likes of Bloody Sunday making martyrs of a whole new generation which would give the hardliners the support they crave.

A hard border would not be good but I think it would hasten a United Ireland, if the economy here collapsed again and there was trouble and the British Army deployed then it would be back to the troubles as there would be plenty in the south with nothing to do and easily recruited to go North causing trouble however.

Do you really think the Btitish have learned lessons?

It was they that played the 'Orange Card' again almost 100 years since they originally played it.

realdanbreen

Folkstonian wrote: »

You’ve been watching too many episodes of Blackadder. The British militwry command were certainly not incompetent in World War One.

You reckon filling poor and young misfortunates full of rum and forcing them up out of the trenches to face certain death was military excellence!

Junkyard Tom

troyzer

May is asking for a 12 month limit to the backstop. What's the point if it's time limited?

The whole point is that it's there in case all else fails to avoid a hard border. It's there as a stick to make sure the Brits can't just give up and walk away from what's going to be a really difficult negotiation.

This idea that May is pleading with the EU because she can't win over Tories is pathetic. If she can't win over Tories on the backstop, how is she going to win them over on an inevitably lopsided trade agreement? The answer is, she can't. Which is the reason why we have the backstop in the first place.

Ironically, the better she's able to cajole her party into agreeing to the backstop, the less likely it seems to me that we'll need it.

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

May is asking for a 12 month limit to the backstop. What's the point if it's time limited?

What's the point of the eu negotiating a deal with the UK when it has the backstop to fall back on? the eu could effectively just say, "nah thanks, we've changed our minds" and there is **** all the UK could do about it.

Both sides have gone about this completely arse about face. They should have started working on the future relationship first, because that is the point both sides want to get to, they should have then decided how to get there.

troyzer

Aegir wrote: »

What's the point of the eu negotiating a deal with the UK when it has the backstop to fall back on? the eu could effectively just say, "nah thanks, we've changed our minds" and there is **** all the UK could do about it.

Both sides have gone about this completely arse about face. They should have started working on the future relationship first, because that is the point both sides want to get to, they should have then decided how to get there.

Because it's still in the EU's best interest to negotiate a trade deal. They have nothing to gain by the UK walking away with no trade deal.

If you're proposing that the UK should reject the backstop out of hand in order to use it as a pawn in negotiations, you're nuts. That's just completely unacceptable.

Working on the future relationship first would allow the UK to put a gun to the EUs head on things that need to be agreed upon in advance. You can't bandy around the rights of EU citizens living in the UK in case you need to use it get a favourable deal on bank passporting.

It should be noted that there are things the UK has that the EU wants in a trade negotiation, particularly security partnerships. This isn't a case of the EU getting all of its demands out of the way now so the UK will have nothing to bargain. It's about getting the absolute basics sorted now so that they can't be thrown overboard if a trade deal breaks down.

MarkHenderson

Aegir wrote: »

What's the point of the eu negotiating a deal with the UK when it has the backstop to fall back on? the eu could effectively just say, "nah thanks, we've changed our minds" and there is **** all the UK could do about it.

Both sides have gone about this completely arse about face. They should have started working on the future relationship first, because that is the point both sides want to get to, they should have then decided how to get there.

The EU and May have never had any intention of letting the UK leave. This is all carefully choreographed to get the UK into a place for a second referendum. I despair for anyone who can't see that.

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

Because it's still in the EU's best interest to negotiate a trade deal. They have nothing to gain by the UK walking away with no trade deal.

it is in both parties interests to sign a trade deal, they are both each other's largest trading partner.

troyzer wrote: »

If you're proposing that the UK should reject the backstop out of hand in order to use it as a pawn in negotiations, you're nuts. That's just completely unacceptable.

this is the problem, keeping it in means it can be used by the eu as a pawn in negotiations.

troyzer wrote: »

Working on the future relationship first would allow the UK to put a gun to the EUs head on things that need to be agreed upon in advance. You can't bandy around the rights of EU citizens living in the UK in case you need to use it get a favourable deal on bank passporting.

no, when you agree what the final solution will look like, you know where you are going. At this time, the eu says no, you can't have passporting without free movement, or whatever.

What they have done is decided to go on a journey, jumped in the car and headed to Athlone, but without actually knowing where the journey will end. They are currently arguing about where to park in Athlone, when what they should have done, is decided from the outset that they were going to Kerry and there was no need to be in Athlone in the first place.

troyzer wrote: »

It should be noted that there are things the UK has that the EU wants in a trade negotiation, particularly security partnerships. This isn't a case of the EU getting all of its demands out of the way now so the UK will have nothing to bargain. It's about getting the absolute basics sorted now so that they can't be thrown overboard if a trade deal breaks down.

The basics of not having a physical border on the island of Ireland was agreed right from the get go. Neither party wants it and we are now in the stupid position of making sure something doesn't happen, that neither party wants to happen.

MarkHenderson

MarkHenderson wrote: »

The EU and May have never had any intention of letting the UK leave. This is all carefully choreographed to get the UK into a place for a second referendum. I despair for anyone who can't see that.

I do get the feeling that the UK is being softened up for that, yes.

troyzer

Aegir wrote: »

it is in both parties interests to sign a trade deal, they are both each other's largest trading partner.



this is the problem, keeping it in means it can be used by the eu as a pawn in negotiations.



no, when you agree what the final solution will look like, you know where you are going. At this time, the eu says no, you can't have passporting without free movement, or whatever.

What they have done is decided to go on a journey, jumped in the car and headed to Athlone, but without actually knowing where the journey will end. They are currently arguing about where to park in Athlone, when what they should have done, is decided from the outset that they were going to Kerry and there was no need to be in Athlone in the first place.



The basics of not having a physical border on the island of Ireland was agreed right from the get go. Neither party wants it and we are now in the stupid position of making sure something doesn't happen, that neither party wants to happen.

You're right, it is in both parties interest to get a deal. That's my whole point.

Using the backstop as a pawn isn't true. This takes it off the table. It means that no matter what, the Good Friday Agremeent is protected. It also means of course that the UK is more incentivised to make concessions in order to get a deal but that's the choice they made. They're in a weak position regardless and sacrificing an international peace treaty to give them an extra bargaining chip really is unthinkable.

The EU isn't playing politics with this and the UK shouldn't be allowed to.

Your Athlone example is wrong. What it actually equates to is them getting in the car, not knowing where they're going but at least filling up the tank in advance and setting money aside in case they have to buy more or stay the night. It's about mitigating risk in the event of disaster. Without them we could have the car running out of petrol halfway up a mountain and our phone batteries are dead.

Agreeing to not have a physical border is absolutely meaningless without a legally binding text which ensures it. Theresa May says she doesn't want a border, so do the DUP. But it's clear that for the DUP and for many Tories they'd be happier with a hard border than any situation which might avoid it.

Without a backstop, there is no way to avoid a hard border in the event of a hard Brexit. The British won't shut up about crashing out on WTO terms, terms which require a hard border.

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

Using the backstop as a pawn isn't true. This takes it off the table. It means that no matter what, the Good Friday Agremeent is protected. It also means of course that the UK is more incentivised to make concessions in order to get a deal but that's the choice they made. They're in a weak position regardless and sacrificing an international peace treaty to give them an extra bargaining chip really is unthinkable.

no one is sacrificing the good Friday agreement. That is just scaremongering.

troyzer wrote: »

The EU isn't playing politics with this and the UK shouldn't be allowed to.

of course the eu is.

Interesting article here https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-brexit-negotiator-weve-reached-peak/

troyzer wrote: »

Your Athlone example is wrong. What it actually equates to is them getting in the car, not knowing where they're going but at least filling up the tank in advance and setting money aside in case they have to buy more or stay the night. It's about mitigating risk in the event of disaster. Without them we could have the car running out of petrol halfway up a mountain and our phone batteries are dead.

Running out of petrol up a hill we didn't need to drive up in the first place :rolleyes:

troyzer wrote: »

Agreeing to not have a physical border is absolutely meaningless without a legally binding text which ensures it. Theresa May says she doesn't want a border, so do the DUP. But it's clear that for the DUP and for many Tories they'd be happier with a hard border than any situation which might avoid it.

Without a backstop, there is no way to avoid a hard border in the event of a hard Brexit. The British won't shut up about crashing out on WTO terms, terms which require a hard border.

of course, the UK needs to show that it is prepared to crash out. In any negotiation you need to show the other party you have the option to walk away. With the backstop in place, it takes away this option and ties the UK's hands.

troyzer

Aegir wrote: »

no one is sacrificing the good Friday agreement. That is just scaremongering.



of course the eu is.

Interesting article here https://www.politico.eu/article/michel-barnier-brexit-negotiator-weve-reached-peak/



Running out of petrol up a hill we didn't need to drive up in the first place :rolleyes:



of course, the UK needs to show that it is prepared to crash out. In any negotiation you need to show the other party you have the option to walk away. With the backstop in place, it takes away this option and ties the UK's hands.

If they're willing to crash out without a deal then by definition they're willing to sacrifice the Good Friday Agreement. It won't survive a hard border, everyone knows that.

I agree that they didn't need to drive up the hill in the first place, they shouldn't have voted to leave. But here we are. Nobody knows where these trade negotiations will end up but we have to make sure that there are certain guarantees in advance of this. Don't forget, the UK has gotten quite a lot out of this withdrawal agreement including reciprocal treatment of its own citizens in the EU and the ability to stay within the customs union during the transition which is something the EU definitely didn't want in the beginning.

MarkHenderson

Aegir wrote: »

I do get the feeling that the UK is being softened up for that, yes.

Without doubt but the damage that it will do will be unbelievable for the UK. Vast parts of their country feel left behind and Brexit was one chance they had of kicking the establishment in the balls. We are constantly told "don't protest or cause trouble, the ballot box is the true expression of democracy" but now that's been taken away and the results are going to be profound. People seem to forget the majority voted Brexit not some looney fringe.

troyzer

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Without doubt but the damage that it will do will be unbelievable for the UK. Vast parts of their country feel left behind and Brexit was one chance they had of kicking the establishment in the balls. We are constantly told "don't protest or cause trouble, the ballot box is the true expression of democracy" but now that's been taken away and the results are going to be profound. People seem to forget the majority voted Brexit not some looney fringe.

A majority voted for Brexit given a variety of options including a Norway or Swiss style agreement. Some left wing Brexiteers had the idea of a worker's republic unshackled by EU state aid and subsidy rules.

There was no comprehensive vote for a single idea of Brexit and the different Brexit scenarios are vastly different.

To the people who voted for Brexit thinking they'd end up like Norway, does anyone really believe that given a choice between remain and hard Brexit they'd all vote for the latter?

tigger123

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Without doubt but the damage that it will do will be unbelievable for the UK. Vast parts of their country feel left behind and Brexit was one chance they had of kicking the establishment in the balls. We are constantly told "don't protest or cause trouble, the ballot box is the true expression of democracy" but now that's been taken away and the results are going to be profound. People seem to forget the majority voted Brexit not some looney fringe.

The problem with that approach though is that the working class (the ones being left behind as you accurately put it) are using the wring thing (Brexit) to make their voices heard. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I blame the Labour party tbh. They faffed around the Brexit issue for far too long and then swung in behind the Leave campaign at the last minute.

The working classes will be the first to bear the brunt of an economic downturn, and will feel it more shaprly than anyone else. And Labour have facilitated it.

MarkHenderson

troyzer wrote: »

A majority voted for Brexit given a variety of options including a Norway or Swiss style agreement. Some left wing Brexiteers had the idea of a worker's republic unshackled by EU state aid and subsidy rules.

There was no comprehensive vote for a single idea of Brexit and the different Brexit scenarios are vastly different.

To the people who voted for Brexit thinking they'd end up like Norway, does anyone really believe that given a choice between remain and hard Brexit they'd all vote for the latter?

No deal is better than telling people their vote doesn't count. This isn't Ireland we are talking about, the people aren't going to just take it lying down.

greenwaving

MarkHenderson wrote: »

People seem to forget the majority voted Brexit not some looney fringe.

A small majority who were lied to by a looney fringe who also broke election spending rules and likely involved Russian interference.

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

If they're willing to crash out without a deal then by definition they're willing to sacrifice the Good Friday Agreement. It won't survive a hard border, everyone knows that.

the amount of talk around this, you'd think there are people almost wishing for a return to violence, even better if there can be some blame put on the Brits for it.

Whatever happens, the Common Travel Area will remain. everyone has agreed to this, so there will be no hindrance to people crossing the border and Irish and British citizens will be free to live and work in either country.

I'm sure there are people itching for an excuse to plant a few bombs, but most of these never signed up the Good Friday Agreement in the first place.

troyzer

MarkHenderson wrote: »

No deal is better than telling people their vote doesn't count. This isn't Ireland we are talking about, the people aren't going to just take it lying down.

It's not telling them that their vote doesn't count. It's telling them it was too open ended a mandate and there is no majority for any given view so ask them to clarify exactly what they want.

Everybody knows that there is no majority for any one position in the UK except possibly remain.

I don't think it's fair that you can have half the country for remain and the other half for a variety of Brexits, only one of which can take precedence.

For all we know, only a quarter of the country wants a hard brexit. Would it really be democratic to allow for that quarter to get what they want over the rest?

greenwaving

MarkHenderson wrote: »

No deal is better than telling people their vote doesn't count. This isn't Ireland we are talking about, the people aren't going to just take it lying down.

Economic suicide and return of a hard border in NI with possible implications for peace on the island is the better option? OK then

tigger123

The British public were sold a lie during the Leave campaign; they voted to leave the EU and somehow travel back to the time of little England, tea, crumpets and no more black people. What they voted for cannot be delivered, and they last few weeks has been a very slow realization of this.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/brehonisbest/status/1073491717570117634

MarkHenderson

troyzer wrote: »

It's not telling them that their vote doesn't count. It's telling them it was too open ended a mandate and there is no majority for any given view so ask them to clarify exactly what they want.

Everybody knows that there is no majority for any one position in the UK except possibly remain.

I don't think it's fair that you can have half the country for remain and the other half for a variety of Brexits, only one of which can take precedence.

For all we know, only a quarter of the country wants a hard brexit. Would it really be democratic to allow for that quarter to get what they want over the rest?

Half the country didn't vote to remain. Remain was in the minority.

For all we know a quarter want a soft Brexit and three quarters want a hard Brexit. Who knows but they have already voted on it and it's time to get on with it.

AbdulAbhaile

MarkHenderson wrote: »

No deal is better than telling people their vote doesn't count. This isn't Ireland we are talking about, the people aren't going to just take it lying down.

But they were sold a pup.

What brexit did they vote for? Hard, soft, crash out?

It's hard to see how a second vote would be a bad thing once there is a deal to vote on.

Ie, this is exactly what brexit looks like, do you want it or not?

I can see the dangers if it is another close vote but there are dangers one way or another.

tigger123

The conversations the British people and Government are having now, are the conversations they should have had 2 and a 1/2 years ago.

tigger123

tigger123 wrote: »

The British public were sold a lie during the Leave campaign; they voted to leave the EU and somehow travel back to the time of little England, tea, crumpets and no more black people. What they voted for cannot be delivered, and they last few weeks has been a very slow realization of this.

Except for the black people of course, unless they voted to magically change the colour of their skin.

seamus

MarkHenderson wrote: »

No deal is better than telling people their vote doesn't count. This isn't Ireland we are talking about, the people aren't going to just take it lying down.

"Good evening sir. Would you like your usual Lasagna, or would you like a delicious Ratatouille that our chef has prepared, which is cheaper, tastier and superior in every way?"

"Oh, the ratatouille, please!"

[Different waiter] "I'm sorry sir, it turns out the other waiter is in fact a psychopath trying to poison people, and instead of ratatouille, what we have is rat poison. If you eat it, you will almost certainly die. I'm going to cancel that and bring you your lasagna"

"How...DARE YOU. I've made my choice, and I deserve to have my free will honoured. Bring me my rat poison!"

troyzer

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Half the country didn't vote to remain. Remain was in the minority.

For all we know a quarter want a soft Brexit and three quarters want a hard Brexit. Who knows but they have already voted on it and it's time to get on with it.

Half the country voted to remain if you're rounding. Of course I'm accepting remain lost.

We know three quarters don't want a hard brexit because only 52% voted to leave.

So unless 94% of the people who voted to leave had the same vision for Brexit, there is no mandate for any particular vision. This is not the difference between a 1% tax cut and a 2% tax cut like you might have in an election, it is a massive, fundamental constitutional distinction.

Hard Brexiteers like Rees-Mogg are trying to take this mandate and run with it.

The Brexit vote was a coalition of hard right Eurosceptics like Farage who want a Singapore-upon-Thames set up, hard left Eurosceptics like Corbyn (secretly) who want a Britain free of state aid rules so they can renationalise the railways etc and many centrists who are uncomfortable with the EU and would prefer to not be subjected to all of their rules but know leaving straight up would be economic suicide.

These visions of Brexit are mutually incompatible and a lot of people voted for each one. Clearly none of them command a majority in Parliament and yet Theresa May is trying to pretend that the people would be less divided than Parliament and back her.

MarkHenderson

seamus wrote: »

"Good evening sir. Would you like your usual Lasagna, or would you like a delicious Ratatouille that our chef has prepared, which is cheaper, tastier and superior in every way?"

"Oh, the ratatouille, please!"

[Different waiter] "I'm sorry sir, it turns out the other waiter is in fact a psychopath trying to poison people, and instead of ratatouille, what we have is rat poison. If you eat it, you will almost certainly die. I'm going to cancel that and bring you your lasagna"

"How...DARE YOU. I've made my choice, and I deserve to have my free will honoured. Bring me my rat poison!"

You are comparing somebody ordering dinner to a national referendum. Okay so.

sjb25

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/brehonisbest/status/1073491717570117634

#hero lol

Berserker

tigger123 wrote: »

The conversations the British people and Government are having now, are the conversations they should have had 2 and a 1/2 years ago.

That is very true. Brexit still hasn't been defined. If you lined up ten different leavers, you get ten different responses. Hard Brexit is the best way to meet the demand in my opinion.

greenwaving wrote: »

Economic suicide and return of a hard border in NI with possible implications for peace on the island is the better option? OK then

What implications for peace?

realdanbreen

MarkHenderson wrote: »

No deal is better than telling people their vote doesn't count. This isn't Ireland we are talking about, the people aren't going to just take it lying down.

Course they are. Every country that the brits invaded and terrorised and plundered down through the years has pretty much kicked them out at this stage so the 27 member states ain't going to be taking any shyte from Roal Britannia any time soon.!

seamus

Berserker wrote: »

What implications for peace?

Any kind of tangible border between the North and the Republic is likely to stir up sectarian violence. And that gets out of control real quick if it's allowed.

dr.fuzzenstein

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Half the country didn't vote to remain. Remain was in the minority.

For all we know a quarter want a soft Brexit and three quarters want a hard Brexit. Who knows but they have already voted on it and it's time to get on with it.

Got a source for that?
Cause it's balderdash.

And the rest was silence.