Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Guided Missile]

Well it's quite clear he has never studied economics.

These guys have:

The Euro Is A Disaster - Stiglitz, Krugman, Milton Friedman And James Tobin Agree

[badgerx16]

My point was that if the Government determine it is in the the national interest to leave the EU without a deal, Parliament can't stop them.

But the current Government do not belive that 'no deal' is in the national interest - and there is no way the DUP would allow it to happen unchallenged, even if the Tories were united.

Edited 11 December, 2018 by badgerx16

[shurlock]

What does the above graph have to do with economic strategy? It's showing the lifestyle of an economy, one that is maturing into a developed economy. What would you expect that graph to show it we were out of the EU then?

 

There are papers that try to create sophisticated counterfactuals of how the UK economy would have performed had it stayed outside the EU. They do so by creating a control group based on other countries that have similar economic characteristics as the UK and followed the same growth path as the UK before the UK joined the EEC/EU- the only difference is that they stayed outside the EEC/EU. The economic cost or benefit of the EU membership is the difference in output between the UK economy and this control. Studies using this approach find that membership has been beneficial.

Edited 11 December, 2018 by shurlock

[shurlock]

These guys have:

 

Who mentioned the euro?

 

After embarrassing yourself yesterday with your ignorant EEA comments and today's gaffes, you might want to take a break.

[LGTL]

I have children and grandchildren. I realise that you might have an "I'm alright Jack, blow you" attitude, but I don't.

 

I'm sure they'll both be paupers as I assume your life has been horrendous? No? Oh.

Edited 11 December, 2018 by LGTL

[Guided Missile]

I'm not asking Shurlock, I'm asking you? So what is your prediction?

Answer my original question and I might answer yours. Why do you and Herbert assert that Parliament can prevent the Government leaving the EU on a no deal basis?

[Guided Missile]

After embarrassing yourself yesterday with your ignorant EEA comments and today's gaffes, you might want to take a break.

 

Keep squirming Herbert, AKA the gravel and cement king of Southampton....

 

[shurlock]

Keep squirming Herbert, AKA the gravel and cement king of Southampton....

 

Thanks for reminding me of another one of your spectacular meltdowns - one that united nearly everyone here in ridiculing you.

 

Your fourth reich gaffe where you could barely read two paragraphs without getting the wrong end of the stick was another recent highlight, though more of an acquired taste.

 

Meanwhile, even my dog chuckled at your claim that we wouldn't need to rejoin the EEA upon leaving the EU, though she found your grandiose, micky mouse legalese cute.

 

As for the Grieve amendment (2018, not 2017), nobody said it was legally binding but the government would be under considerable political pressure not to ignore it.

 

To think that day in day out (and these examples are only from the past month), you continue to make a fool of yourself and I haven't even mentioned your record on the £, reverse nostradamus.

 

Never mind your threats to smash my face in and string up with piano, though I understand you feel stupid, so are prone to lash out.

 

Who needs Xmas when they have JJ, the gift that keeps on giving.

Edited 11 December, 2018 by shurlock

[saint si]

Of course I get that. And pretty flat its been since the early nineties. As you are no doubt aware, our trade as a percentage is declining with the EU, and increasing with the rest of the world. And that is despite all the more recent additions there have been to the EU membership since then.

 

This I don't get at all.

 

1) The EU does not stop us trading with the rest of world.

2) It in fact enables it, through its ability to negotiate broad ranging free trade agreements that UK has been able to enjoy the benefit of

3) Your own statement supports this point ... you are literally saying that as an EU member, we have been able to enjoy increased trade with the rest of the world!

 

(BSc Economics, FWIW)

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile, even my dog chuckled at your claim that we wouldn't need to rejoin the EEA upon leaving the EU, though she found your micky mouse legalese cute.

Back on ignore for you Herbert, but I'll leave you with this article from September, 2018:

 

George Osborne has predicted the UK will remain a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) after Brexit. “I think there is an emerging option and if you want my political gut, that’s where the country is going,” he said on Saturday. The former chancellor suggested Brexiteer Michael Gove could “potentially” back the plan. EEA membership would keep the UK inside the single market but outside the EU’s political institutions.

 

Woof, woof...

[Cabbage_Face]

Can GM and Shurlock have a Charity boxing match?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Back on ignore for you Herbert, but I'll leave you with this article from September, 2018:

 

 

 

Woof, woof...

 

 

A throwaway quote from George Osborne who's obviously a legal expert.

 

This is from Jean-Claude Piris who was director-general of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service for over 20 years.

 

Contrary to what is sometimes said, the UK could not « remain » a member State of the EEA after Brexit, because it will automatically[2] cease to be an EEA member when leaving the EU.

 

Article 126(1) EEA[3] states that « The Agreement shall apply to the territories which the Treaty establishing the EEC (today the EU) is applied (…) and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway ». These three States are members of EFTA and, in accordance with articles 108(1) and (2) of the EEA Agreement, have established the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court (« Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice », below « EFTA Agreement »). Both these institutions are only competent for these three States. Their role is to ensure the fulfillment by the EEA EFTA States of their obligations under the EEA Agreement. They are not competent for Switzerland, despite this country being a member of EFTA.

 

Neither the EU, nor its current 28 member States, are members of EFTA. After Brexit, the UK, not being a member of EFTA, and not anymore an EU member, could not be an EEA member and could not be a candidate to become one.

 

Procedurally, in order to become a member of the EEA after « the (EU) Treaties shall cease to apply » to it (art 50(3) TEU), the UK would first have to present its candidacy and negotiate and conclude an accession agreement to become an EFTA member (art 56(1) of the Convention establishing the EFTA). This is because the EEA cannot apply to non EU member States, with the exception of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, precisely because they are members of EFTA (art 126(1) EEA). Thus, the UK will have to negotiate an accession treaty to EFTA with the four members of this organisation: Switzerland and the three EEA EFTA members.

 

Once becoming an EFTA member, the UK will then have to negotiate an EEA accession treaty with the 31 entities which are members of the EEA: the EU, its 27 member States and the three EEA EFTA members. The Parties could agree to proceed to both negotiations at the same time.

 

Accession Treaties for EFTA and EEA cannot be signed before Brexit. Moreover, to enter into force, they would involve a ratification by all contracting parties in accordance with their own procedures (art 128(2) EEA). Experience shows that this will take time. During that time, and if a period of transition had not been agreed on the relations between the UK and the EU in the Brexit agreement (based on art 50 TEU), the rules of WTO would have to be applied to trade between the UK and the EU (« cliff edge »).

 

Who need's Xmas when they have JJ

[Unbelievable Jeff]

These guys have:

 

I'm not advocating the Euro.

[CB Fry]

Here we go

 

 

 

[shurlock]

Here we go

 

 

 

 

Yeh Iain Dale is camping it up on LBC.

[Guided Missile]

A throwaway quote from George Osborne who's obviously a legal expert. This is from Jean-Claude Piris who was director-general of the Council of the European Union’s Legal Service for over 20 years. Who need's Xmas when they have JJ

 

Not quite as simple as your dog thinks, Herbert:

What is Article 127 and why does it matter?Article 127 of the EEA Agreement states that “Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties. Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement.”

 

The disagreement is over whether the UK needs to trigger article 127 to terminate its membership of the EEA.

 

The Single Market Justice (SMJ) campaign, led by Adrian Yalland and Peter Wilding, argues that because the UK is a separate contracting party to the EEA Agreement in its own right, it will not leave the Single Market even after it leaves the EU. To exit the Single Market, the Government will have to trigger a separate exit process, as set out in Article 127 of the EEA agreement. SMJ argue that since the UK’s EEA membership is part of UK law under Parliament’s 1993 EEA Agreement Act, triggering Article 127 would require parliamentary approval. From this angle, Article 127 can be understood as the Single Market equivalent of Article 50.

 

However there is an opposing view. Jean Claude Piris, former head of the European Commission’s legal service, has said: “The UK’s withdrawal from EU will mean an automatic cessation of its membership of EEA as an EEA-EU member”. This position derives from Article 126 (1) of the EEA agreement:

 

“The Agreement shall apply to the territories to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty, and to the territories of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.”

 

In this case, the UK is a member of the EEA only in its capacity as an EU member. Therefore leaving the EU means an automatic exit from the EEA, and the UK will not need to trigger Article 127.

 

What is the Government's position?

In the Prime Minister’s letter to EU President Tusk triggering Article 50, she emphasised that the UK “does not seek membership of the Single Market”. This means that the UK plans to leave the EEA. To achieve this, the Government previously appeared to adopt the automatic exit position based on Article 126, as seen in a December statement by DExEU’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary Robin Walker.

 

 

The Government appears to have shifted away from this automatic exit position since then. In February as part of their SMJ campaign, Yalland and Wilding brought a judicial review application to the Divisional Court challenging the Government on leaving the Single Market without triggering Article 127 and passing an Act of Parliament. According to SMJ’s report on the court proceedings, the Government accepted that Article 126 did not “give rise to termination of the EEA Agreement ipso jure [in law]”.

 

In answering questions on his statement on the Great Repeal Bill on 30th March, David Davis appeared to concede that the government’s EEA exit mechanism would require parliamentary approval. However later that day DExEU clarified their secretary of state’s position with the following press statement:

 

“Once we leave the EU, the EEA Agreement will no longer be relevant for the UK. It will have no practical effect. We therefore do not envisage a vote. We are considering what steps, if any, might need to be taken to formally terminate the EEA Agreement as a matter of international law”

 

The Government’s latest position appears to be that even if our EU exit does not automatically terminate the EEA agreement in law, any continued signature to the EEA Agreement would not equate to functional Single Market membership and they do not anticipate the need to trigger Article 127 with parliamentary approval.

 

Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Law and Director of the European Legal Studies at the University of Cambridge, took a similar view in December. He argued that whilst some of the EEA agreement obligations fall to the UK, the vast majority of those obligations that we think of as making up the Single Market- such as customs and regulations- fall to the EU. This means that even if the UK did retain its current legal obligations under the EEA agreement, these would not amount to Single Market membership.

 

Is this all settled now?

 

No. Yalland and Willing’s judicial review application in February was denied, on the grounds that it was premature since the Government had not yet made a final decision on its EEA withdrawal mechanism. This leaves the door open for future legal challenges against the government on this issue.

 

According to SMJ’s legal case, even if the Government relies on its current position to avoid triggering Article 127 and gaining parliamentary approval, the extent of the UK’s obligations under the EEA agreement is ultimately a question of interpretation. An interpretation question which the European Court of Justice could be best-placed to resolve.

[Cabbage_Face]

Great, another horrid mass shooting in France. Will be nice to fuel the fires for Robinson’s mugs....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Not quite as simple as your dog thinks, Herbert:

 

Clearly you didn't read the article. Even those commentators, including the UK government who think that some EEA rights and obligations fall to the UK -and so would be retained upon leaving the EU- acknowledge that many would be lost. In other words, they would not equate to single market membership in the type of situation you envisage.

[Guided Missile]

So, contrary to Herbert's arrogant contention that a no deal won't get through Parliament, the latest news here from the Grauniad...

 

Many Labour MPs including the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, have argued that there is a parliamentary majority to stop a no-deal exit, calling it a “false choice” between May’s deal and no deal. However, Commons officials believe it would be very difficult in practice. MPs opposed to no deal had believed one legal route could be to amend the primarily legislation needed for a semi-orderly no-deal exit, such as an immigration bill, to allow parliament to insist on an extension to article 50. Yet experts have come to believe that those amendments may not be within the scope of the bills and that the amendments could not impose conditions on whether no deal happens or not.

[shurlock]

So, contrary to Herbert's arrogant contention that a no deal won't get through Parliament, the latest news here from the Grauniad...

 

Again you're missing the point. I said that the government would be under extreme pressure politically to listen to Parliament as a result of the amendment which is a real constraint. I didn't say it was a legal obligation.

[Guided Missile]

Clearly you didn't read the article. Even those commentators, including the UK government who think that some EEA rights and obligations fall to the UK -and so would be retained upon leaving the EU- acknowledge that many would be lost. In other words, they would not equate to single market membership in the type of situation you envisage.

Mate, I didn't bother to read it. I asked my dog and he said I should consider referring it to the EJC, because he didn't have jurisdiction over what he thinks is primarily an international treaty and open to interpretation, that only they could rule on.

[shurlock]

Mate, I didn't bother to read it. I asked my dog and he said I should consider referring it to the EJC, because he didn't have jurisdiction over what he thinks is primarily an international treaty and open to interpretation, that only they could rule on.

 

Says the same person who boldly claimed the the UK would remain part of the EEA which it could milk for a year while preparing for WTO rules and negotiating FTA's.

 

Nice climbdown

[Guided Missile]

Again you're missing the point. I said that the government would be under extreme pressure politically to listen to Parliament as a result of the amendment which is a real constraint. I didn't say it was a legal obligation.

Herbert having a mare...

Afternoon Les. Sorry to play the role of the parent who tells their child that Santa doesn’t exist but there is no parliamentary support for a no deal. If it happens, it’ll happen via a second referendum. Otherwise it’s dead.

[shurlock]

Herbert having a mare...

 

And? The government is increasingly under political pressure to listen to parliament. It can freely choose to ignore it -its not a legal obligation as I've repeatedly said- but the political and constitutional fallout would be massive. That's why I don't think government will go down that route. Alas you don't appear to understand the difference between de jure law and de facto political reality, especially in what is purportedly a parliamentary democracy.

 

I know you're eager for a fight as you can't lay a glove on me. But know your limits pal.

[CB Fry]

Herbert having a mare...

There isn't parliamentary support for no deal. What's your point?

 

To be honest you seem to exist on here for Shurlock to wipe the floor with you every time you post anything. Every. Single. Time.

 

Still, get the piano wire ready, sweetheart.

[Guided Missile]

Says the same person who boldly claimed the the UK would remain part of the EEA which it could milk for a year while preparing for WTO rules and negotiating FTA's.

I forgot to tell you my dog's called Lord Owen and wrote this article in the Times this year:

 

We could effectively avoid both these cliff edges — an agreement on leaving the EU and on free trade — if the European Council’s guidelines for the “political limbo” period allowed for the UK to participate inside the single market as a non-EU member of the EEA. For the past 18 months, I have quietly tried to convince the prime minister that this is the best existing democratic framework for us to be within for the transition period. It does not mean exercising the same powers as are open to the other three members — Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein — and we would be accepting the European Council’s demand for an absolutist status quo standstill, but we would not be in limbo.

 

We would have automatic EEA consultation rights on EU legislation and would not be under the ECJ, but the EEA-Efta (European Free Trade Association) court and the EEA governance pillar. Professor Carl Baudenbacher, a judge of the Efta court, giving evidence in the Lords, indicated that the EEA-Efta option for the UK’s transition period is feasible, even given the short timescale.

 

I have no doubt whatever that a transition predominantly via the EEA would, quite manifestly, be better for all concerned. A domestic advantage is it would curb any legal action over the EEA agreement that might be in prospect. A court case in November 2016 claimed that the UK had a legal right to remain in the EEA, despite ceasing to be a member of the EU, until parliament voted otherwise. This was not accepted by the High Court, which ruled that the case was being brought too early for it to adjudicate. If the UK government does not give the year’s statutory notice of leaving the EEA in March, and relies on automatic exit in March 2019, we could see the lawfulness of the government’s conduct being challenged in UK courts. Despite constant warnings, the government has hidden behind a longstanding difference of interpretation on whether, on leaving the EU, a country ceases to be a contracting party to the EEA agreement.

 

The fact is the UK government— not the EU — signed the relevant documents to enter the agreement. A government that was serious about negotiations and acquiring more leverage would have no hesitation at all in testing this case as a matter of international law by the Vienna convention and where the ECJ is not the final authority. Nevertheless, that is history. Now if the EU-UK withdrawal agreement contained a few technical amendments, the UK could set aside all legal arguments by staying in the EEA during the transition period.

Woof, woof...

[shurlock]

I forgot to tell you my dog's called Lord Owen and wrote this article in the Times this year:

 

 

Woof, woof...

 

Oh dear, GM.

 

Another politician who's wishfully projecting his preferred scenario - haven't you learned after two years that there's no such thing as cakeism.

 

So we have Lord Owen appealing to a case that was thrown of court vs. the government's own legal position, the opinion of leading academics and the views of the former head of the European Council’s legal service, who served as official legal counsel on EU treaties, including Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon.

 

But no JJ thinks it would be a piece of pi $$

[OldNick]

Can somebody please tell us what deal is going to suit democracy in this country and all the nations people?

You all seem to be showing who can pee the furthest but please tell who or anyone who has come up with anything close to suit all.

That is what May has to deal with

[Plastic]

Can somebody please tell us what deal is going to suit democracy in this country and all the nations people?

You all seem to be showing who can pee the furthest but please tell who or anyone who has come up with anything close to suit all.

That is what May has to deal with

 

No, it’s a war of attrition. They are pîssing all over each other. It’s no longer about who can avoid getting pîssed on, now the only goal is to be the least pîss-soaked. Apt, perhaps.

[benjii]

48 letters received by Graham Brady. Leadership contest to be announced tomorrow.

 

Prime Minister Rees-Mogg.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

This I don't get at all.

 

1) The EU does not stop us trading with the rest of world.

2) It in fact enables it, through its ability to negotiate broad ranging free trade agreements that UK has been able to enjoy the benefit of

3) Your own statement supports this point ... you are literally saying that as an EU member, we have been able to enjoy increased trade with the rest of the world!

 

(BSc Economics, FWIW)

 

Snap.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

48 letters received by Graham Brady. Leadership contest to be announced tomorrow.

 

Prime Minister Rees-Mogg.

 

Fun, fun, fun.

[buctootim]

Fun, fun, fun.

 

What are the odds on a Remain new PM, Brexit, or another one who tries to fudge it? (given that worked so well last time). Anyone brave enough to call it?

[benjii]

What are the odds on a Remain new PM, Brexit, or another one who tries to fudge it? (given that worked so well last time). Anyone brave enough to call it?

 

**** knows.

 

Is there a "moderate" Tory that can achieve some unity? Looks like pretty slim pickings. An MP on the radio this morning was talking up Raab. Christ.

 

JRM won't go for it.

 

Could Boris sneak it? He would probably have to reassure enough remainers he won't countenance "no deal". If he did then maybe remainers could get comfortable with a leave-PM on the basis that they are satisfying the referendum result.

 

If May is toppled then I actually think there ought to be a revocation of Article 50 and a general election. The parties than set out their manifesto for resolving the EU question. If a party gets elected on a "leave" manifesto they can just serve Article 50 notice again.

 

This is what should have happened after the referendum anyway, seeing as no major party was actually in favour of leaving.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What are the odds on a Remain new PM, Brexit, or another one who tries to fudge it? (given that worked so well last time). Anyone brave enough to call it?

 

Who the **** knows? I give up with politics in this country. Shower of ****s, the whole lot of them.

[buctootim]

**** knows.

 

Is there a "moderate" Tory that can achieve some unity? Looks like pretty slim pickings. An MP on the radio this morning was talking up Raab. Christ.

 

JRM won't go for it.

 

Could Boris sneak it? He would probably have to reassure enough remainers he won't countenance "no deal". If he did then maybe remainers could get comfortable with a leave-PM on the basis that they are satisfying the referendum result.

 

If May is toppled then I actually think there ought to be a revocation of Article 50 and a general election. The parties than set out their manifesto for resolving the EU question. If a party gets elected on a "leave" manifesto they can just serve Article 50 notice again.

 

This is what should have happened after the referendum anyway, seeing as no major party was actually in favour of leaving.

 

They might be able to agree on Norway plus customs union. Remain might think that was close enough and Brexiteers could think its a reasonable resting place until they're ready for a full departure. Basically more kicking the can of worms down the road.

[Verbal]

What are the odds on a Remain new PM, Brexit, or another one who tries to fudge it? (given that worked so well last time). Anyone brave enough to call it?

 

Given the febrile state of Tory party office politics, I'd say Gove. Not that it'll change anything. The simple fact is that there is not a majority for ANY Brexit outcomes (no deal May deal, Norway+, no Brexit) within the HoC, and whoever the new leader is won't alter that equation.

 

A remoan victory in a people's vote the only possible way out, because a leave vote will simple condemn the country to another A50 cycle and we all play political Groundhog Day again.

[Cabbage_Face]

New leader, then a vote of no confidence in government, snap election, Vince Cable wins, stay in Europe.....

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

A remoan victory in a people's vote the only possible way out, because a leave vote will simple condemn the country to another A50 cycle and we all play political Groundhog Day again.

 

Whereas a remain victory in a second referendum (which you laughingly describe as a people's vote, as if people didn't vote in the last one) held before the decision of the last one was even enacted would restore peace and calm to the political landscape. What could possibly go wrong there, apart from the political and economic uncertainty being prolonged by the leave voters feeling cheated and demanding yet another referendum? You really don't get this democracy lark, do you?

[doddisalegend]

****ing in hell what a mess. If this sparks a general election it will be the first time, in my adult life, that I will struggle to cast a vote. I honestly can't see any party worth voting for...****s the lot of them constantly looking to serve their own interests rather the work for the good of country. Not that its really been any different it just seems more magnified the last couple of years.

[Wes Tender]

They might be able to agree on Norway plus customs union. Remain might think that was close enough and Brexiteers could think its a reasonable resting place until they're ready for a full departure. Basically more kicking the can of worms down the road.

 

Leave voters would never feel it was a "reasonable resting place" on the way to a full departure. After all, they voted for a full departure, not some half in, half out measures. You seem to believe that remaining part of a customs union, paying into the EU slush fund and accepting continued freedom of movement would all be acceptable. In any event, the leave voters also realise that the Norway option is the weasel route to us never being able to leave completely, because the time would never be right for the establishment and they would just be biding their time until they tried to take us back into the EU.

[moonraker]

Leave voters would never feel it was a "reasonable resting place" on the way to a full departure. After all, they voted for a full departure, not some half in, half out measures. You seem to believe that remaining part of a customs union, paying into the EU slush fund and accepting continued freedom of movement would all be acceptable. In any event, the leave voters also realise that the Norway option is the weasel route to us never being able to leave completely, because the time would never be right for the establishment and they would just be biding their time until they tried to take us back into the EU.

 

Leave voters are not homogeneous entity tough are they, and we are all free to change our minds, neither you nor me have any idea how many leave voters there are in the country as of the 12 December 2018, it has been very well demonstrated that the leave vote was made up of a wide range of views; Those ideologically opposed to the EU or the hard Brexiters, those who are/were concerned about sovereignty, protest voters, those harping back to the golden era that never existed, and racists because if one thing is certain, not everyone who voted leave is a racist, but every racist voted leave and innumerable other reasons. You cannot set yourself up as the spokesperson for all leave voters any more than I can claim to represent all remain voters.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If a General Election takes place, here are the swing constituencies we need (1251 vote swing or less) to see a LAB/SNP/LD coalition, and a new vote on the EU:

 

Conservative to Labour:

 

Aberconwy

Blackpool North and Cleveleys

Bolton West

Broxtowe

Calder Valley

Camborne and Redruth

Chingford and Woodford Green

Chipping Barnet

Copeland

Crawley

Finchley and Golders Green

Harrow East

Hastings and Rye

Hendon

Mansfield

Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

Milton Keynes North

Milton Keynes South

Morecambe and Lunesdale

Morley and Outwood

Northampton North

Northampton South

Norwich North

Pendle

Preseli Pembrokeshire

Pudsey

Putney

Southampton, Itchen

South Swindon

Stoke-On-Trent South

Telford

Thurrock

Vale Of Glamorgan

Watford

 

Conservative to Lib Dem:

 

Richmond Park

St Ives

 

Conservative to SNP:

 

Stirling

[CB Fry]

Leave voters would never feel it was a "reasonable resting place" on the way to a full departure. After all, they voted for a full departure, not some half in, half out measures. You seem to believe that remaining part of a customs union, paying into the EU slush fund and accepting continued freedom of movement would all be acceptable. In any event, the leave voters also realise that the Norway option is the weasel route to us never being able to leave completely, because the time would never be right for the establishment and they would just be biding their time until they tried to take us back into the EU.

There will be plenty of leave voters who were influenced by Farage telling people that Norway and Switzerland are doing just great and aren't in the EU and we could be just like them.

 

You are inabsolutely no position to speak for all Leave voters and what they did or didn't want.

 

It's fair to say that there are plenty of leave voters who didn't know then and don't know now what they want.

[Sheaf Saint]

[Cabbage_Face]

 

Completely different. Yawn.

[Verbal]

Whereas a remain victory in a second referendum (which you laughingly describe as a people's vote, as if people didn't vote in the last one) held before the decision of the last one was even enacted would restore peace and calm to the political landscape. What could possibly go wrong there, apart from the political and economic uncertainty being prolonged by the leave voters feeling cheated and demanding yet another referendum? You really don't get this democracy lark, do you?

 

Try stepping away from your cold Jihadi fury for a moment and consider my post as just a piece of political guesswork based on the fact that there's no majority in Parlaiment for ANY Brexit outcome. Are you able to do that? Where do you see a parliamentary majority?

 

Besides, the issues of who replaces May presupposes that she'll lose the vote tonight. I don't think she will. Are you capable of responding to that as a political outcome too, rather than raging into the twilight?

[badgerx16]

Leave voters are not homogeneous entity tough are they, and we are all free to change our minds, neither you nor me have any idea how many leave voters there are in the country as of the 12 December 2018, it has been very well demonstrated that the leave vote was made up of a wide range of views; Those ideologically opposed to the EU or the hard Brexiters, those who are/were concerned about sovereignty, protest voters, those harping back to the golden era that never existed, and racists because if one thing is certain, not everyone who voted leave is a racist, but every racist voted leave and innumerable other reasons. You cannot set yourself up as the spokesperson for all leave voters any more than I can claim to represent all remain voters.

This, entirely.

[Wes Tender]

Try stepping away from your cold Jihadi fury for a moment and consider my post as just a piece of political guesswork based on the fact that there's no majority in Parlaiment for ANY Brexit outcome. Are you able to do that? Where do you see a parliamentary majority?

 

Besides, the issues of who replaces May presupposes that she'll lose the vote tonight. I don't think she will. Are you capable of responding to that as a political outcome too, rather than raging into the twilight?

 

LOL. I'm really quite sanguine about the current position. Delude yourself that I'm in a fury if that's what rocks you boat. I'm enjoying the mental picture of your discomfort. I have considered your piece of political guesswork and have already passed comment on it. As I said, you really don't get this democracy lark, do you, believing that there should be a second referendum before the result of the last one has not even been enacted.

 

Yes, if there isn't a majority tonight in the vote of no confidence against May, the rules mean that a further vote of no confidence cannot be held for a year. Technically she could win by one vote and remain as PM. But of course, in the real world, if the vote of no confidence in her was substantial, she would be badly damaged politically and if she didn't offer to resign, would be advised to by the Party hierarchy. See, as a Party member of decades standing I am indeed capable of responding to that as a political outcome.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

The members didn’t have a vote.

 

I’m sure we will this time and provided the true Conservatives get behind one candidate, a full blooded Brexit believer will walk it. They’ve got one vote already.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk