Org Mobile Site
Thread: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
The campaigners said otherwise during the campaign. Show instances from the campaign where Leave campaigners said that Brexit means leaving with no deal. I've seen plenty of instances where they promised otherwise. Can you show any where they promised no deal?
Do you think that Brexit should be judged on whether or not the NHS gets an extra 350 million per week? Unlike no deal, this was something that the Leave campaign specifically promised.
I was tempted to swear.....The campaigners said otherwise during the campaign. Show instances from the campaign where Leave campaigners said that Brexit means leaving with no deal. I've seen plenty of instances where they promised otherwise. Can you show any where they promised no deal?
Do you think that Brexit should be judged on whether or not the NHS gets an extra 350 million per week? Unlike no deal, this was something that the Leave campaign specifically promised.
A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.
It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.
One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
The EU won't, never intended to and never will "negotiate". You say what you'll be prepared to do and they'll say the level of access that will purchase. Why on earth would they demonstrate that a country can keep the good bits of the EU and ditch the overheads?
The recent elections have shown that there is a large number of people that voted for the exit parties. By exiting, he can at a stroke defang both these parties, leaving all the opposition parties to fight over the remain votes - with our first past the post system perhaps he'll even get some seats because the opposition is split against him.
Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.The EU won't, never intended to and never will "negotiate". You say what you'll be prepared to do and they'll say the level of access that will purchase. Why on earth would they demonstrate that a country can keep the good bits of the EU and ditch the overheads?
The recent elections have shown that there is a large number of people that voted for the exit parties. By exiting, he can at a stroke defang both these parties, leaving all the opposition parties to fight over the remain votes - with our first past the post system perhaps he'll even get some seats because the opposition is split against him.
If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.
Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.
Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.
If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.
Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.
Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.
Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.Whilst we all know this is true it's worth pointing out that this "rules" based approach doesn't nessecitate the Backstop. The Backstop has now become a prerequisite to ANY deal when its sole justification is maintainance of the "spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement.
If the spirit of the GFA is co-operation then the EU is not presently upholding it because by refusing to even negotiate over a fresh deal they ensure no deal.
Key to Pan's argument is the idea that we are headed down a certain "track" but if we follow his argument and observe the behaviour of the EU we have to conclude that they always unacceptable Backstop is the signal point to leave the station and apparently always has been. This raises the question of who really wants "No Deal" because if the EU always planned to hang any deal on a Backstop Parliament was always going to reject then they presumably always knew we were going to end up here.
Now, this is not to say that some in the Leave campaign were not gunning for No Deal as well, but that does not absolve the EU of responsibility. Rather, it suggests a sort of bizzare Faustian pact between the two sides akin to the one between Evangelical Christians in the US and the Far Right in Israel.
BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
I was tempted to swear.....
A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.
It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.
One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.
Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?I was tempted to swear.....
A deal was not on the referendum. It was a binary choice. Stay or leave.
It's not about money for the NHS or money at all. It's about our ability to sack the wazzocks who make the laws when we've had enough of them.
One thing the referendum has highlighted is how many anti-democrats inhabit these shores and shame on them. Things will never be the same again. The cats well and truly out of the bag.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?
OK I get it. Trolling.Which level of representation in the EU's administration are you objecting to? MEPs are directly voted in by EU citizens like yourself in Euro elections, the last of which took place in May. Do they count as being able to be voted out? EU commissioners are appointed and not voted for, that is true, but they are appointed by the national governments, who are voted for by UK citizens in UK elections, the last of which took place in 2017. Do they count as being able to be voted out? Which of these do you decry as undemocratic?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
OK I get it. Trolling.
How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?OK I get it. Trolling.
The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?
The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.
Brexiteer: "You're trolling."
My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?
The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?
The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.
Brexiteer: "You're trolling."
Ironically you're trolling when you make a couple of unrelated statements and then end with "you're trolling".How is it trolling? The current PM was decided on by the Tory membership, without any input from people who are not Tory members. Do you decry this as undemocratic?
The EU's administration is democratic on two levels. MEPs are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Commissioners are appointed by the national governments, who are directly voted for. Are they what you call undemocratic? Or are you talking about the EU's civil service?
The current UK government does not have a majority. The head of that government changed last month, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. The cabinet of that UK government was chosen by the new PM, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry. While that was going on, the country was kept running by the civil service, in a process that did not involve the UK citizenry.
Brexiteer: "You're trolling."
When did the people who the EU "represents" have a choice whether they wanted the EU to exist? Every single referendum was a "no" and every time they changed the rules.
Did you have the problem with the UK PM changing previously in the same way? I can't recall this being an issue.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.
As soon as you accept that to get to this point of leaving we've had to have 30 years of membership with increasing integration, the establishment of a bank, a currency and so on without asking the populace.My point to IA, PFH, rory and other Leavers: we're leaving without a deal on 31st October because of your decision. You won. We lost. Own the result and its consequences. What happens after 31st October is your responsibility. Stop trying to spread that responsibility.
In short, I accept the consequences of fixing the system you allowed to form with no democratic mandate.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.
BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.
Prior to the All-UK backstop the EU wanted an Ireland-only one.Wasn't the backstop May's idea? The EU's requirement is also the US's requirement, but I never see Brexiteers complain about the US for demanding the same, that the GFA be kept. The US has repeatedly said, the GFA must be kept, or the UK can forget about any agreement with the US. Yet you continue to blame the EU and the EU only. For something that was the UK's idea. Always the EU's fault. Never the UK's.
BTW, the ERG have said that they're going to block the WA, backstop or no backstop.
As regards the GFA agreement - the backstop is not required by the GFA. As I notes several pages ago, the GFA only prohibits "militarisation" of the border, not the border per se. True, it does not envisage the UK leaving the EU but that's hardly anyone's fault - the political situation hans changed - and the UK's leaving was ultimately inevitable.
On the other hand the GFA does require co-operation on the movement of people and livestock across the border. With the EU and Ireland no longer being willing to even discuss a deal that co-operation is set to end. Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Did you have the problem with the UK PM changing previously in the same way? I can't recall this being an issue.
Gordon Brown was the last change and many people at the time found this to be an issue.Did you have the problem with the UK PM changing previously in the same way? I can't recall this being an issue.
No idea if this applies to Pannonian's viewpoint or not, but it isn't a conservative only issue.
Though as the side note, because of the Brexit process, the £ is similar to the Euro.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.
There was a possibly of a longer extension, but this was to be tied with a meaningful process such as a second referendum which the government does not want to do. Unfortunately the government decided not to do that and we haven't changed a single thing since last time during that extension. I rather not have us in perpetual limbo.Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.
As I have argued for a long time, a second referendum it would bring clarity to the issue. Instead the incompetence of our governance would other browbeat everyone senselessly on the subject rather than do anything meaningful.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Gordon Brown was the last change and many people at the time found this to be an issue.
No idea if this applies to Pannonian's viewpoint or not, but it isn't a conservative only issue.
Though as the side note, because of the Brexit process, the £ is similar to the Euro.
I personally don't have a problem with successions of governments. But unlike IA, I'm not pushing the democracy angle. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in his position.Gordon Brown was the last change and many people at the time found this to be an issue.
No idea if this applies to Pannonian's viewpoint or not, but it isn't a conservative only issue.
Though as the side note, because of the Brexit process, the £ is similar to the Euro.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Prior to the All-UK backstop the EU wanted an Ireland-only one.
As regards the GFA agreement - the backstop is not required by the GFA. As I notes several pages ago, the GFA only prohibits "militarisation" of the border, not the border per se. True, it does not envisage the UK leaving the EU but that's hardly anyone's fault - the political situation hans changed - and the UK's leaving was ultimately inevitable.
On the other hand the GFA does require co-operation on the movement of people and livestock across the border. With the EU and Ireland no longer being willing to even discuss a deal that co-operation is set to end. Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.
Do you know what the RoI/NI border looks like? It's supposed to be the highest concentration of crossing points in the world, with many of the crossing points not even practical border posts. There are roads where the left is in RoI where the right is in NI. There are properties where part is in RoI and part is in NI. There are factories where storage is in RoI but the operating area is in NI. How do you propose to satisfy WTO rules under these circumstances?Prior to the All-UK backstop the EU wanted an Ireland-only one.
As regards the GFA agreement - the backstop is not required by the GFA. As I notes several pages ago, the GFA only prohibits "militarisation" of the border, not the border per se. True, it does not envisage the UK leaving the EU but that's hardly anyone's fault - the political situation hans changed - and the UK's leaving was ultimately inevitable.
On the other hand the GFA does require co-operation on the movement of people and livestock across the border. With the EU and Ireland no longer being willing to even discuss a deal that co-operation is set to end. Remember that the EU also offered a shorter extension than expected - to End of October rather than December.
BTW, you suggest that the EU proposed a shorter extension than expected, to make it sound as though the EU are being unreasonable in wanting to kick us out sooner than we wanted out. May wanted a much shorter extension than that. We had Euro elections in May (the month). May (the former PM) wanted the extension to end before that. The EU had to insist on the extension going beyond the Euro elections if we were to have an extension at all. You wanted a longer extension? You should thank the EU for that. I don't expect you to though, as you never credit them for anything, but only ever blame them for stuff they're not responsible for.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
There was a possibly of a longer extension, but this was to be tied with a meaningful process such as a second referendum which the government does not want to do. Unfortunately the government decided not to do that and we haven't changed a single thing since last time during that extension. I rather not have us in perpetual limbo.
As I have argued for a long time, a second referendum it would bring clarity to the issue. Instead the incompetence of our governance would other browbeat everyone senselessly on the subject rather than do anything meaningful.
A second Referendum MIGHT bring clarity. The margin last time was larger than the one that validated the creation of the EU in the case of France, stronger than the Danish rejection of the same irrc. There's no telling which way a second referendum might go and if it's even narrower, during an economic downturn, then the argument will just go on and on. There'll be a third referendum in a decade, a fourth a decade after that.There was a possibly of a longer extension, but this was to be tied with a meaningful process such as a second referendum which the government does not want to do. Unfortunately the government decided not to do that and we haven't changed a single thing since last time during that extension. I rather not have us in perpetual limbo.
As I have argued for a long time, a second referendum it would bring clarity to the issue. Instead the incompetence of our governance would other browbeat everyone senselessly on the subject rather than do anything meaningful.
Parliament, all sides, stipulated a single referendum - if we needed a confirmatory referendum they should have stipulated that too. At this point we're much better off going out and potentially having to beg to be let back in (unlikely with further federalism).
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Do you know what the RoI/NI border looks like? It's supposed to be the highest concentration of crossing points in the world, with many of the crossing points not even practical border posts. There are roads where the left is in RoI where the right is in NI. There are properties where part is in RoI and part is in NI. There are factories where storage is in RoI but the operating area is in NI. How do you propose to satisfy WTO rules under these circumstances?
BTW, you suggest that the EU proposed a shorter extension than expected, to make it sound as though the EU are being unreasonable in wanting to kick us out sooner than we wanted out. May wanted a much shorter extension than that. We had Euro elections in May (the month). May (the former PM) wanted the extension to end before that. The EU had to insist on the extension going beyond the Euro elections if we were to have an extension at all. You wanted a longer extension? You should thank the EU for that. I don't expect you to though, as you never credit them for anything, but only ever blame them for stuff they're not responsible for.
I do know what the border looks like, and you know that border has been in place for almost a century, and almost three quarters of that before either country joined the EU.Do you know what the RoI/NI border looks like? It's supposed to be the highest concentration of crossing points in the world, with many of the crossing points not even practical border posts. There are roads where the left is in RoI where the right is in NI. There are properties where part is in RoI and part is in NI. There are factories where storage is in RoI but the operating area is in NI. How do you propose to satisfy WTO rules under these circumstances?
BTW, you suggest that the EU proposed a shorter extension than expected, to make it sound as though the EU are being unreasonable in wanting to kick us out sooner than we wanted out. May wanted a much shorter extension than that. We had Euro elections in May (the month). May (the former PM) wanted the extension to end before that. The EU had to insist on the extension going beyond the Euro elections if we were to have an extension at all. You wanted a longer extension? You should thank the EU for that. I don't expect you to though, as you never credit them for anything, but only ever blame them for stuff they're not responsible for.
As regards the shorter extension - this was down to Macron, he refused a longer one - but then you must insist on blaming the UK, mustn't you?
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
I do know what the border looks like, and you know that border has been in place for almost a century, and almost three quarters of that before either country joined the EU.
As regards the shorter extension - this was down to Macron, he refused a longer one - but then you must insist on blaming the UK, mustn't you?
Did the UK government ask for a longer extension? I remember May asking for a shorter one, research telling me that it was 30th June. Did we change our mind and ask for a longer extension at some point?I do know what the border looks like, and you know that border has been in place for almost a century, and almost three quarters of that before either country joined the EU.
As regards the shorter extension - this was down to Macron, he refused a longer one - but then you must insist on blaming the UK, mustn't you?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Did the UK government ask for a longer extension? I remember May asking for a shorter one, research telling me that it was 30th June. Did we change our mind and ask for a longer extension at some point?
We wanted a short extension and an option for a long one - what we got was a middling one.Did the UK government ask for a longer extension? I remember May asking for a shorter one, research telling me that it was 30th June. Did we change our mind and ask for a longer extension at some point?
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
We wanted a short extension and an option for a long one - what we got was a middling one.
Can you point me to where we asked for a long option? The only date I can find is 30th June, with May stating "As prime minister I could not consider a further delay beyond 30 June."We wanted a short extension and an option for a long one - what we got was a middling one.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
A second Referendum MIGHT bring clarity. The margin last time was larger than the one that validated the creation of the EU in the case of France, stronger than the Danish rejection of the same irrc. There's no telling which way a second referendum might go and if it's even narrower, during an economic downturn, then the argument will just go on and on. There'll be a third referendum in a decade, a fourth a decade after that.
Parliament, all sides, stipulated a single referendum - if we needed a confirmatory referendum they should have stipulated that too. At this point we're much better off going out and potentially having to beg to be let back in (unlikely with further federalism).
Just highlighting for clarity, though it doesn't change your response at all. When I state Second Referendum, I don't mean "In or Out", I am talking about the various options such as 'Out without a Deal', 'May Deal', Norway+, etc. Something more solid and tangible. Because hypothetically, May's deal may have got a better mandate from the people than the parliament which she could have used to enforce it.A second Referendum MIGHT bring clarity. The margin last time was larger than the one that validated the creation of the EU in the case of France, stronger than the Danish rejection of the same irrc. There's no telling which way a second referendum might go and if it's even narrower, during an economic downturn, then the argument will just go on and on. There'll be a third referendum in a decade, a fourth a decade after that.
Parliament, all sides, stipulated a single referendum - if we needed a confirmatory referendum they should have stipulated that too. At this point we're much better off going out and potentially having to beg to be let back in (unlikely with further federalism).
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Just highlighting for clarity, though it doesn't change your response at all. When I state Second Referendum, I don't mean "In or Out", I am talking about the various options such as 'Out without a Deal', 'May Deal', Norway+, etc. Something more solid and tangible. Because hypothetically, May's deal may have got a better mandate from the people than the parliament which she could have used to enforce it.
OK, but the EU has said we can't have Norway - because we have to have a Customs Union if we want a deal. Really, the only options are May's Deal or No Deal.Just highlighting for clarity, though it doesn't change your response at all. When I state Second Referendum, I don't mean "In or Out", I am talking about the various options such as 'Out without a Deal', 'May Deal', Norway+, etc. Something more solid and tangible. Because hypothetically, May's deal may have got a better mandate from the people than the parliament which she could have used to enforce it.
A lot of the Right Wing press are running with the story that the public would prefer No deal. Not surprising really, you can't expect people to back something that has paralysed Parliament for six months.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
OK, but the EU has said we can't have Norway - because we have to have a Customer Union if we want a deal. Really, the only options are May's Deal or No Deal.
A lot of the Right Wing press are running with the story that the public would prefer No deal. Not surprising really, you can't expect people to back something that has paralysed Parliament for six months.
Have you seen the questions that were asked to get that poll result? That Torygraph poll is crooked as hell.OK, but the EU has said we can't have Norway - because we have to have a Customer Union if we want a deal. Really, the only options are May's Deal or No Deal.
A lot of the Right Wing press are running with the story that the public would prefer No deal. Not surprising really, you can't expect people to back something that has paralysed Parliament for six months.
Leading questions
Originally Posted by :
But unlike IA, I'm not pushing the democracy angle. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in his position.
But unlike IA, I'm not pushing the democracy angle. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy in his position.
Wut?
Here's a great article in the Independent newspaper about how in 9 steps Brexit can be stopped. And no, the author isn't going to let any silly "laws" get in his way. Indeed, the whole concept of "democracy" seems to be shunted to one side - but that's OK since he is Right.
Link
Of the many howlers in this (ignoring all the timelines of existing laws and just saying new ones will be passed and that's fine / putting off an election lest people Vote The Wrong Way) , my personal favourite is the questions in the "people's vote" should be remain OR leave only after a deal has been reached - backing a system where "democracy" is little more than a way of anointing the pre-determined winner.
When did advocating for the rule of law to be removed become a mainstream concept?
Link
Of the many howlers in this (ignoring all the timelines of existing laws and just saying new ones will be passed and that's fine / putting off an election lest people Vote The Wrong Way) , my personal favourite is the questions in the "people's vote" should be remain OR leave only after a deal has been reached - backing a system where "democracy" is little more than a way of anointing the pre-determined winner.
When did advocating for the rule of law to be removed become a mainstream concept?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Have you seen the questions that were asked to get that poll result? That Torygraph poll is crooked as hell.
Leading questions
Like every other Poll, then?Have you seen the questions that were asked to get that poll result? That Torygraph poll is crooked as hell.
Leading questions
The mere fact they can produce such results should alarm you.
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus:
Like every other Poll, then?
The mere fact they can produce such results should alarm you.
Pollster: Why 'Majority Back Suspending Parliament For Brexit' Claim Is All WrongLike every other Poll, then?
The mere fact they can produce such results should alarm you.
Originally Posted by :
"The figure that the Telegraph reported today came after three questions which I think re highly dubious."
These were:
- Agree/disagree that parliament is out of touch with the British public?
- Agree/disagree most MPs want to ignore the wishes of voters on Brexit?
- Agree/disagree the Queen should remain above politics?
It was after that that they asked about proroguing parliament.
Mr Kellner explained: "By the time you get to that point, people are in an anti-parliament, anti-political elite mode.
"Any pollster should know that the sequence of questions you ask, the order you put them in and the impact that earlier questions have on later answers can be decisive.
"A couple of weeks ago, when YouGov asked essentially the same question but without the build-up, they got exactly the opposite response."
Straight out of Yes PM. However, if Johnson does suspend Parliament, would you support his doing to to take Brexit out of the hands of Parliament?"The figure that the Telegraph reported today came after three questions which I think re highly dubious."
These were:
- Agree/disagree that parliament is out of touch with the British public?
- Agree/disagree most MPs want to ignore the wishes of voters on Brexit?
- Agree/disagree the Queen should remain above politics?
It was after that that they asked about proroguing parliament.
Mr Kellner explained: "By the time you get to that point, people are in an anti-parliament, anti-political elite mode.
"Any pollster should know that the sequence of questions you ask, the order you put them in and the impact that earlier questions have on later answers can be decisive.
"A couple of weeks ago, when YouGov asked essentially the same question but without the build-up, they got exactly the opposite response."
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Here's a great article in the Independent newspaper about how in 9 steps Brexit can be stopped. And no, the author isn't going to let any silly "laws" get in his way. Indeed, the whole concept of "democracy" seems to be shunted to one side - but that's OK since he is Right.
Link
Of the many howlers in this (ignoring all the timelines of existing laws and just saying new ones will be passed and that's fine / putting off an election lest people Vote The Wrong Way) , my personal favourite is the questions in the "people's vote" should be remain OR leave only after a deal has been reached - backing a system where "democracy" is little more than a way of anointing the pre-determined winner.
When did advocating for the rule of law to be removed become a mainstream concept?
What do you think of the idea of proroguing Parliament until after Brexit is done?Here's a great article in the Independent newspaper about how in 9 steps Brexit can be stopped. And no, the author isn't going to let any silly "laws" get in his way. Indeed, the whole concept of "democracy" seems to be shunted to one side - but that's OK since he is Right.
Link
Of the many howlers in this (ignoring all the timelines of existing laws and just saying new ones will be passed and that's fine / putting off an election lest people Vote The Wrong Way) , my personal favourite is the questions in the "people's vote" should be remain OR leave only after a deal has been reached - backing a system where "democracy" is little more than a way of anointing the pre-determined winner.
When did advocating for the rule of law to be removed become a mainstream concept?
Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit? Once labour wins the next election, they will put up indy ref 2 and in the midst of the economic recession caused by Brexit, UK will rejoin the EU with all their perks removed. Corbyn will not like it and eventually get removed by the remainer faction in his party.
Somewhere in this that Fixed Election Term Law will get reverted. Tory's will riot but in 5 years I think it will be too little, too late. The younger generation is much more european than British.
Whole thing is the last roar of an increasingly selfish generation.
Somewhere in this that Fixed Election Term Law will get reverted. Tory's will riot but in 5 years I think it will be too little, too late. The younger generation is much more european than British.
Whole thing is the last roar of an increasingly selfish generation.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit? Once labour wins the next election, they will put up indy ref 2 and in the midst of the economic recession caused by Brexit, UK will rejoin the EU with all their perks removed. Corbyn will not like it and eventually get removed by the remainer faction in his party.
Somewhere in this that Fixed Election Term Law will get reverted. Tory's will riot but in 5 years I think it will be too little, too late. The younger generation is much more european than British.
Whole thing is the last roar of an increasingly selfish generation.
So long as Corbyn holds Labour in his grip there will be no new referendum from them. Whether he gets ousted or not depends entirely on whether enough of the Labour Party are willing to accept he's Antisemitic or not.Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit? Once labour wins the next election, they will put up indy ref 2 and in the midst of the economic recession caused by Brexit, UK will rejoin the EU with all their perks removed. Corbyn will not like it and eventually get removed by the remainer faction in his party.
Somewhere in this that Fixed Election Term Law will get reverted. Tory's will riot but in 5 years I think it will be too little, too late. The younger generation is much more european than British.
Whole thing is the last roar of an increasingly selfish generation.
The Fixed Term election Law is unlikely to go anywhere until one party has an overwhelming majority and even then it would be a dicey thing to try. The party that repeals that law probably loses the next election - so what's the point?
As to rejoining the EU itself. Debatable - unlikely within a decade, possible after that depending on the economic situation. If the Eurozone suffers as much from the next recession as it did from the last one its possible that other countries will leave. Whilst "No Deal" is not a good outcome it's not a terrible one, it's certainly one the UK can survive, and this may embolden other countries. At the same time, without the UK EU integration will accelerate and this may leave other countries in the Nordic Bloc, the Netherlands, Poland etc. in the position of wanting to decouple from the EU more or less than the UK.
Essentially, Brexit could be nothing much, it could destroy the UK, or the EU, or both.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit?
put ireland in the GB backstop and offer jersey and the deal would pass in a shot.Is there any doubt that it will be no deal exit?
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
put ireland in the GB backstop and offer jersey and the deal would pass in a shot.
Why do we need to offer Jeresy?put ireland in the GB backstop and offer jersey and the deal would pass in a shot.
In any case, every Irish MP who deigns to actually take their seat has consistently voted against the deal. These days we're generally against screwing one region of the UK for the sake of another so unless that changes the deal will never pass.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO