May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Laughing Gravy]

5 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

I watched a Sky News doc recently where a lady voted "because of the NHS" ... looks like she'll be disappointed then, doesn't it?

 

The EU made the UK become a 'service country'? Do you not think that we did that ourselves? A narrow majority voted to leave the EU in a referendum, but a very large minority did not ... so we should just ignore them and plough ahead with an extreme exit, without any reference to our own laws and parliament? That, in my view, is a recipe for disaster. No debate and no plan as to what form the exit will take? We're all expected to take a walk in the dark to a destination that will be determined by right-wing Tories and UKIP racists. It looks like there will be scrutiny and debate, and not before time.

 

 

 

 

Obviously you do not know the various Treaties that the signed behind closed doors that took away the countries ability to feed itself. Took away various industries and created the UK as a service industry. You and everyone else who has voted can you not accepting the majority.

Shall it be a 60 40, 70 30, 80 20 percent. the terms was a simple as a 5 year could understand. out or in. Not out or in with lets make so many conditions. You are embarrassing your self and intellect.

[Laughing Gravy]

8 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

Too many falsehoods and misunderstandings to deal with. Excellent example of why we have a representative parliamentary democracy rather than rely upon referendums

So what are elections. I have to say you do say some strange statements and this just has gone to number one. Well done Grouse.

[rockingrobin]

6 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No we did not make that ourselves. Look up how the UK and Europe was formed due to the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty. This is the bit many remainers don't understand and I don't think ever will. Many of us who voted out just want out from the corrupt EU. we do not give a <deleted>. The EU is as bad as the Nazis dictating what we can do or can't within a historical time. Sadly many reamainers haven't the nostalgic, patriotism or even sense, to realize that the EU is no difference from a tyranny and control of the European countries of the early 1900s.

Nonsense

The UK entered into treaties fully knowing and supporting the aims and objectives .Churchills Tragedy of Europe speech as an example

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So what are elections. I have to say you do say some strange statements and this just has gone to number one. Well done Grouse.

 

Plenty of sources of mis-information in UK, similar to this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37846860

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Obviously you do not know the various Treaties that the signed behind closed doors that took away the countries ability to feed itself. Took away various industries and created the UK as a service industry. You and everyone else who has voted can you not accepting the majority.

Shall it be a 60 40, 70 30, 80 20 percent. the terms was a simple as a 5 year could understand. out or in. Not out or in with lets make so many conditions. You are embarrassing your self and intellect.

How do treaties become enacted into UK domestic law

[Grouse]

Codswallop overload. Off to the pub ?

[Laughing Gravy]

7 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

Why do countries enter into battle and then loose? Because they never thought that was a possibility at the outset hence managing defeat is rarely ever considered beforehand.

Well I am glad you were never in my trench as I don't think you have the moral fibre to enter a battle if you thin you could only win. Actually during the first world war the British and related allies were considered to be outnumbered and would loose. Good you were not there. Your forefathers would have been embarrassed.

[jpinx]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Nonsense

The UK entered into treaties fully knowing and supporting the aims and objectives .Churchills Tragedy of Europe speech as an example

Churchill’s power, influence and prestige internationally meant that his speeches were taken seriously and widely reported, and he became regarded as a leading figure in the European movement. But he wasn’t, as some have said, a committed ‘European’; he always felt that Britain should not be subsumed within a federal Europe. He always remained a British nationalist....

 

https://www.churchillcentral.com/timeline/stories/the-tragedy-of-europe

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Churchill’s power, influence and prestige internationally meant that his speeches were taken seriously and widely reported, and he became regarded as a leading figure in the European movement. But he wasn’t, as some have said, a committed ‘European’; he always felt that Britain should not be subsumed within a federal Europe. He always remained a British nationalist....

 

https://www.churchillcentral.com/timeline/stories/the-tragedy-of-europe

I agree, but he did support a federal Europe , maybe the UK joining was a mistake , I dont know , but we should not start claiming ignorance to where it has evolved to today

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I agree, but he did support a federal Europe , maybe the UK joining was a mistake , I dont know , but we should not start claiming ignorance to where it has evolved to today

 

A looser federation would have worked, but the politicians and beaurocrats could not stop empire building.  I supported joining the Common Market, but it was never envisaged to morph into the monster it has become.  If the PM and her Brexit team can wind our position back sufficiently to give us our own laws again, that would start to get interesting.  Unfortunately the EU has set it's face against making this a happy divorce and that means hurt on both sides -- very silly and short-sighted of Tusk et al.  They are protecting the empire they have built, when really they should be relaxing and allowing other countries to be less subsumed if they want.  Enforcement of a marriage never makes for happy and productive partners.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

A looser federation would have worked, but the politicians and beaurocrats could not stop empire building.  I supported joining the Common Market, but it was never envisaged to morph into the monster it has become.  If the PM and her Brexit team can wind our position back sufficiently to give us our own laws again, that would start to get interesting.  Unfortunately the EU has set it's face against making this a happy divorce and that means hurt on both sides -- very silly and short-sighted of Tusk et al.  They are protecting the empire they have built, when really they should be relaxing and allowing other countries to be less subsumed if they want.  Enforcement of a marriage never makes for happy and productive partners.

It never was intended to be a loose trading bloc, what parts would you say should not have occurred. 

[chiang mai]

27 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Well I am glad you were never in my trench as I don't think you have the moral fibre to enter a battle if you thin you could only win. Actually during the first world war the British and related allies were considered to be outnumbered and would loose. Good you were not there. Your forefathers would have been embarrassed.

 

  I'll work really hard on my moral fibre and try to be a better whatever it is you think I ought to be, it's so vitally important in my life that I be seen to live up to your expectations, it's my mission from today on.

 

There, was I convincing!

 

 

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

It never was intended to be a loose trading bloc, what parts would you say should not have occurred. 

 

You know probably better than me how complex it is and how difficult it is to unravel a monster like this.  It'd be easier to get out and re-join with more carefully though-out terms --

 

The fundamental issue might be the way the UK passed an act which AUTOMATICALLY allowed the EU law to prevail instead of debating and passing the EU law into the UK statutes

Edited November 6, 2016 by jpinx

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

 

You know probably better than me how complex it is and how difficult it is to unravel a monster like this.  It'd be easier to get out and re-join with more carefully though-out terms

I have no issue with the UK wanting to extract itself from the EU , but to give some pretense of EU grievance is unfair

I found the following blog quite good 

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-case-for-brexit-lessons-from-1960s-and-1970s

 

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

I have no issue with the UK wanting to extract itself from the EU , but to give some pretense of EU grievance is unfair

I found the following blog quite good 

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-case-for-brexit-lessons-from-1960s-and-1970s

 

I'm not sure what the authors agenda is, but there are some interesting points in there.  I remember the miss-selling by Harold Wilson prior to the '75 referendum and I voted out at the time.  That referendum was another sop to politicians and held no weight in law, as does the current result, but because it went the governments way there was not a murmur of dissent.  Now, however, the government have seriously miscalculated the electorate, proving my continuing contention that the disconnect between MPs and constituents is almost complete, depending only on the party office in the constituency which obviously spins things it's own way. 

 

The history is interesting, and as someone said, those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, but unravelling history is not an option, not least because the circumstances nowadays are totally different than they were in the early '70s.  Allowing the EU to dominate government across Europe leads to the significant detriment of national governments.  All major decisions are now made in Brussels and there is huge resentment of that whole Tower of Babel and it's unelected and unaccountable army of beaurocrats coming up with the rules and regulations which affect peoples lives at a very personal level.  Whether this was intended to happen or not is immaterial -- it has happened and is the source of most of the anti-EU sentiment seen in the press and even in here. The UK electorate has told their government to get us out of this mess, no matter how difficult it will be to reverse this juggernaut back down the narrow cul-de-sac we now find ourselves in.  Subseqyent polls have re-inforced the result in five separate polls taken (see above where I posted them earlier today), making the lie of the posit that people didn't know what they were voting for.  All the mythical doomsday consequences have been trumpeted on all sides, but the resolve shown by the affirmation polls is firm. 

 

The government made mistakes in formulating the referendum and took the arrogant stance that the Remainers would easily win. They didn't make the referendun result subject to any minimum majority to be effective, as per the first Scottish referendum, and they didn't make the result binding -- though this might actually have been deliberate -- just in case.  Since the result in favour of Brexit the fallout has been huge.  The PM ran away from the duty stated by himself prior to the vote - to act according to the result and invoke Article 50.  The house has subsequently bayed for debates on the conditions of Brexit, conveniently overlooking the fact that the invocation of Article 50 does not determine the conditions, it merely starts the clock ticking on the period for completion of the separation.  To say that the house is employing delaying tactics is a gross understatement as the majority were Remainers and want time to try to unravel the referendum.  The new PM made a rare error of judgement and tried to use an instrument to invoke Article 50 which actually was not available to her - according to the court.  If any appeal goes forward that might be overturned, but no-one is staking their pension-pot on which way that'll go. 

 

What's next?  Either the courts agree that the PM can invoke Article 50, or a motion will be placed before the house for debate.  Hopefully the motion will confine the debate to the single topic of invocation of Article 50 according to the result of the referendum and the political promises to act on that result.  MP's will need some solid evidence of future motions to allow debate on the terms of Brexit or they will undoubtedly try to hijack this initial motion regarding just the invocation of Article 50. Mr Speaker is going to have fun keeping that debate on track!

 

The house appears to be minded to agree to Brexit now, but the reality is that MP's appear to be very resentful of the way the whole pantomime has played out, and they won't be playing ball with the same alacrity -- more that they will be playing with a gun to their head if they do not follow the new party line. It's a divorce made in hell, grumpy UK MPs  versus  a cold face from the EU bosses in Brussels. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by jpinx

[lostinisaan]

On 10/29/2016 at 4:37 PM, Grouse said:

Just remind me what benefits we get from Brexit again.....

 

 Free Exit........

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Never a truer quote said. That's the problem with a simple decision. Stay in the EU or Leave. They remainers (well some) can't accept a democratic decision and behave like children who have been given a choice but can't accept the outcome.

It is not simple, the decision to leave creates another decision on how to leave; but we may have an answer.

On todays BBC News at 11 am, Teresa May stood at the bottom of the aircraft steps and said she would ensure the best deal for Britain "operating within the single market".

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

 

For goodness sake, I am the poster that Han is targeting. Problem is I am completely insensitive to sillyness ?

 

It's silliness .

Edited November 6, 2016 by Khun Han

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

At least do the basic research and maths and get it right please --  before potentially starting more alarm and confusion

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-brexit-referendum/

 

No basic research necessary to point out the slim margin between the Yes and No vote blocks. This small margin is the cause for potential confusion and alarm, not my observation. Fortunately the Court is allowing democratic representation in the legislative process as the government PM set about a critical economic course for the UK based on a nonbinding referendum. 

[SheungWan]

6 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

No basic research necessary to point out the slim margin between the Yes and No vote blocks. This small margin is the cause for potential confusion and alarm, not my observation. Fortunately the Court is allowing democratic representation in the legislative process as the government PM set about a critical economic course for the UK based on a nonbinding referendum. 

 

The High Court is not 'allowing' or injecting 'democratic representation'  Vs the Executive as a result of the balance of the vote. The High Court decision is an application of law, namely which institution has precedence in the legal process. That institution is Parliament.

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by SheungWan

[Srikcir]

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

The High Court is not 'allowing' or injecting 'democratic representation' Vs the Executive as a result of the balance of the vote. The High Court decision is an application of law, namely which institution has precedence in the legal process.

 

Certainly not what May, et al expected with Brexit.

[AlexRich]

6 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

No we did not make that ourselves. Look up how the UK and Europe was formed due to the Lisbon and Maastricht treaty. This is the bit many remainers don't understand and I don't think ever will. Many of us who voted out just want out from the corrupt EU. we do not give a <deleted>. The EU is as bad as the Nazis dictating what we can do or can't within a historical time. Sadly many reamainers haven't the nostalgic, patriotism or even sense, to realize that the EU is no difference from a tyranny and control of the European countries of the early 1900s.

 

When you suggest that the EU is "as bad" as the Nazi's you just completely lose the argument. That is a ridiculous statement . Closer cooperation has prevented war and strife in Europe, thank god.

[nausea]

There are no "tough talks". You either come back on the same terms as you left or you don't. The idea the UK can cut a special deal is a fantasy. Germany and France are probably very glad to get rid of us. They can get back on track to their real ideal - a United Europe. 

 

[happy Joe]

7 hours ago, jpinx said:

 

A looser federation would have worked, but the politicians and beaurocrats could not stop empire building.  I supported joining the Common Market, but it was never envisaged to morph into the monster it has become.  If the PM and her Brexit team can wind our position back sufficiently to give us our own laws again, that would start to get interesting.  Unfortunately the EU has set it's face against making this a happy divorce and that means hurt on both sides -- very silly and short-sighted of Tusk et al.  They are protecting the empire they have built, when really they should be relaxing and allowing other countries to be less subsumed if they want.  Enforcement of a marriage never makes for happy and productive partners.

 

Lyrics for nothing.

 

One can not deny the political autonomy and complain at the same time of an entity managed by unelected officials. The bureaucrats that you denounce owe their importance to your refusal of a confederation.

 

And I, as a convinced European, I feel perfectly freedom wind. I enjoy being a little at home in different cultures and be able to travel and exchange freely. I also appreciate the peace in Europe since its inception and for the first time in its history.

 

Try to imagine a solid union of Arab countries for example, and compare with their current situation ...

 

Finally, I am pleased that my group maintains good relations with others, USA of course but also Asia, South America, Africa and Russia tomorrow. Day after day we are building friendly relationships of interdependence that make unlikely any major conflict for our children.

 

Yes, I know, it is far from nationalist claims and the slogan "England for the English" there.

Edited November 6, 2016 by happy Joe

[jpinx]

6 hours ago, Srikcir said:

No basic research necessary to point out the slim margin between the Yes and No vote blocks. This small margin is the cause for potential confusion and alarm, not my observation. Fortunately the Court is allowing democratic representation in the legislative process as the government PM set about a critical economic course for the UK based on a nonbinding referendum. 

 

There is no confusion over the result, only alarm because it was not a huge majority.  The courts merely clarified a point of law about what was permitted under the royal prerogative. The referendum places no legal obligation on government, but it was clearly stated prior to the vote the the wishes of the electorate would be respected, so the political obligation exists most strongly. The fact that the person who said this ran away as soon as the result proved to be not the one he wanted is immaterial, the current PM has taken up that torch and is doing her best to make it happen, in the face of considerable grumpiness and delaying tactics.

[jpinx]

2 hours ago, happy Joe said:

 

Lyrics for nothing.

 

One can not deny the political autonomy and complain at the same time of an entity managed by unelected officials. The bureaucrats that you denounce owe their importance to your refusal of a confederation.

 

And I, as a convinced European, I feel perfectly freedom wind. I enjoy being a little at home in different cultures and be able to travel and exchange freely. I also appreciate the peace in Europe since its inception and for the first time in its history.

 

Try to imagine a solid union of Arab countries for example, and compare with their current situation ...

 

Finally, I am pleased that my group maintains good relations with others, USA of course but also Asia, South America, Africa and Russia tomorrow. Day after day we are building friendly relationships of interdependence that make unlikely any major conflict for our children.

 

Yes, I know, it is far from nationalist claims and the slogan "England for the English" there.

There was no denial of attempted political autonomy, only a comment on the wish for independence, thereby escaping the risk of being totally submerged  in a beaurocratic minestrone.  The fact that many europeans are content with the EU and it's machinery does not make the UK wrong for not being content.  Everyone is different, and every nation has a right to make it's own decisions.  It is certainly hoped that EU and USA can continues it's happy(?) relationship, but we await the results this week to see the possibilities.

 

As for peace in Europe, it's probable that there is no appetite for war nowadays because of the experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.  Also - there is not the same level of friction between neighbouring westernised countries as there was in the past.  One can certainly not say that about eastern, former-soviet countries who are still riven by  civil unrest between the long-standing native population and the planted russian incomers over the last few generations.  Germany has this to look forward to now as the seeds of such internal tensions are already showing between the culture of the refugee incomers and the locals.  When such an influx was encouraged in the past the Turkish gast-arbeiten were largely despised and that memory still exists......

 

The parallel of a United Arabia is interesting, and would be a huge advance on the petty tribal wars that plague that area, but it's probably too steep a mountain to climb, with all the wealthy vested interests and the dubious fairness of the democratic systems in place.

 

Edited November 6, 2016 by jpinx

[jpinx]

4 hours ago, nausea said:

There are no "tough talks". You either come back on the same terms as you left or you don't. The idea the UK can cut a special deal is a fantasy. Germany and France are probably very glad to get rid of us. They can get back on track to their real ideal - a United Europe. 

 

If you actually go and talk to people in France and Germany, you will find that popular opinion is not so clear-cut as you suggest.  Many in France resent the EU, but can not work out how to "fix" the issues they perceive as being unfair.  The apparent silence is more to do with not having an alternative to talk about.

[Srikcir]

34 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

There is no confusion over the result, only alarm because it was not a huge majority.  The courts merely clarified a point of law about what was permitted under the royal prerogative. The referendum places no legal obligation on government, but it was clearly stated prior to the vote the the wishes of the electorate would be respected, so the political obligation exists most strongly. The fact that the person who said this ran away as soon as the result proved to be not the one he wanted is immaterial, the current PM has taken up that torch and is doing her best to make it happen, in the face of considerable grumpiness and delaying tactics.

The court's decision at least clarifies the legal process and timetable for Brexit if there was ever any misunderstanding or misrepresentation made by any politician.

Converse to "not a huge majority" was "a huge minority." At least UK voters chose to vote rather than remain silent. Democracy does notextend to  those who avoid participation. Perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to make the referendum binding if legally possible and require a "super majority" for passage.  More clarification might have unfolded for a better informed electorate.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Srikcir
spelling

[Laughing Gravy]

4 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

When you suggest that the EU is "as bad" as the Nazi's you just completely lose the argument. That is a ridiculous statement . Closer cooperation has prevented war and strife in Europe, thank god.

So what was all that in Bosnia and Serbia? Fisty cuffs? It was slaughter. The linking to Nazis and the EU (Brussels) is simple they were/are both dictators trying to control all of Europe. Nothing silly in that analogy.

[jpinx]

1 minute ago, Srikcir said:

The court's decision at least clarifies the legal process and timetable for Brexit if there was ever any misunderstanding or misrepresentation made by any politician.

Converse to "not a huge majority" was "a huge minority." At least UK voters chose to vote rather than remain silent. Democracy does notextend to  those who avoid participation. Perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to make the referendum binding if legally possible and require a "super majority" for passage.  More clarification might have unfolded for a better informed electorate.

Indeed - those of us who remember the restrictions placed on the previous Scottish referendum will recognise this as a glaring mistake - as mentioned earlier.  The fact that the turnout was significantly greater than that for the last general election gives the result considerable weight. It was not a multi-choice vote, so voters did need to make themselves aware of the issues.  In spite of a huge publicity campaign to vote remain, largely inspired and sponsored by the government and it's allies, the vote went against them.  That fact also gives the result a gravitas that can not be ignored.