Brexit bedlam - May's EU divorce deal crushed by 230 votes in parliament

[AlexRich]

14 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Do not forget to breathe.

Extremely important for the oxygenation of the brain.

Breathe in - out - in - out.

 

Hope that Brexit, with all the trouble that he caused, is not yet detrimental to public health. Would lead to additional spendings at the NHS.

Since the extra 350 million from the red bus are no longer enough.

Some pineapple with his Gammon might help?

[tomacht8]

1 hour ago, bannork said:

But what does leaving really mean? No agreements on trade, services, goods etc before we leave? Wake up on March 30th and wonder what tariffs and market access will be like today?

 

Stupid as it is. Brexit has nothing to do with rational realism, the logic of finding the best solution for all ((48% + 52%) + EU neighbors). Brexit is degenerated into a mantra, which is constantly sung like in a Tibitan monastery. Meanwhile an ideology, a religion, a faith that should lead to salvation. 

The global survival competitors are delighted to beat their thighs on Europe's selfmade problems.

[CG1 Blue]

5 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

The EU seems pretty entrenched.

I agree they 'seem' pretty entrenched. But that's what strong negotiators do - give the impression there is no room for movement.

 

When I buy a new car the dealer always tells me he's offering the lowest possible price, yet I always manage to get a little more off. But only because the dealer knows I can just walk out of the showroom otherwise.  If he knew I can't leave the showroom without buying the car, he'd not budge! 

 

[melvinmelvin]

26 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

A Eurozone in dire straits will not want to make their situation worse. Apart from the £39bn the UK has agreed to pay without any guaranteed trade deal, the UK is also a critical trading partner for the 'big four' EU member states.

If the Eurozone was booming they'd be more inclined to stick two fingers up to the UK and say take it or leave it. With the Eurozone in crisis they are more likely concede in certain areas. That's just common sense. 

 

well,

this is an exercise in politics -not sure where common sense fits in - joke

 

assuming that you are reasonably on the right track,

concede in certain areas would probably imply amendments to political cover and/or the deal

the challenge is that such requires the agreement of all 28 members

 

talking about the May idea - put a time limit on Backstop, not widely appreciated

 

no smooth ride here

 

 

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Loiner said:

Same sentiment, not changed years later




Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

You are repeating yet another Brexiteer lie.

 

Churchill never said your quoted words; not in the House of Commons nor anywhere else! See A revealing deception about Winston Churchill?

 

Now you may very well dismiss that source as the author is pro EU (a pro Brexit source is hardly going to expose a Brexit lie!); but, as the author says, if you believe that Churchill did, indeed, say all that in the Commons on that, or any other, day, then show us where it appears in Hansard.

 

If you look at Hansard for that day, you will see that the closest he comes to the Brexiteer lie is

Quote

Where do we stand? We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system. We feel we have a special relation to both. This can be expressed by prepositions, by the preposition "with" but not "of"—we are with them, but not of them. We have our own Commonwealth and Empire.

 

So, as I previously explained but you chose to ignore, he at first did not envisage the UK being part of that unified Europe due to, as he said in his 1946 Zurich speech, his belief in a triumvirate of world powers; the British Empire and Commonwealth, the USA and a United Europe.

 

But with the decline of the British Empire he changed his mind on that. With that decline, Churchill recognised that Britain could only play the role in the world that he wanted by joining the European community. He confirmed this in a letter to his constituency chairman in August 1961, in which he declared, "I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community."  (Source) 

 

So his views on the UK and Europe changed as the UK's circumstances changed as the circumstances changed:

• 1948; Britain not part of any European union because of the Empire.
• 1953; Britain not part of any European union because of the Empire.
• 1961; Empire crumbling, Britain should be part of a European Union.

 So, as can be seen, although at first he did not envisage the UK being part of any European union, as the circumstances changed, he changed his mind and in 1961 believed that the UK should join.

 

You may say that the EEC of 1961 was a very different organisation to the EU of 2019; and you'd be right. But remember, as shown by his Zurich speech and others, he saw the ultimate aim to be some sort of federal United States of Europe. He wanted a federal Europe and as the Empire crumbled he wanted the UK to be part of it. An aim which goes far beyond that of the EU itself and any Remainer that I am aware of.

 

Now, circumstances have not changed since the referendum, but the public have become more and more aware of the realities of both remaining and leaving. Which is why I believe it is right to give the public a final say on all the options once negotiations are finished;

1. accept the deal,
2. no deal,
3. revoke Article 50 and remain a member.

As I have said previously, to avoid a minority decision, this referendum should be run on a single transferable vote system.

 

But Brexiteers are scared shitless of such a referendum. I can think of only one reason why; they know that this time, with all the facts out in the open and their previous hype exposed, they would lose.

 

 

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

19 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

well,

this is an exercise in politics -not sure where common sense fits in - joke

 

assuming that you are reasonably on the right track,

concede in certain areas would probably imply amendments to political cover and/or the deal

the challenge is that such requires the agreement of all 28 members

 

talking about the May idea - put a time limit on Backstop, not widely appreciated

 

no smooth ride here

 

 

You're right, certainly not a smooth ride. There are likely to be objections to changes from some of the other 27 member states. 

But with pressure from all the other parties, and with no deal looming, I suspect they'd agree to minor concessions. 

In the same way that the ERG would probably eventually agree to a 5 year sunset on the backstop, despite that meaning us being tied to the EU for 7-8 years. Compromises have to be made in the end. 

 

[melvinmelvin]

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're right, certainly not a smooth ride. There are likely to be objections to changes from some of the other 27 member states. 

But with pressure from all the other parties, and with no deal looming, I suspect they'd agree to minor concessions. 

In the same way that the ERG would probably eventually agree to a 5 year sunset on the backstop, despite that meaning us being tied to the EU for 7-8 years. Compromises have to be made in the end. 

 

yes, compromises are required

 

I just want to repeat here what I read yesterday in Swedish msm dn.se

interview with Mr Dahlgren, Minister of EU matters in the brand new Swedish government

He was very firm, time limit on Backstop? NO! can not be accepted.

Fresh minister but by far the most experienced Swedish diplomat this side of WW2,

he enjoys big clout across the entire political spectrum in Sweden, from far left to far right.

His word goes. (He has advised Swedish PMs since Jacob Palme, the chap who was murdered in the 80s) 

 

TM has challenges.

 

[7by7]

6 hours ago, evadgib said:

...but thank gawd for B-liar & Major?

What about Thatcher?

 

She signed the Single European Act in 1986; which led to all the subsequent treaties on closer union.

 

Truth be told, the Brexiteers two biggest historical heroes, Churchill and Thatcher, were, in fact, supporters of a European Union!

[Grouse]

https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/01/19/the-great-rescrambling-of-britains-parties

 

The Economist is right

[tomacht8]

37 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

You're right, certainly not a smooth ride. There are likely to be objections to changes from some of the other 27 member states. 

But with pressure from all the other parties, and with no deal looming, I suspect they'd agree to minor concessions. 

In the same way that the ERG would probably eventually agree to a 5 year sunset on the backstop, despite that meaning us being tied to the EU for 7-8 years. Compromises have to be made in the end. 

 

I see your timeline as realistic.

Full approval regarding the need for compromises. 

[CG1 Blue]

12 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

yes, compromises are required

 

I just want to repeat here what I read yesterday in Swedish msm dn.se

interview with Mr Dahlgren, Minister of EU matters in the brand new Swedish government

He was very firm, time limit on Backstop? NO! can not be accepted.

Fresh minister but by far the most experienced Swedish diplomat this side of WW2,

he enjoys big clout across the entire political spectrum in Sweden, from far left to far right.

His word goes. (He has advised Swedish PMs since Jacob Palme, the chap who was murdered in the 80s) 

 

TM has challenges.

 

If the other member states including Ireland agreed to a backstop time limit, why would a Swedish minister be compelled to block it? I'm sure he'd fall into line if push came to shove. 

 

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the other member states including Ireland agreed to a backstop time limit, why would a Swedish minister be compelled to block it? I'm sure he'd fall into line if push came to shove. 

 

Nobody is going to put the GFA at risk or do anything that even indicates it could be at risk

 

If it's such a big issue, stay in the CU!!!

[7by7]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

The electorate was told it was a one-off, once in a lifetime vote, to remain or stay, and that the decision would be final and that the government would enact whatever the people decided.

 

So when i say that the only known expectation that the electorate could have, was that voting to stay would mean we stay in the EU, and voting to leave would mean we leave the EU, I'm not so much speaking for the electorate, as speaking for anyone with a reasonably functioning brain and two ears.

Immediately before the referendum when polls showed Leave would lose  by 49% to 51% many Leave campaigners, led by Farage, said a Remain win by that margin would be unfinished business and they would want a second referendum.

 

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

 

Having won by that narrow margin, they now claim a magnificent, irreversible victory!

 

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If the other member states including Ireland agreed to a backstop time limit, why would a Swedish minister be compelled to block it? I'm sure he'd fall into line if push came to shove. 

 

but he is hardly alone with his views

 

never mind, most go with the flow

 

[CG1 Blue]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/01/19/the-great-rescrambling-of-britains-parties

 

The Economist is right

Interesting article. I heard last night that Corbyn is now going to give his support to a 2nd referendum. If there is a 2nd ref he has a huge dilemma. If he campaigns for remain he risks upsetting the vast number of Labour Leave voters up north. If he goes with his true feelings and supports Leave, he'll alienate the Labour membership who are predominantly Remain. 

He'll no doubt calculate which path gives him the greater chance of becoming PM and choose that one. 

[CG1 Blue]

19 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Nobody is going to put the GFA at risk or do anything that even indicates it could be at risk

 

If it's such a big issue, stay in the CU!!!

But is the GFA really at risk?  All parties have confirmed they will not put up a hard border under any circumstances. 

With a 5 year sunset they would have around 7 years to tweak and improve existing VAT border checks. 

 

The CU means still paying into the EU, allowing freedom of movement and no ability to negotiate trade deals independently. Right? 

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Immediately before the referendum when polls showed Leave would lose  by 49% to 51% many Leave campaigners, led by Farage, said a Remain win by that margin would be unfinished business and they would want a second referendum.

 

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

 

Having won by that narrow margin, they now claim a magnificent, irreversible victory!

 

Yes it was, wasn't it? ????

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, AlexRich said:

May’s deal involves leaving the EU, but Parliament could not ratify that? Nor will parliament ratify no deal. So what are we left with, it can only go back to the people.

Already rattyfied.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

Stupid as it is. Brexit has nothing to do with rational realism, the logic of finding the best solution for all ((48% + 52%) + EU neighbors). Brexit is degenerated into a mantra, which is constantly sung like in a Tibitan monastery. Meanwhile an ideology, a religion, a faith that should lead to salvation. 

The global survival competitors are delighted to beat their thighs on Europe's selfmade problems.

Kinky.

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

30 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Immediately before the referendum when polls showed Leave would lose  by 49% to 51% many Leave campaigners, led by Farage, said a Remain win by that margin would be unfinished business and they would want a second referendum.

 

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

 

Having won by that narrow margin, they now claim a magnificent, irreversible victory!

 

Yes it was, wasn't it? ????

Kindly explain how a narrow win for Remain would be unfinished business requiring a second referendum, but a narrow win for Leave is a magnificent victory.

[xylophone]

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

You are repeating yet another Brexiteer lie.

 

Churchill never said your quoted words; not in the House of Commons nor anywhere else! See A revealing deception about Winston Churchill?

 

Now you may very well dismiss that source as the author is pro EU (a pro Brexit source is hardly going to expose a Brexit lie!); but, as the author says, if you believe that Churchill did, indeed, say all that in the Commons on that, or any other, day, then show us where it appears in Hansard.

 

If you look at Hansard for that day, you will see that the closest he comes to the Brexiteer lie is

 

So, as I previously explained but you chose to ignore, he at first did not envisage the UK being part of that unified Europe due to, as he said in his 1946 Zurich speech, his belief in a triumvirate of world powers; the British Empire and Commonwealth, the USA and a United Europe.

 

But with the decline of the British Empire he changed his mind on that. With that decline, Churchill recognised that Britain could only play the role in the world that he wanted by joining the European community. He confirmed this in a letter to his constituency chairman in August 1961, in which he declared, "I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community."  (Source) 

 

So his views on the UK and Europe changed as the UK's circumstances changed as the circumstances changed:

• 1948; Britain not part of any European union because of the Empire.
• 1953; Britain not part of any European union because of the Empire.
• 1961; Empire crumbling, Britain should be part of a European Union.

 So, as can be seen, although at first he did not envisage the UK being part of any European union, as the circumstances changed, he changed his mind and in 1961 believed that the UK should join.

 

You may say that the EEC of 1961 was a very different organisation to the EU of 2019; and you'd be right. But remember, as shown by his Zurich speech and others, he saw the ultimate aim to be some sort of federal United States of Europe. He wanted a federal Europe and as the Empire crumbled he wanted the UK to be part of it. An aim which goes far beyond that of the EU itself and any Remainer that I am aware of.

 

Now, circumstances have not changed since the referendum, but the public have become more and more aware of the realities of both remaining and leaving. Which is why I believe it is right to give the public a final say on all the options once negotiations are finished;

1. accept the deal,
2. no deal,
3. revoke Article 50 and remain a member.

As I have said previously, to avoid a minority decision, this referendum should be run on a single transferable vote system.

 

But Brexiteers are scared shitless of such a referendum. I can think of only one reason why; they know that this time, with all the facts out in the open and their previous hype exposed, they would lose.

 

 

 

 

And I think remainers are scared shitless that they won't get to have another go. 

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Kindly explain how a narrow win for Remain would be unfinished business requiring a second referendum, but a narrow win for Leave is a magnificent victory.

I was referring to the victory being magnificent.

 

The other rubbish concerns the words of just one man, who is not even a part of the UK government, so why should I either explain or care?   

[nauseus]

35 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Interesting article. I heard last night that Corbyn is now going to give his support to a 2nd referendum. If there is a 2nd ref he has a huge dilemma. If he campaigns for remain he risks upsetting the vast number of Labour Leave voters up north. If he goes with his true feelings and supports Leave, he'll alienate the Labour membership who are predominantly Remain. 

He'll no doubt calculate which path gives him the greater chance of becoming PM and choose that one. 

Tricky innit?

[bomber]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

You are obsessed with the GBP/THB forex rate, as demonstrated in some of your previous posts.

 

As a reply to your patronising post: giving away Sterling for the Euro would be the final loss of sovereignty of the UK to the EU. Greece and Italy will find it so much harder to quit the EU than the UK because they already use the Euro. The Euro is a political currency and the ECB is a political bank, which will defend its currency before it defends many of the Europeans that use it. 

correct,iam pleased you agree with me,the EU do indeed defend their currency,our govt and the BoE want to see the £ washed away,doing a pretty good job imo,i dont really care about greece or italy,if they want to leave the EU then they can but i know they wont.

[bomber]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

Portugal is a sensible country. Don't worry:

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-portugal/portugal-promises-no-visas-for-britons-in-any-no-deal-brexit-idUSKCN1PB1V6

never been worried in the slightest,

[bomber]

7 hours ago, Spidey said:

Yes, very nice out of season. Great food too. Not very child friendly though.

neither is the UK if you listen to Tommy

[tebee]

2 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

Stupid as it is. Brexit has nothing to do with rational realism, the logic of finding the best solution for all ((48% + 52%) + EU neighbors). Brexit is degenerated into a mantra, which is constantly sung like in a Tibitan monastery. Meanwhile an ideology, a religion, a faith that should lead to salvation. 

The global survival competitors are delighted to beat their thighs on Europe's selfmade problems.

Yes I keep thinking firstly of Cargo cults -

 

Cargo cults often develop during a combination of crises. Under conditions of social stress, such a movement may form under the leadership of a charismatic figure. This leader may have a "vision" (or "myth-dream") of the future, often linked to an ancestral efficacy ("mana") thought to be recoverable by a return to traditional morality. This leader may characterize the present state as a dismantling of the old social order, meaning that social hierarchy and ego boundaries have been broken down.

 

And of Nongqawuse

 

She claimed that the spirits had told her that the the rest of her Xhosa people should destroy their crops and kill their cattle, the source of their wealth as well as food.

In return the spirits would sweep the British settlers into the sea.The Xhosa would be able to replenish the granaries, and fill the kraals with more beautiful and healthier cattle. During this time many Xhosa herds were plagued with "lung sickness", possibly introduced by European cattle. Mhlakaza did not believe her at first but when Nongqawuse described one of the men, her uncle Mhalakaza, himself a diviner, recognised the description as that of his dead brother, and became convinced she was telling the truth.

 

But sadly 

 

After they killed all their cattle the prophecies failed to come true leading to famine and the death of many people. In the aftermath of the crisis, the population of British Kaffraria dropped from 105,000 to fewer than 27,000 .

 

Of course, those who believed said it was because there were some unbelievers whose faith was not strong enough, so the gods did not provided.

 

Who will get blamed when Brexit crashes and burns ?  

[damascase]

36 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But is the GFA really at risk?  All parties have confirmed they will not put up a hard border under any circumstances. 

With a 5 year sunset they would have around 7 years to tweak and improve existing VAT border checks. 

 

The CU means still paying into the EU, allowing freedom of movement and no ability to negotiate trade deals independently. Right? 

It could be different in the case of a separate Customs Union Agreement between the UK and the EU. Look at Turkey, with a Customs Union arrangment with the EU covering, basically, non-agricultural products while being able to conclude its own FTA’s.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, bomber said:

neither is the UK if you listen to Tommy

I don't take much notice of publicity seeking, wife beating thugs.