helen

Decisions, decisions.

86 posts in this topic

An ICM survey carried out in mid-January as part of a Guardian reporting project, found 47% of those who were asked would favour having a final say on Brexit once the terms of the UK’s departure are known, while 34% oppose reopening the question.

A separate question on how people would vote shows a small shift towards remain (51% to 49%). Support for remain has grown stronger in Scotland while Wales and the English midlands are still in favour of leaving.

It does, however, show a clear hardening of the Brexit age division, with young voters (students) 16% more likely than before to support remain but over-65s now 2% more determined than ever to leave.

The poll found 32% now think Brexit would have a good impact on the UK economy, compared with 38% when the same question was asked last February.

Is Brexit the only vote that cannot be overturned or should the old fogeys, not long for this world, give way to the young, to whom the future belongs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As anyone who has read my posts knows, I voted to remain in the EU and believe the decision to leave will be a disaster for the UK.  However I am as opposed to the holding a second referendum on the final deal as I was opposed to the referendum of 2016.

We live in a Parliamentary democracy, in which we elect representative to govern us.  Deciding that a question cannot be left to our democratically elected representatives suggests a complete lack of faith in our democracy.  It would be hypocritical of me to support a second referendum in the hope that it could somehow unpick the result of the first one.

If the electorate was so determined that we had to leave the EU, then they should have voted in a General Election to elect a Government that would withdraw us from the EU.  They didn't and the pressure brought by the Brexiteers to hold a referendum was a successful attempt to bypass the democratic process.

The stupidity of the politically lightweight David Cameron to offer a referendum that he didn't want in order to keep members of his party from deserting him is staggering.  The referendum was only ever an advisory referendum anyway.  Had it been a binding referendum there would probably have been a qualified majority required.  Had the results of the referendum been mirrored in a strike vote by public sector unions, the vote would have been lost by the Brexiteers as they did not achieve 40% of the possible votes.  So it is harder for the workers of London underground to win a strike ballot for one day's industrial action than for UKIP to win a vote for us to leave the EU.  It is totally barmy.

I suspect there will be a second referendum, even though I do not want one, and the result of the referendum will be the rejection of the Government's position of a UK outside the SIngle Market and Customs Union.  What will happen in that scenario is anyone's guess.

In the event that we do eventually leave the EU in the next few years, the whole focus of politics for the next decades will be to unpick the decision and for the UK to rejoin.  As the older generation expires and the younger generations take the majority, the pressure for us to rejoin will become greater.  But our rejoining will not be on the same terms as our leaving.  We will need to adopt the Euro, the Schengen area, lose our rebate, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alteredbhoy, the thing that sticks in the craw of the older generation is the duplicity that Heath used to get us into the EU. A common market with tarrif free borders is a good thing. Wholesale loss of sovereignty with interference in every aspect of life is a bad thing. As nett contributors we have been taken for a ride and exploited to shore up corrupt and failing economies. Why in God's name should landlocked EU countries have a fishing quota in our waters while our own dwindling fleet are forced to stay in port because they have used up their meagre quota. The newer Eastern European members are quite vociferous about any reduction in their handouts post Brexit. We have been the biggest mugs going in implementing every inane edict while the French, Spanish, Italians etcetera snigger and say they'll think about it. Yes there has been much beneficial legislation enacted by the EU but it is all mired in a plethora of red tape.

I do hold you in some regard your arguments are always sound and well reasoned and perhaps my responses are more emotive. However I firmly believe we can survive post brexit and even flourish. If we do re-join I hope it will be a very different EU, purged of corruption, stifling beaurocracy and with the flexibility to understand that one size does not fit all.

Respectfully John B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Alteredbhoy I am someone that voted to remain in Europe, but I agree with the points made by Bratman in the post above.  

 

Now, I the first to say that I grew up through the 1970's and 1980's, so I am what some may call getting towards being middle aged.  Back in the early 1970's when Edward Heath took us into what was then the Common Market it was all about trade, not governing of our country as it has become in many ways.   

 

Since in my opinion everything that the current UK government can govern is going downhill, such as not enough many for the National Health Service, Not enough money for transport with electrification projects of the railways being cutback and other projects to the UK infrastructure being cancelled which were promised years ago by the then Prime Minister David Cameron.  Any decisions that I have seen being taken by Theresa May seem to be in favour of the rich minority and not the vast majority of the country.  Hence, why I would would want there to be a second referendum on the deal that has been made with the EU, so that I can see that it is a good deal for the UK.  Going forward, it will be my generation and those younger than me that for the most part voted to remain that will have to live with the consequences of the older generation that voted to leave the EU.   

 

Just another point before ending.  During the Premiership of David Cameron new Inter-City trains where ordered for the Great Western Mainline and the East Coast Mainline.   The plan was to electrify all but a few small branch lines on the Great Western Mainline.  This has been cutback due to the fact that the trains ordered are hybrid trains that can be powered by both overhead electrification and diesel engines.   Yet, it is this same government that is saying that the decision by the previous labour government to have more people in diesel cars is actually more dangerous to the environment than equivalent petrol cars. If the government can go back on a deal to electrify most part of the Great Western mainline, what is to say that it would not hold to any deal with the EU?  The only way that it would have to hold to any deal with the EU, is by having a second referendum and allowing the nation to see the deal.  If the majority of the nation accept the deal, then the government then have to keep to it as it was promised.  Whereas if there is no referendum and the deal is just accepted or rejected by the MP's at Westminster then the government can change it's mind one way or the other at will and it would not matter if it is bad for the country.          

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bratman said:

Alteredbhoy, the thing that sticks in the craw of the older generation is the duplicity that Heath used to get us into the EU. A common market with tarrif free borders is a good thing. Wholesale loss of sovereignty with interference in every aspect of life is a bad thing. As nett contributors we have been taken for a ride and exploited to shore up corrupt and failing economies. Why in God's name should landlocked EU countries have a fishing quota in our waters while our own dwindling fleet are forced to stay in port because they have used up their meagre quota. The newer Eastern European members are quite vociferous about any reduction in their handouts post Brexit. We have been the biggest mugs going in implementing every inane edict while the French, Spanish, Italians etcetera snigger and say they'll think about it. Yes there has been much beneficial legislation enacted by the EU but it is all mired in a plethora of red tape.

I do hold you in some regard your arguments are always sound and well reasoned and perhaps my responses are more emotive. However I firmly believe we can survive post brexit and even flourish. If we do re-join I hope it will be a very different EU, purged of corruption, stifling beaurocracy and with the flexibility to understand that one size does not fit all.

Respectfully John .

Even Peter Hitchens doesn't agree that we didn't know what we were signing up to. 

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/08/there-was-no-excuse-for-thinking-the-common-market-was-just-a-free-trade-group-in-1975.html

In summary his view is

"In the light of all this, how justified is the repeated bleat one hears these days that ‘I voted for a free trade area, not what the European Union has become’? In my view, it’s not justified at all. The truth was readily available. But people wouldn’t see it."

I don't think you could exactly describe Hitchens as an EU supporter. 

With regard to fishing the UK’s fishing haul has increased in recent year our share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU. 

Of course we will survive if we leave the EU we will just be poorer than we would have been had we stayed.

It is clear that we are already paying a cost of Brexit as the Governor of The Bank of England has said. He suggests that it is costing us £200 million a week in lost growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, explorer1954 said:

 

With regard to fishing the UK’s fishing haul has increased in recent year our share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU. 

 

 

What utter rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't we, or supposedly the majority, vote for a Parliament to make these decisions for us ?*

On the main , the great unwashed are unable to make these decisions, mainly due to the full facts and information not being available.*

I wonder , with all the time brexit and leadership contests etc taking place , when exactly, they have the time to run the country.*

* speaking as one of the unwashed without the knowledge.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, explorer1954 said:

With regard to fishing the UK’s fishing haul has increased in recent year our share of the overall EU fishing catch grew between 2004 and 2014. In 2004 the UK had the fourth largest catch of any EU country at 652,000 tonnes, by 2014 this had grown to 752,000 tonnes and the second largest catch of any country in the EU. 

We should not put too much faith in better fish catching prospects post Brexit, the cold-blooded creatures are not known for their patriotism or pride in the flag. It is common knowledge that, even now, younger left leaning fishes are deserting UK waters rather than risk the more lax deregulated standards of fish welfare that may come after the Brexitation. They would rather be caught by Bulgarians.
Not to worry; we may be able to negotiate a good deal to buy them back cheaper than it will cost to catch them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, radio said:

What utter rubbish.

Of course, why let the facts get in the way ...

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Fishery_statistics

The UK has the second largest fishing fleet in the EU (measured by catch capacity) and is one of only four nations to have increased the total catch over the period 2005 to 2015.  Over the same period the two major European fishing nations not in the EU had substantial reductions in catch: Norway's total catch fell by over 10% and Iceland's by over 20%.  

It is just too easy (if not lazy) to say that the decline in the UK fishing industry occurred while we were in the EU and therefore it must have been caused by the EU.  Over the same period there has been a much greater decline in the UK's typewriter manufacturers, which had nothing to do with EU membership and everything to do with technological advances.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, helen said:

We should not put too much faith in better fish catching prospects post Brexit, the cold-blooded creatures are not known for their patriotism or pride in the flag. It is common knowledge that, even now, younger left leaning fishes are deserting UK waters rather than risk the more lax deregulated standards of fish welfare that may come after the Brexitation. They would rather be caught by Bulgarians.
Not to worry; we may be able to negotiate a good deal to buy them back cheaper than it will cost to catch them.

It won't happen Helen.  Freedom of movement is one of our PM's red lines.  That applies equally to maritime creatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Of course, why let the facts get in the way ...

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Fishery_statistics

The UK has the second largest fishing fleet in the EU (measured by catch capacity) and is one of only four nations to have increased the total catch over the period 2005 to 2015.  Over the same period the two major European fishing nations not in the EU had substantial reductions in catch: Norway's total catch fell by over 10% and Iceland's by over 20%.  

It is just too easy (if not lazy) to say that the decline in the UK fishing industry occurred while we were in the EU and therefore it must have been caused by the EU.  Over the same period there has been a much greater decline in the UK's typewriter manufacturers, which had nothing to do with EU membership and everything to do with technological advances.  

You beat me to it thanks. It's amazing how little interest some people have in actual hard facts. 

One of the big issues that caused significant damage to the deep sea fishing fleet was the final Cod War with Iceland. 

I assume that is article from The Yorkshire Post will be sufficient.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/our-region/east-yorkshire/how-the-cod-war-of-40-years-ago-left-a-yorkshire-community-devastated-1-7636401

Fishermen were totally screwed over by the government of the day and it had nothing to do with the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, explorer1954 said:

One of the big issues that caused significant damage to the deep sea fishing fleet was the final Cod War with Iceland. 

I think it is also true that fish stocks in the North Sea grew during the years of the Second World War when fishing was difficult. After the war the British deep sea fleet continued to benefit from this well into the 1960s. It was the decline in stocks combined with the second Cod War that finally did for it around the time Britain joined the Common Market.
As the scientists say. Correlation is not causation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, helen said:

I think it is also true that fish stocks in the North Sea grew during the years of the Second World War when fishing was difficult. After the war the British deep sea fleet continued to benefit from this well into the 1960s. It was the decline in stocks combined with the second Cod War that finally did for it around the time Britain joined the Common Market.
As the scientists say. Correlation is not causation.

Utter rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selective truth at play here many of the British registered fishing vessels are in fact Spanish owned and their catches are landed in Spain.

John B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bratman said:

Selective truth at play here many of the British registered fishing vessels are in fact Spanish owned and their catches are landed in Spain.

John B.

Please provide proof of your claim.  Being someone that lives within a port in East Sussex, I know that all the local boats are owned by the people that are sailing fishing vessels, yet they still have a small quota that they can bring in and have to compete against both Spanish and French fishing vessels.             

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clock is ticking on our EU membership.

So will Mays divided government manage to agree on the precise form of Brexit they actually want, or, as seems likely let the EU to do it for them.

So much for “Taking back control”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robbies said:

Please provide proof of your claim.  Being someone that lives within a port in East Sussex, I know that all the local boats are owned by the people that are sailing fishing vessels, yet they still have a small quota that they can bring in and have to compete against both Spanish and French fishing vessels.             

Again, utter rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amazes me that so called expert members come on to the forums and tell us that they are correct in their observations and even go to the length of providing us with links from government sources to prove their point. Yet these same members happily condemn any present government, all MP's and people in authority as utter fools, forgetting it is these same people who have provided the links that are happily waved about. Even the world of the internet and Wikki etc. is not infallible as all that was written by a HUMAN BEING, believe it or not.

Cannot one of you speak about something that you know is correct through personal knowledge or experience?

Edited by radio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The more I think about it the angrier I get. A billionaire who works to deny the benefits of EU citizenship, trade and cooperation to the British, while making sure he enjoys those same benefits himself.

Edited by explorer1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, explorer1954 said:

So much for “Taking back control”. 

The Brexitation is turning out to be every bit as much fun as I thought when I heard the news.
We can expect much more hot air, shouting and dilly-dallying along the way before things are done but in a few years time I am confident we will arrive back where we started believing that everything has changed.
The trick is to think more like Americans, they long ago mastered the art of believing anything.

At the start of each day at morning assembly we must wave our little flags, shout ‘Up your’s Delors’ then sing along to the tune of Knees up Mother Brown:

“We’ve taken back control,
We’ve got our country back,
Rule Britannia!
Rule Britannia!
Send the dagos back, Oi!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fishing question is an interesting one.  As a non EU member, Norway has a 200 mile exclusion limit upon foreign vessels fishing in its waters.  Except that it has agreed that EU fishing boats are permitted to fish within those waters, as part of its access to the Single Market.  Of course once the UK leaves the EU its fishermen will have no further access to those waters.  That represents a considerable loss of traditional British fishing grounds.  Ooops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The fishing question is an interesting one.  As a non EU member, Norway has a 200 mile exclusion limit upon foreign vessels fishing in its waters.  Except that it has agreed that EU fishing boats are permitted to fish within those waters, as part of its access to the Single Market.  Of course once the UK leaves the EU its fishermen will have no further access to those waters.  That represents a considerable loss of traditional British fishing grounds.  Ooops.

Once again, rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU have now published the directives for the transition deal.

 

I am sure that they are a far more reliable guide as to what will happen than anything which will come from Westminster.

I very much doubt if our dysfunctional government will bring any significant change to them.

For a process which is supposedly about "taking back control" the UK will continue to leave the EU on terms as prescribed by the EU.

As a country we rarely seemed so powerless we cannot now freely "walk away" without being in breach of the undertakings given in the December joint report, and that would send an adverse signal to any other potential negotiating partner.  UK cannot renege easily.

UK now locked in to whatever the EU decide.  I think the term is 'vassal state' according to that fool Jacob Rees Mogg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, helen said:

The Brexitation is turning out to be every bit as much fun as I thought when I heard the news.
We can expect much more hot air, shouting and dilly-dallying along the way before things are done but in a few years time I am confident we will arrive back where we started believing that everything has changed.
The trick is to think more like Americans, they long ago mastered the art of believing anything.

melen, you're absolutely correct in saying this. There are still a few of us 'bitter clingers' that still believe in making our own way through this world. I could counter that it seems many of us believe in nothing.............unless the gov can provide it.

We've had this topic at the time Brexit was passed. The EU was then, and still is, another layer of gov to which the working man pays.... diluting his resources and eventually his respect. From these pockets of the working man the EU is trying to bolster mediocre govs, taking from the more successful ones. One level playing field. And it's flat on the ground. Social justice seems to be the brunt of this organization. And you guys have been brainwashed into believing you need some 'big brother' to show you how to live.........on their terms.

Why can't a trade organization be maintained without them demanding that you must subscribe to their social values? I would imagine that in some point in time, another layer of gov will be needed to reign in this current EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rowlf said:

From these pockets of the working man the EU is trying to bolster mediocre govs, taking from the more successful ones.

So a country with a large GDP has a successful Government, whereas one with a lower GDP has a mediocre Government (as GDP is the basis upon which EU contributions are determined).  We should all apply to become Chinese on this basis.

Of course the EU as a trading bloc has a far larger GDP than the US, so presumably this makes the US mediocre by comparison?

Or maybe, just maybe, you have no idea what you're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So a country with a large GDP has a successful Government, whereas one with a lower GDP has a mediocre Government (as GDP is the basis upon which EU contributions are determined).  We should all apply to become Chinese on this basis.

Of course the EU as a trading bloc has a far larger GDP than the US, so presumably this makes the US mediocre by comparison?

Or maybe, just maybe, you have no idea what you're talking about?

No, not exactly. We shouldn't distinguish between the financial status of the various govs. Let them choose the path they wish to take. It's not the gov's job to give this money away.........or it shouldn't be.

Bottom line, whatever it was designed to be, it should only be a trade organization, not a welfare state.

I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about. You just espouse the doctrine you've been taught. Ya just gotsta have those damned boots on the ground...........or else it's only 'heresay'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rowlf said:

No, not exactly. We shouldn't distinguish between the financial status of the various govs. Let them choose the path they wish to take. It's not the gov's job to give this money away.........or it shouldn't be.

Bottom line, whatever it was designed to be, it should only be a trade organization, not a welfare state.

I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about. You just espouse the doctrine you've been taught. Ya just gotsta have those damned boots on the ground...........or else it's only 'heresay'.

Like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowlf said:

No, not exactly. We shouldn't distinguish between the financial status of the various govs. Let them choose the path they wish to take. It's not the gov's job to give this money away.........or it shouldn't be.

Bottom line, whatever it was designed to be, it should only be a trade organization, not a welfare state.

I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about. You just espouse the doctrine you've been taught. Ya just gotsta have those damned boots on the ground...........or else it's only 'heresay'.

I think it's clear that you know next to nothing about the EU. Can you give some examples of how the EU provides welfare state functions within the UK?

Its interesting that some of the most pro Brexit Tories were trumpeting the some recent legislation that banned incremental charges for the use of Credit Cards. This was an EU initiative.

Do you think trade organisations don't have rules? Of course they do and these rules can impact on all sorts of things.

If you look at the NAFTA agreement late last year The USA unveiled draft text on labour standards during the negotiations on modernizing the North American Free Trade Agreement. The USA said the labour proposal would ensure enforceable mechanisms to raise labour standards within NAFTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, radio said:

Once again, rubbish.

Where is your proof then that it is rubbish?  Do you live in a fishing town or village ore grew up near one where at least half if not more fishing jobs have gone in the last 10 years or more due to changes in fishing rights within the EU?   

 

Have you ever worked as fisherman?  Come to think of it have you ever worked in your life?   

 

Apologies to the others that have posted in this thread for taking it off track, but Tony is one for saying that something is rubbish, but not really giving any evidence to prove why the details being provided are rubbish.   

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbies I think you and I are singing out of the same hymn book. I was making the point that part of the British fishing quota is actually caught by the Spanish and landed in Spain. They can get away with it because they are using vessels registered in the UK and are therefore allocated a portion of the UK quota.

John B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bratman said:

Robbies I think you and I are singing out of the same hymn book. I was making the point that part of the British fishing quota is actually caught by the Spanish and landed in Spain. They can get away with it because they are using vessels registered in the UK and are therefore allocated a portion of the UK quota.

John B.

Surely if true this could only be because there are no UK registered vessels to take up the quota?

The other thing that you all seem to be forgetting is that the UK exports 45% of its catch, 80% of that quantity goes to EU countries. For example 90% of fish landed in Ramsgate are sold in the Boulogne Fish Market - for 15% more in value than they would get at home. 

If we leave the EU with no deal as many seem to want these will be subject to substantial tariffs which will decimate the industry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

 

Or maybe, just maybe, you have no idea what you're talking about?

Does he ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The governments Brexit analysis has been leaked. It shows that Britain will be worse off outside the single market and customs union under all modelled scenarios.

The overwhelming majority of economic sectors and every single UK region will be damaged outside the single market and customs union. 

It shines a light on the core of May's challenge. The Brexiters way of mitigating the damage of Brexit is in regulatory divergence and FTAs, but the more the UK diverges the greater the barriers with its biggest market and the economic damage.

How will May explain where she is heading on Brexit, let alone idiots like Johnson and Fox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robbies said:

Where is your proof then that it is rubbish?  Do you live in a fishing town or village ore grew up near one where at least half if not more fishing jobs have gone in the last 10 years or more due to changes in fishing rights within the EU?   

 

Have you ever worked as fisherman?  Come to think of it have you ever worked in your life?   

 

Apologies to the others that have posted in this thread for taking it off track, but Tony is one for saying that something is rubbish, but not really giving any evidence to prove why the details being provided are rubbish.   

I think we can conclude that you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension about my identity. My name is not Tony but if you think it is then please continue to do so. My apologies to Tony whoever you are.

Now to answer your rather perule questions in the same order you asked them.

Yes.

Yes

and yes. ( First paragraph)

Yes.

and yes and never been made redundant.

Just to add more to your complete ignorance I can remember not so very long ago, fishing boats four and five abreast filling the harbour. There was a thriving fish market and an ice making plant that ran night and day to provide ice for the boats. Nothing there now, no market, no ice plant, no boats except for maybe three or four and these boats are confined to port because they've caught their quota.

There are no deep sea trawlers fishing the North Sea. The clue is in the name. The North Sea is fished by middle water trawlers of about 60 foot in length and these boats come from all countries bordering the sea. The fact that foreign boats are allowed to fish within our territorial waters and take whatever they catch while our boats are not allowed in EU waters doesn't really matter, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you buy a Ryanair ticket for summer 2019, watch out for the ‘Brexit clause’. 

Customers will be warned that their tickets won’t be valid if ministers haven’t resolved the issue of aviation regulations.

Flights within the EU as well as between the US and Britain are currently covered by ‘Open Skies’ agreements, but the arrangement may not stand after Brexit.

Ryanair said today that airlines had no clarity how aviation will be regulated after Britain’s scheduled departure at the end of March 2019.

There is no fallback option for aviation if Britain leaves the EU without a deal. This is just one of the many things that would be affected by no deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our deluded PM seems to have just said that ‘we’ have got to take rights away from EU citizens next year because ‘that is what the British people voted for’ . This is a totally shameful statement.

The face was that of May, the words were those of the Tory puppet master Farage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, explorer1954 said:

Our deluded PM seems to have just said that ‘we’ have got to take rights away from EU citizens next year because ‘that is what the British people voted for’ . This is a totally shameful statement.

The face was that of May, the words were those of the Tory puppet master Farage.

I feel a bit sorry for poor old Nigel. He as found himself out in the cold a bit, without a party or much of an audience.

At the start it seemed the urge to Brex was spread across the political colours, except perhaps the Lib/Dems, The reds were as keen as the blues. Now the decision has been made it has become the property of the Tory right, that little band of public school spitfire pilots, born to rule, who are all that stand between us and the invading hoards. Only they can decide what we voted for and what is best for us.
Or perhaps they are just a bunch of political chancers who see an opportunity for a bit of personal advancement.

No, it couldn’t be that …      …Could it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, helen said:

I feel a bit sorry for poor old Nigel. He as found himself out in the cold a bit, without a party or much of an audience.

At the start it seemed the urge to Brex was spread across the political colours, except perhaps the Lib/Dems, The reds were as keen as the blues. Now the decision has been made it has become the property of the Tory right, that little band of public school spitfire pilots, born to rule, who are all that stand between us and the invading hoards. Only they can decide what we voted for and what is best for us.
Or perhaps they are just a bunch of political chancers who see an opportunity for a bit of personal advancement.

No, it couldn’t be that …      …Could it?

Its interesting at the moment that Rees-Mogg and the quitlings seem to not exactly be pushing themselves forward to get the Maybot out of Downing Street.

Maybe the prospect of installing one of their own is looking less and less appealing. They are happy moaning and groaning from the sidelines but don't want to take any ownership of Brexit and it's inevitable consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of the Treasury modelling is somewhat perplexing.  The three models purport to show that the UK will be economically worse off outside the EU than we are inside the EU, irrespective of whether we remain in or out of the Single Market or Customs Union and irrespective of our negotiating a free trade deal.

The models have been criticised by Ministers in the DEEU as being biased, though the Minister has since apologised for "suggesting" that the Civil Servants were not impartial.  The Prime Minister argues that the models are irrelevant because they have not modelled the consequences if the UK achieves the deal which the Government wants.  Quite how the deal the Government wants can be better than a full free trade deal is not clear.

The Brexiteers suggesting that the Civil Service is acting as a block to Government Policy is outrageous and is akin to Donald Trump's blaming everyone else for everything.  It is a very slippery slope.

Quite why the Treasury is modelling outcomes that the Prime Minister states are irrelevant and fails to model the Government's chosen outcome is also unclear.  After all we are now over 20 months into the 33 months between the referendum and Brexit.  

It would appear that despite all Mrs May's platitudes about a bright, ambitious and confident future, the UK Government still cannot see a sensible way for us to leave the EU without there being a cliff edge disaster.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now