Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[rixalex]

24 minutes ago, sandyf said:

More opinion, stick to facts.

Saying that they are "incapable of working out the finer" details is an opinion.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Tim Sebastian shows how an interview should be conducted. Should have picked him for Question Time. Recommended!

I disagree. I don’t see a point in an interview when it turns into a shouting competition because after the first three words of a response you’re being interrupted. 

 

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

I asked you why it would be the "final choice". 

It’s hard to imagine what reasonable “final choice” anyone could propose after it. 

 

Quote

The 2016 vote was supposed to settle the matter once and for all. The PM told us it was the "final choice" on many occasions before the vote. If you get your wish, and that vote was not the "final choice", why should we believe that another vote will be the "final choice"?

The 2016 vote was never able to provide for a “final choice”. The final choice the UK now has is something different than what people were asked in 2016. I agree Cameron and his government are to blame for how they designed it, and that it was bad to make such promises to the people. But revisiting that doesn’t solve the current impasse. 

 

Quote

You only get to make that promise once with any meaning. Just as you only get to promise to implement whatever the public decides once. Don't bother making promises like that again, once you've broken them. The promises cease to have any meaning.

I believe most people look at things practically, and would prefer to find a solution over helping Cameron keep an unkeepable promise. 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Tim Sebastian shows how an interview should be conducted. Should have picked him for Question Time. Recommended!

Great video, thanks.

[rixalex]

41 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It’s hard to imagine what reasonable “final choice” anyone could propose after it.

It's not hard to imagine at all. If May's deal gets voted for, then all that has been voted for is the withdrawal agreement. Nobody has had a chance to vote on what the deal will be outside of the EU. So remainers can then demand a "final choice" on whether to accept the deal outside the EU, or return back to the EU.

[rixalex]

44 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The 2016 vote was never able to provide for a “final choice”. The final choice the UK now has is something different than what people were asked in 2016.

Yes it was. The final choice was to leave. How we left was up to the politicians to sort out. Just because they have made a mess of it, does not invalidate the decision. You could argue it invalidates the politicians, and you'd have a point.

[rixalex]

48 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I believe most people look at things practically, and would prefer to find a solution over helping Cameron keep an unkeepable promise. 

His promise was that the decision would be upheld. He never said anything about easiest deal in history or how ever much extra money for the NHS. He just simply stated that a vote to leave would mean a complete departure from the EU. That's not an unkeepable promise, that's just a promise that you and other remainers don't want to see followed through on. There's a difference.

[welovesundaysatspace]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

It's not hard to imagine at all. If May's deal gets voted for, then all that has been voted for is the withdrawal agreement. Nobody has had a chance to vote on what the deal will be outside of the EU. So remainers can then demand a "final choice" on whether to accept the deal outside the EU, or return back to the EU.

Wait, we were discussing the current impasse, not what comes after that. In order to get there, the current impasse needs to get solved first. Only for that one I argued a referendum would provide a final choice. Whether you want a referendum for any future trade deal is another question. 

 

1 minute ago, rixalex said:

Yes it was. The final choice was to leave. How we left was up to the politicians to sort out. Just because they have made a mess of it, does not invalidate the decision. You could argue it invalidates the politicians, and you'd have a point.

That was the “final choice” only for the leave-question. People were never presented a “final choice” for what happens after the leave, i.e. the transition period and the future relationship. 

 

We could argue now that people don’t need to have a say in that because it’s the job of parliament to decide. But it would be difficult to understand why people should have a say in only 1/3 of the key decisions required, especially since the other 2/3, apparently, cannot be solved by parliament. 

[rixalex]

3 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Wait, we were discussing the current impasse, not what comes after that. In order to get there, the current impasse needs to get solved first. Only for that one I argued a referendum would provide a final choice. Whether you want a referendum for any future trade deal is another question. 

 

Solve one impasse to move on to the next impasse. Continual impasses until parliament gets the 2016 decision reversed.

[rixalex]

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

That was the “final choice” only for the leave-question. People were never presented a “final choice” for what happens after the leave, i.e. the transition period and the future relationship. 

 

We could argue now that people don’t need to have a say in that because it’s the job of parliament to decide. But it would be difficult to understand why people should have a say in only 1/3 of the key decisions required, especially since the other 2/3, apparently, cannot be solved by parliament. 

To repeat, it's not that they cannot be solved by parliament, it's that parliament doesn't want to solve them. That's parliament's problem. They agreed to do what the people told them, and now, they have changed their mind and don't want to. Tough.

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, rixalex said:

His promise was that the decision would be upheld. He never said anything about easiest deal in history or how ever much extra money for the NHS. He just simply stated that a vote to leave would mean a complete departure from the EU. That's not an unkeepable promise, that's just a promise that you and other remainers don't want to see followed through on. There's a difference.

Stop. I never said Cameron promised the easiest deal in history or money for the NHS. 

 

Someone suggested there should be a final vote to solve the current impasse. You argued that should not be the case because Cameron made a promise the referendum would be the “final choice”. Only with regards to that I was argueing that his promise was unkeepable.

 

Fact is: The choice is more complex than how Cameron presented it. It also involves the question about a potential transition period as well as another question about future relationships. And, apparently, at least one of those questions is currently causing an impasse that needs to get solved, something parliament alone doesn’t seem to be capable of. 

 

Cameron’s promises of a “final choice”, I am afraid, won’t solve that impasse, and I believe people are more interested in solving it and moving onto the next stage rather than debating how we can help Cameron keep an unkeepable promise. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Solve one impasse to move on to the next impasse. Continual impasses until parliament gets the 2016 decision reversed.

I don’t know whether the next question, the future relationships, would also be an impasse. Even more so, I don’t know how that speculation helps solving the current impasse. 

 

15 minutes ago, rixalex said:

To repeat, it's not that they cannot be solved by parliament, it's that parliament doesn't want to solve them. That's parliament's problem. They agreed to do what the people told them, and now, they have changed their mind and don't want to. Tough.

The people never told them what to do with a potential transition period. And that’s what’s causing the current impasse.

 

Either way, what’s the solution for this question? There are no majorities for anything, whether it’s no transition period, a transition period under May’s deal or even calling the whole thing off. How do you solve that impasse if not by asking the people? Is it more desirable to be in this limbo state forever, given that the EU would actually be ok with it? How do you decide whether your country wants a transition period and what kind of transition period? 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

Plan that hasn't worked. Faced with a situation where the politicians are incapable of working out the finer details the whole nation should suffer the consequences of their failure. 

The turkeys really did vote for Christmas.

What plan? We are faced with a situation where the remain-inclined politicians (PM, government and HoC) are incapable of negotiating an agreement to withdraw from the EU because of their incompetence. The majority of the electorate voted for Brexit, not for this mess, which is mainly due to weak leadership and the fact that most of the MP's simply can't deal with a vote which goes against their self-interests.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t know whether the next question, the future relationships, would also be an impasse. Even more so, I don’t know how that speculation helps solving the current impasse. 

 

The people never told them what to do with a potential transition period. And that’s what’s causing the current impasse.

 

Either way, what’s the solution for this question? There are no majorities for anything, whether it’s no transition period, a transition period under May’s deal or even calling the whole thing off. How do you solve that impasse if not by asking the people? Is it more desirable to be in this limbo state forever, given that the EU would actually be ok with it? How do you decide whether your country wants a transition period and what kind of transition period? 

 

 

 

 

There is one majority that we do know about and it's time that was respected. These "negotiations" have been one big act and seemingly a complete waste of time. If this buggering about is not ended now it likely will go on forever. A sensible UK-EU agreement has always been preferable but the powers that be (on both sides) obviously don't want to see that happen. The only solution is just to leave at the end of the month and then see what the EU really needs to talk about. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The only solution is just to leave at the end of the month and then see what the EU really needs to talk about. 

There is no majority for that. It doesn’t solve the current impasse, it will very likely make things worse. 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

There is no majority for that. It doesn’t solve the current impasse, it will very likely make things worse. 

In case you missed it, there was a majority vote to leave the EU. When that happens the impasse is broken and these ill-willed "leaders", on both sides, will be mutually forced to negotiate about sensible common goals with some urgency. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

Just now, nauseus said:

In case you missed it, there was a majority vote to leave the EU. When that happens the impasse is broken and these ill-willed "leaders", on both sides, will be mutually forced to negotiate about sensible common goals with some urgency. 

In case you missed it, there was no majority for a no-deal Brexit. Again, I agree that Cameron and his government made it look like a simple binary choice where it isn’t, while the leave-leaders were telling them that a leave-vote would come with a deal (the easiest one in history even, including the cake while eating it). 

 

That is something you will not solve by just ignoring it.

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

In case you missed it, there was no majority for a no-deal Brexit. Again, I agree that Cameron and his government made it look like a simple binary choice where it isn’t, while the leave-leaders were telling them that a leave-vote would come with a deal (the easiest one in history even, including the cake while eating it). 

 

That is something you will not solve by just ignoring it.

I didn't miss anything. There was not a vote on any "deal", specifically. However, there was a majority vote in parliament for the triggering of Article 50, which means leaving the EU and involves the possibility of leaving with no deal. The referendum choice was binary, with no mention of any "deal". 

[welovesundaysatspace]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

there was a majority vote in parliament for the triggering of Article 50, which means leaving the EU and involves the possibility of leaving with no deal. 

Right, and as it seems, there will be another majority vote for not leaving without a deal, and one for not leaving under May’s deal. And then what? How do you solve that impasse?

[bomber]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

This dinosaur had better vision than a cat. Unfortunately not living anywhere, he is dead now. I'm surprised you, as such an expert, didn't know that.   

oh yes i had forgotten he had even passed away,wont be missed tbf

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Right, and as it seems, there will be another majority vote for not leaving without a deal, and one for not leaving under May’s deal. And then what? How do you solve that impasse?

Another majority vote for not leaving without a deal? No deal possibility is still on the table as it should be. You have moved from the past into an unknown future and created a new impasse.

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, bomber said:

oh yes i had forgotten he had even passed away,wont be missed tbf

Not by you at any rate. 

[bomber]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 The only solution is just to leave at the end of the month and then see what the EU really needs to talk about. 

remind us again,they need us more than we need them ???? if you think they are going to come back grovelling your in for a shock,its the UK that is panicking now and our govt that is wasting millions every week planning for an extension to A50 and most likely calling it off

[bomber]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not by you at any rate. 

never liked squandering Labour loonies.

[nontabury]

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

What does that all mean? Really?

 

It means he’s pixsed, after spending last night in spooners.

[talahtnut]

The Telegraph..

 

Brexit should signal a return to honest politics

“The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences, not asked.” So wrote Lord Thorneycroft in 1947 about the plan for a European Union, and in so doing he expressed the growing belief of the political class that this was a pursuit of the ‘greater good,’ which would become the hallmark of successive governments down the years.  Yet there was something else those words indicated, that in pursuit of this greater good, the political ends would always justify the means.

What has followed in the intervening 80 years has been a collective deceit about the purpose of the European project. This can be seen in decision after decision taken on issues concerning the EU.

Even now after losing the referendum, the political establishment’s Project Fear narrative of economic Armageddon is as narrow as it was in 1973.  One only has to look at the disastrous negotiations to join the EEC in 1972. As Sir Con O’Neill, the leader of the negotiating team said, the overriding principle guiding the UK team from the top was, “swallow the lot and swallow it now.” Which attitude led to the last minute and tragic abandonment of the UK fishing industry. Much of our manufacturing industry suffered a similar fate in our desperate haste to sign up to the ‘greater good’.

Despite what we now know was the clear advice of the Foreign Office to Prime Minister Heath that our entry would inevitably lead to significant loss of sovereignty, in January 1973, Heath said: “there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”.

And so the political equivalent of the three card trick became a feature of successive British government’s dealings with the British people when it came to the EU. 

At the time of Maastricht, the government, having conceded a huge transfer of power to Brussels, claimed that the lack of the word federal somehow meant it was OK. “Game, set and match”, John Major claimed and Douglas Hurd even went as far as to say that we had reached the “high water of European federalism.” Considering that there were three more treaty amendments with further enormous transfers of powers from nation states to Brussels, such reassurances were at the very least disingenuous. 

I recall how Tony Blair, after signing the Nice treaty, when each European leader from Schröder to Chirac maintained it was a big move towards political integration, spoke only of how the future was going to be inter-governmental. 

[talahtnut]

15 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

It means he’s pixsed, after spending last night in spooners.

No doubt in the company of his buddy Jean-Claude Drunker.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

In case you missed it, there was no majority for a no-deal Brexit. Again, I agree that Cameron and his government made it look like a simple binary choice where it isn’t, while the leave-leaders were telling them that a leave-vote would come with a deal (the easiest one in history even, including the cake while eating it). 

 

That is something you will not solve by just ignoring it.

 

 

 Regarding your so called soft or so called hard Brexit, or even a no deal Brexit. Perhaps you failed to watch this video, in which a British citizen explains, what was on the ballot paper. And how the overwhelming majority,were fully aware of what they voted for.

It’s called Democracy. Accept the people’s vote, or emigrate to North Korea, instead of trying to make the U.K as Undemocratic as N.K.

 

 

[sanemax]

25 minutes ago, bomber said:

remind us again,they need us more than we need them ???? if you think they are going to come back grovelling your in for a shock,its the UK that is panicking now and our govt that is wasting millions every week planning for an extension to A50 and most likely calling it off

Spanish farmers are terrified about the effects of Brexit , alot of their fresh grown procedure ends up in spoonies and that means that those tattooed unemployed dole scroungers down spoonies wont be able to enjoy their fresh Spanish gown salads for a quid anymore 

 

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/world-news/terrified-farmers-in-southern-spain-brace-for-brexit-pain-37888380.html

[bomber]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Spanish farmers are terrified about the effects of Brexit , alot of their fresh grown procedure ends up in spoonies and that means that those tattooed unemployed dole scroungers down spoonies wont be able to enjoy their fresh Spanish gown salads for a quid anymore 

 

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/world-news/terrified-farmers-in-southern-spain-brace-for-brexit-pain-37888380.html

i would think the spanish farmers are more worried about climate change than a possible drop in sales to the UK,anyway mr spoonie is always on TV and the net claiming all his products UK based and he doesnt need the EU for anything,its been posted on here sometime in the last few months,so it seems he was telling us porkies,UK pork pies of coarse 

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, bomber said:

i would think .....................................

Do you have any evidence to back that up ?