UK PM May to seek Brexit consensus after winning confidence vote

[nauseus]

6 hours ago, Johnyo said:

 

Brexiteer delusion and fantasy. The EU doesn’t need you, in fact they can’t wait till you get your shit together and get the f... out.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Good to hear.

[cleopatra2]

Hear all Brexit related bills still awaiting passage have been paused, for the foreseable future

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Ha! They should have a competence vote not a confidence vote!

And.. Oh Jeremy Corbyn ... could win the impotence vote too!

 

[melvinmelvin]

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

For the EU, already reeling from successive crises over debt and refugees, Brexit is possibly the biggest blow in its 60-year history, though its 27 other members have shown remarkable unity over Britain's exit.

 

Most of the 27 other members seem to have been rather quiet and don't seem to have had much choice in the matter! I wonder why? 

others being quiet?

maybe they are simply comfortable that UK is leaving

UK has been a real pain in the a in EU for years

 

[melvinmelvin]

57 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think there is majority for a people's vote if Corbyn is kicked into line. Whatever the result it would gain time and defy May. Her continual sniggering during the debate deserved a damn good slap in my opinion. Clearly a woman of no breeding and certainly no self respect. I could go on.

agree

and in my view it was unfortunate that she survived

it will be damaging for Tory

it will be damaging for UK

and for Brexit.

 

 

[Grouse]

39 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And.. Oh Jeremy Corbyn ... could win the impotence vote too!

 

I bow to your personal knowledge of the man!

[7by7]

15 hours ago, nauseus said:

Most of the 27 other members seem to have been rather quiet and don't seem to have had much choice in the matter! I wonder why? 

 You are very fond of asking others for links to verify their claims; yet very reluctant to provide such yourself.

 

I wonder why!

 

What The EU Really Thinks About Brexit

 

Addendum.

The 27 did, of course, have a choice in the matter. What you forget, or more likely choose to ignore, is that any deal between the UK and EU has to be unanimously agreed by the other 27. May's deal was; will the next one be?

[Retiredandhappyhere]

7 hours ago, Johnyo said:

 

Brexiteer delusion and fantasy. The EU doesn’t need you, in fact they can’t wait till you get your shit together and get the f... out.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Is that why they have already said that the UK can change its mind and stay on the same terms as before.  The EU were shocked and dismayed at the referendum result.   Doesn't sound like they can't wait for us to leave and in any event not expressed in your disgusting (though slightly disguised) language.

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 You are very fond of asking others for links to verify their claims; yet very reluctant to provide such yourself.

 

I wonder why!

 

What The EU Really Thinks About Brexit

That is an excellent piece!

 

I do hope leavers find someone to read it to them ????

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Over 17 million Brits clearly felt that the EU has been a pain in the a... for them for over 40 years and felt that enough was enough.  At least the Brits were given the opportunity (at last) to express their opinion in a referendum, whereas none of the other 27 countries have been given the same opportunity.  They are by no means all happy with the EU, but their leaders are scared ask them for their opinions and just make statements on their behalf.

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Is that why they have already said that the UK can change its mind and stay on the same terms as before.  The EU were shocked and dismayed at the referendum result.   Doesn't sound like they can't wait for us to leave and in any event not expressed in your disgusting (though slightly disguised) language.

Care in the community

 

Elderly relative with delusions of imperial grandour!

 

Are you OK UK? Do you need to go?

 

Sit down and have nice cup of tea with a digestive and watch the Black and White Minstral show....

[7by7]

3 hours ago, dunroaming said:

Anyway she hasn't got much time left before she has to offer plan B.  It's hard to see how she will get cross party agreement without softening her Brexit deal even more and that would mean the Norway plus option is a better fit

Norway plus is Brexit in name only.

 

We would still be in the single market.

 

We would still be in the customs union (Norway isn't, but we would be; hence 'plus.').

 

We would still be subject to the four freedoms; including the free movement of peoples.

 

We would still be subject to most EU rules, regulations and laws.

 

We would still be subject to most rulings of the ECJ.

 

We would still be contributing large amounts into EU funds.

 

But: we would have no say in any of the above; no MEPs, no seat on the Council of Ministers, no say on how our money is spent.

 

If that is the best Brexit option available; better to revoke Article 50 and cancel the whole thing altogether. 

 

 

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Norway plus is Brexit in name only.

 

We would still be in the single market.

 

We would still be in the customs union (Norway isn't, but we would be; hence 'plus.').

 

We would still be subject to the four freedoms; including the free movement of peoples.

 

We would still be subject to most EU rules, regulations and laws.

 

We would still be subject to most rulings of the ECJ.

 

We would still be contributing large amounts into EU funds.

 

But: we would have no say in any of the above; no MEPs, no seat on the Council of Ministers, no say on how our money is spent.

 

If that is the best Brexit option available; better to revoke Article 50 and cancel the whole thing altogether. 

 

 

Don't tell them that!!

 

Norway+ is the Nash Equilibrium solution. However that depends on rationality.

 

Controls on free movement will be the deal maker IMO

[7by7]

The ECJ ruling means that we can unilaterally revoke Article 50; but we can't unilaterally extend it. The other 27 have to agree.

 

But why should they? The other 27 governments have all the cards; they agreed to a deal, the UK Parliament rejected it. We now have to go back to them and try to negotiate a new deal which they and we find acceptable.

 

It is all well and good the likes of Corbyn demanding May take no deal off the table; but it is not up to just her, it is not up to just our Parliament. We can't dictate terms; much as many delusional Brexiteers like to think we can!

 

If the other 27 reject the new UK proposals, then we will be leaving the EU on March 29th without a deal.

 

I personally think that will be a disaster for both us and the EU; but we have a hell of a lot more to lose from it than they do.

 

[dunroaming]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Norway plus is Brexit in name only.

 

We would still be in the single market.

 

We would still be in the customs union (Norway isn't, but we would be; hence 'plus.').

 

We would still be subject to the four freedoms; including the free movement of peoples.

 

We would still be subject to most EU rules, regulations and laws.

 

We would still be subject to most rulings of the ECJ.

 

We would still be contributing large amounts into EU funds.

 

But: we would have no say in any of the above; no MEPs, no seat on the Council of Ministers, no say on how our money is spent.

 

If that is the best Brexit option available; better to revoke Article 50 and cancel the whole thing altogether. 

 

 

Yes of course but they have to "deliver" a Brexit of some sort no matter how damaging it is.  That's the red line May stated and one she has to follow through.  Her current deal (that was massively rejected) is not much better than the Norway option but as I said in my post if she softens that then the Norway plus will probably look favourable.

[melvinmelvin]

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Norway plus is Brexit in name only.

 

We would still be in the single market.

 

We would still be in the customs union (Norway isn't, but we would be; hence 'plus.').

 

We would still be subject to the four freedoms; including the free movement of peoples.

 

We would still be subject to most EU rules, regulations and laws.

 

We would still be subject to most rulings of the ECJ.

 

We would still be contributing large amounts into EU funds.

 

But: we would have no say in any of the above; no MEPs, no seat on the Council of Ministers, no say on how our money is spent.

 

If that is the best Brexit option available; better to revoke Article 50 and cancel the whole thing altogether. 

 

 

 

forget ECJ

you will be policed by ESA and done in by the EFTA court

(ESA is tough)

 

[7by7]

28 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

7 hours ago, Johnyo said:

Brexiteer delusion and fantasy. The EU doesn’t need you, in fact they can’t wait till you get your shit together and get the f... out.

Is that why they have already said that the UK can change its mind and stay on the same terms as before

 

The EU has not said that we can change our mind and stay on the same terms as before.

 

It was the European Court of Justice which made that ruling.

 

Opinions are fine, but if you are going to comment on actual facts at least try and get those facts right!

[persimmon]

The UK should tell the EU thugs to get lost and leave with no deal.

Appeasing bullies is never a good idea.

 

Thats not going to happen,of course,because most MP s are against it.

 

Throws into sharp focus the sham that is democracy in the UK.

[sammieuk1]

The consensus in my family is 99% lost the will to live with this perpetual <deleted> just one brake failure of the £350 mill bus and we all fall into the channel hopefully with the entire government DUP the opposition and Nicola Sturgeon driving on board????

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, persimmon said:

The UK should tell the EU thugs to get lost and leave with no deal.

Which would leave us where?

 

No trade deals with anyone, nearly all our trade with non EU countries is conducted under agreements between them and the EU.

 

"That's alright," say some, "we'll revert to WTO rules."

 

Not as simple as that!

 

Do you know how many WTO members trade on WTO rules alone; that is without agreements, free trade or otherwise, with their major trading partners?

 

One; Mauritania: Who actually trades solely under WTO rules?

Quote

For those of you not familiar with Mauritania, it’s GDP is $4,714million (0.2% of the UK’s), 50% of its exports consist of Iron Ore, and between 1% and 17% of the population still live in slavery.

 

If WTO rules are so fantastic, why does only one country trade using them and them alone?

 

WTO rules alone would spell disaster for this country From the forward to UK trade and the World Trade Organisation; A Brexit briefing for non-specialists

Quote

 A disorderly Brexit falling back on the minimalist WTO framework for trade could cost more than a million jobs across Britain and cause lasting damage to our attractiveness as a base for international investment

But without a deal it's what we would be left with; until and unless we can negotiate trade deals with our current or new trading partners

 

Remember that 48% of our exports go to the EU.

[dunroaming]

So January 29th is the next vote.  May has kicked the can another two weeks down the road.  It does indicate though she will revise her deal to try to placate the MPs.

 

It is said that the majority of MP's are against leaving because it will cause considerable disruption in their constituencies even though many of their constituents want out.  In my case it is the opposite because my MP, a certain Dominic Raab, is a passionate Brexiteer even though his constituents voted overwhelmingly for remain.  So to the people who feel cheated by their representatives stance over Brexit, I agree.  

[7by7]

29 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

forget ECJ

you will be policed by ESA and done in by the EFTA court

(ESA is tough)

 

Assuming we were allowed to join EFTA.

 

But would we be; or want to for that matter?

 

 

 

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

It is said that the majority of MP's are against leaving because it will cause considerable disruption in their constituencies even though many of their constituents want out.  In my case it is the opposite because my MP, a certain Dominic Raab, is a passionate Brexiteer even though his constituents voted overwhelmingly for remain.  So to the people who feel cheated by their representatives stance over Brexit, I agree.

 

That is how a representative democracy such as we have works.

 

But it is is the strongest argument for a second referendum that I have yet seen.

 

Give the final choice to the people, not the MPs.

 

Three questions:

1. leave with this deal (whatever that turns out to be)
2. leave with no deal
3. withdraw article 50 and remain on the same terms as before.

Single transferable vote;. choose two options, and if no option has at least 50% plus 1 after the first count, eliminate the option with the fewest votes and transfer the second choices of those voters to the remaining two options to give a winner.

 

No expensive campaigns relying on pressure groups and voter profiling as both Leave and Remain did before; all campaigning and advertising banned.

 

Just a simple explanation from an independent source (the electoral commission?); this is what each option means; now choose.

[whatsupdoc]

54 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Over 17 million Brits clearly felt that the EU has been a pain in the a... for them for over 40 years and felt that enough was enough.  At least the Brits were given the opportunity (at last) to express their opinion in a referendum, whereas none of the other 27 countries have been given the same opportunity.  They are by no means all happy with the EU, but their leaders are scared ask them for their opinions and just make statements on their behalf.

The Brexit referendum has been extremely divisive, has created a lot of uncertainty, has damaged the economy, has made the currency take a dive, has sent many businesses and jobs overseas and it all can get a lot worse because the UK hasn't even left the EU yet.

And you expect the other 27 EU countries to copy this model???

You are funny.

 

FYI: no other country than the UK is even thinking about leaving the EU. Not Greece, not Italy, not Poland, not Hungary, not a single one. OK, there are some (mostly right-wing) minorities that would be in favor of it but they do not have the support that would be needed.

[melvinmelvin]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Assuming we were allowed to join EFTA.

 

But would we be; or want to for that matter?

 

 

 

 

dunno

but as to want to; Norway and Norway + frequently figures in UK rhetoric

as to allowed  to:

 

In matters like these Liechtenstein normally makes a Swiss national plenipotentiary

and let Switzerland and that person sort things on behalf of Liechtenstein

 

So then you have

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland(Liechtenstein)

In my view there is no win - only lose - for Switzerland to accept UK in EFTA

Iceland, lose to accept UK, but if they are serious about becoming a EU member

            Juncker/Tusk could probably bend their arms to accept UK.

Norway, would not be happy with UK in EFTA, but Norway and UK have very

longstanding close relationships . so may be pressed into yes against her wish

 

culturally; UK does not fit into EFTA

 

 

 

[Grouse]

May I recommend Andrew Marr's A History of Britain?

 

Excellent documentary series. Educational and hugely entertaining. Episode 1 on Bbc 4 today.

 

There is a book but the vintage footage is just excellent!

 

Available online but needs searching!

[elliss]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

And.. Oh Jeremy Corbyn ... could win the impotence vote too!

 

   Yep,   he just aint got  the balls . 

[aright]

8 minutes ago, elliss said:

   Yep,   he just aint got  the balls . 

He has no hard feelings either.

[naboo]

1. When debated in parliament the referendum was described as advisory.  As a result the debate was curtailed and the criteria for the form of question, and the margins for positive action not scrutinised. On a parliamentary democracy level, the outcome of the referendum had no direct legal implication or mandate. It also excluded many groups of people that might legitimately be considered eligible to vote in normal circumstances (like elections, for example) which again was not scrutinised, because the referendum was a ill-thought out sop to the right wing of the conservative party, not a serious proposition that was thought out, or could be enacted.

2. Two weeks after the legislation had been passed for an advisory vote, David Cameron said that he would respect and enact the outcome of the referendum.  This had no legislative legitimacy.  It was a political act, and a subversion of parliamentary democracy.

3. The campaign to leave was based on demonstrable lies, contradictory promises (in the sense that it was impossible to meet all the expectations raised - despite specific promises by it's leading lights that it was - so more lies on top of factual lies then), and funded (at least in part) by illegal funding, source unproven but circumstantially linked (as are the main protagonists co-ordinating - illegally - the campaigns for leave) to a rogue foreign state (in the sense that it commits illegal acts on foreign soil including murderous assignation, use of internationally illegal weapons, and is waging a war - political, propaganda, economic, and covert actions - against western democracy, and security institutions). Yet the brexshitting xenophobes continue appeasing the <deleted> out of it, rather than fighting for their country. Totally contrary to their statements.

4. The fourth estate have been worse than complicit.  Not only failing to scrutinise the clear rubbish pedaled, but also supporting anti-western unity propaganda for decades, and using the rhetoric of war and enemy towards our friends. Placing the 'blame' for our ills at the door of 'others' and not at the national policy level where it belongs. The press actively promoted vile demonstrably dangerous and fallacious rhetoric, and failed to provide actual balance by giving crackpots and liars equal (in many cases preferential) platform and credibility to experts in their fields.

5. The referendum result was essentially an equal split across the country, with a minor majority for leave.  Leave was not defined, and meant many things to many people.  Because of the lies they were told, amongst other factors.

6. David Cameron didn't respect or enact the result of the referendum.  He <deleted> off. The smarmy PR machine, in search of an idea, left office without having one.

7. The conservative party foisted on the country a *leader* nobody believed in, least of all them.  Her one saving grace (for them) being that she was a viscous xenophobe who profoundly disliked the presence of people of a foreign heritage in the UK, and had taken active measure to create a hostile environment for them, and taken actions to (illegally) send them back (even if they were born here).

8. Taking her view of an anti-immigration brexit to the people for a mandate, she failed to get one. Nevertheless she ploughed on with an extreme right wing interpretation of 'leaving' facilitated by bribing one of the nastiest legitimate political parties to the tune of a billion pounds. While placing more people in poverty, and delaying and reducing needed social security assistance to people in genuine hardship.  Like a modern Jesus telling disabled people to cast of their infirmity and walk to work (even in cases where they were absent the use of their legs).

9. Without an understanding of the issues, or a plan, or any level of collective agreement within the cabinet, she railroaded through parliament a triggering of article 50, and the issuing of statutory instruments that allowed the government to implement vast swathes of legislation without proper scrutiny.

10. Luckily a member of the public, with a legal background, absolutely appalled at the attempt to bypass democracy, established a legal requirement to have parliamentary democracy asserted. She was vilified because she is not pasty, ginger, or corrupt.

11. Two years of insufferable nonsense and a total unwillingness to face the realities of the world ensued. The promises that could never be kept, were not kept. Unsurprisingly the result is supported by no serious constituency. The 'best deal for britain' is substantially and demonstrably worse for Britain, undoubdtedly damaging and costly, with no credible upsides.

12. People who said they always knew what they were voting for (despite that being explicitly contrary to what was campaigned for in the leave case for the referendum) threatened violence and civil unrest (have put a very decent fist into bullying and intimidation for the entire process, just in case) unless they get what 'the people' want.  They are not the people, nor a consensus, and definitely not a majority - as evidenced by their frothing at the mouth attempt to subvert democracy at every turn or resist any attempt to actually find out what people do actually want given the real options. Basically an act of terrorism from radicalised extremist right wing agitators. Who claim to be "proud of their country" while destroying it economically, politically, and tearing it away from the comfort and protection of the western democratic market of rights and privileges that underpin our prosperity.

14. Running the clock down, and turning the gun on our own people, the government are now effectively threatening to usher in absolute catastrophe and third world (trading) status, unless we agree to perform perverted acts of economic and political self harm. A disaster that will have long reaching implications that exceed my natural lifespan.

15. The only way out of this shitshow, to minimise the damage, and the length of time for which we are politically and economically crippled, is to withdraw article 50 and apologise for being absolute <deleted> morons.

Proud to be British? Right now only an idiot could be.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The ECJ ruling means that we can unilaterally revoke Article 50; but we can't unilaterally extend it. The other 27 have to agree.

 

But why should they? The other 27 governments have all the cards; they agreed to a deal, the UK Parliament rejected it. We now have to go back to them and try to negotiate a new deal which they and we find acceptable.

 

It is all well and good the likes of Corbyn demanding May take no deal off the table; but it is not up to just her, it is not up to just our Parliament. We can't dictate terms; much as many delusional Brexiteers like to think we can!

 

If the other 27 reject the new UK proposals, then we will be leaving the EU on March 29th without a deal.

 

I personally think that will be a disaster for both us and the EU; but we have a hell of a lot more to lose from it than they do.

 

There's quite a good column from Paul Krugman who got his Nobel Memorial Prize for studying the economics of trade. He exempts neither side entirely from blame:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-brexit.html