France's Macron says EU door remains open to UK

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

In other words, you've got nothing.,

Very trenchant analysis. Do you think you're the referee on this thread? Just make a ruling without an explanation?

Let me lay it out for you.

Rixalex wrote having a referendum after negotiations would allow the EU to play hardball. I guess we first have to establish what hardball means. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it means offering only very harsh terms to the UK. So why by this reasoning, would having a referendum after only harsh terms were proposed put UK negotiators over a barrel? Because it would make it easy for them to say no?  Having someone over a barrel is hard to reconcile with any kind of ease. So, it must mean that it would make things difficult for them.  Difficult in that the majority of the electorate wouldn't be pleased with either accepting harsh terms or having a hard Brexit.. And on account of that they would  be very unhappy with their negotiators. Which means that such an outcome, even in the absence of a referendum would mean that the electorate would be very unhappy with it. 

 

I think that Rixalex is saying that if the EU negotiators knew in advance that there would be a secondary (approval) UK referendum after any Brexit deal was reached, then this would give them an advantage from the outset and would at the same time weaken the UK negotiating position throughout. And I agree. Over a barrel if you like, or whatever you want to call it. But its a very bad idea and probably due to pro-EU interference to disrupt the whole process, which is obviously going to continue until the curtain falls.

 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

7 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Naturally. Just a single, honest referendum with full implications laid out would do it for me. 

People really have such short memories. The PM at the time, told everyone what leaving the EU means and there will be no second referendum. How honest can you get.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

People really have such short memories. The PM at the time, told everyone what leaving the EU means and there will be no second referendum. How honest can you get.

 

NIgel Farage disagreed. And I didn't see any Brexiters taking a stand against him then. But after all, it was only Farage speaking, not some who was important in the Brexit campaign.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

People really have such short memories. The PM at the time, told everyone what leaving the EU means and there will be no second referendum. How honest can you get.

 

That's as straight and plain as can be. So why are the Remoaners insisting a 2nd referendum is called for. Obviously they don't like democracy when it goes against their bias outlook.

[lamyai3]

Short memories? This was Cameron in campaign mode, I doubt people were listening to him that much, instead looking to the (pro-leave) newspapers to interpret what was going on. How many people knew what leaving the single market implied back then? Can you remember the massive spike in Google searches of people trying to understand what they'd voted for shortly after the event? Where was the information that the EU would that seek to penalise the UK so heavily as a deterrent to other member countries? The huge disadvantages of losing Britain's majority trading partner, and the relocation of UKs most lucrative (financial services) industry away from London?

 

Anyone who is denying that the original referendum was not severely misleading is either not paying attention or is being deliberately obtuse. 

[Laughing Gravy]

6 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Short memories? This was Cameron in campaign mode, I doubt people were listening to him that much, instead looking to the (pro-leave) newspapers to interpret what was going on. How many people knew what leaving the single market implied back then?

If you don't pay attention then you can't claim later on that you were not informed or told. He actually said it numerous times in interviews and made it part of his speech for remaining.

 

6 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Anyone who is denying that the original referendum was not severely misleading is either not paying attention or is being deliberately obtuse

Not paying attention is not an excuse for being obtuse. Both sides may have said things that were misleading, sadly that's politics.. But this was the PM who consistently told the public what would happen if they voted to leave. I really wish people would admit it and respect democracy.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

If you don't pay attention then you can't claim later on that you were not informed or told. He actually said it numerous times in interviews and made it part of his speech for remaining.

 

Not paying attention is not an excuse for being obtuse. Both sides may have said things that were misleading, sadly that's politics.. But this was the PM who consistently told the public what would happen if they voted to leave. I really wish people would admit it and respect democracy.

It is irrelevant what D.Cameron said , because he lost. People voted for what  leave said.

A winning campaign doesnt carry out the wishes of their opponents who they have defeated , but are committed to their own promises.

[Laughing Gravy]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

It is irrelevant what D.Cameron said , because he lost. People voted for what  leave said.

A winning campaign doesnt carry out the wishes of their opponents who they have defeated , but are committed to their own promises.

It is extremely relevant when a poster in the thread (if you go back and look) says people didn't know what they voted for with leave. Everyone knew. Just some just can't seem to accept that and continue to have their heads buried in the sands, saying 'we didn't know'. It is utter tosh.

Plus he was the PM at the time campaigning to remain. The most important person at the time for remain.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Laughing Gravy

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is extremely relevant when a poster in the thread (if you go back and look) says people didn't know what they voted for with leave. Everyone knew. Just some just can't seem to accept that and continue to have their heads buried in the sands, saying 'we didn't know'. It is utter tosh.

Plus he was the PM at the time campaigning to remain. The most important person at the time for remain.

If you start to enter into negotiations in realm, and you don't want to accept the terms, you can simply walk away. By the same token, if the terms of an agreement meet with the disapproval of the majority of the electorate, they should be free to walk away from the deal. There is nothing legally binding under UK law that cannot be legally reversed that compels the electorate to accept Brexit should the majority not like it. The question of whether article 50 is revocable or not lies with EU law, not the UK's.

[Grouse]

40 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is extremely relevant when a poster in the thread (if you go back and look) says people didn't know what they voted for with leave. Everyone knew. Just some just can't seem to accept that and continue to have their heads buried in the sands, saying 'we didn't know'. It is utter tosh.

Do you not think there were misconceptions and misunderstandings? Do you think all voters fully understood all the ramifications? 

 

For something so so important for us and particularly up and coming generations the decision needs to be both clear and optimal.

 

Anything less is pigheadedness

[nauseus]

8 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Short memories? This was Cameron in campaign mode, I doubt people were listening to him that much, instead looking to the (pro-leave) newspapers to interpret what was going on. How many people knew what leaving the single market implied back then? Can you remember the massive spike in Google searches of people trying to understand what they'd voted for shortly after the event? Where was the information that the EU would that seek to penalise the UK so heavily as a deterrent to other member countries? The huge disadvantages of losing Britain's majority trading partner, and the relocation of UKs most lucrative (financial services) industry away from London?

 

Anyone who is denying that the original referendum was not severely misleading is either not paying attention or is being deliberately obtuse. 

Searches were all by remoaners! 

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is extremely relevant when a poster in the thread (if you go back and look) says people didn't know what they voted for with leave. Everyone knew. Just some just can't seem to accept that and continue to have their heads buried in the sands, saying 'we didn't know'. It is utter tosh.

Plus he was the PM at the time campaigning to remain. The most important person at the time for remain.

You are missing the point, the remain campaign said that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single market does not equate to the voters actually believing the statement.

 A number of proponents of the leave campaign advocated that the the UK would not be leaving the SM , because the EU would capitulate to the UK's demand. 

What is uknown is if the voters as a whole believed that the UK would be leaving the SM , and the only way to know is to actually ask them that question.

[Laughing Gravy]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

Do you not think there were misconceptions and misunderstandings? Do you think all voters fully understood all the ramifications? 

 

For something so so important for us and particularly up and coming generations the decision needs to be both clear and optimal.

 

Anything less is pigheadedness

Do you not know what you voted for? I know I did. I think it is disrespectful assuming voters didn't know or the ramifications.

Whilst we are on ramifications or project fear, Nobody fully understands what will happen, even though many remainers would have you believe, as Brexit has not happened or been completed.

 

I think many people forget the point the then PM David Cameron went to Brussels for a 'better deal' but was given the fingers.

Yes would I like to stay in the single market,  but not at the instructions from Brussels, what we can and cant do. I like many others would rather be on our own without the EU telling us what to do.

 

We have actually been debating on this topic since before the EU referendum and still nothing has really changed, yet. It would seem your opinion hasn't changed and neither has mine.

 

On a lighter note did you watch the Brexit Wife Swap on Channel 4 on Thursday. I thought the families summed it  up on peoples views and why they voted, in what ever way that was.

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

You are missing the point, the remain campaign said that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single market does not equate to the voters actually believing the statement.

So you are saying voters didn't believe it? Priceless. I think you a disrespectful to adults on what they can do or can't with not believing. Please go into my local pub in the UK and say that. I know what response you will get.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

You are missing the point, the remain campaign said that a vote to leave meant leaving the Single market does not equate to the voters actually believing the statement.

 A number of proponents of the leave campaign advocated that the the UK would not be leaving the SM , because the EU would capitulate to the UK's demand. 

What is uknown is if the voters as a whole believed that the UK would be leaving the SM , and the only way to know is to actually ask them that question.

Go ahead then! Let us all know.

[Airbagwill]

On 16/06/2017 at 10:11 AM, vogie said:

Your opinion is that brexit will not happen, brexit is already happening and will happen. 

Explain why it is unconstitutional when the government authorised this only once in a lifetime referendum..

You are believing something that you wish to believe and it bears no resemblance to the real world.

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:03 AM, Airbagwill said:

The election gas shown that remain is now the dominant wish.

The referendum was at best an unconstitutional aberration.

In the end Brexit will not happen. In a few weeks or a few years Brexitwers will realise the UK is still part of the EU 

In the meantime it might be worth considering g the legality if trying to implement legislation that puts the nation in peril.

 

Thanks for the re-post

 

Thanks again for the re-post.

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:03 AM, Airbagwill said:

The election gas shown that remain is now the dominant wish.

The referendum was at best an unconstitutional aberration.

In the end Brexit will not happen. In a few weeks or a few years Brexitwers will realise the UK is still part of the EU 

In the meantime it might be worth considering g the legality if trying to implement legislation that puts the nation in peril.

 

Thanks for the re-post

 

Thanks again for the re-post.

Please don't post it again though. It doesn't read well. All airbags, gas and stuff like that.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

  On 16/06/2017 at 10:03 AM, Airbagwill said:

The election gas shown that remain is now the dominant wish.

The referendum was at best an unconstitutional aberration.

In the end Brexit will not happen. In a few weeks or a few years Brexitwers will realise the UK is still part of the EU 

In the meantime it might be worth considering g the legality if trying to implement legislation that puts the nation in peril.

 

Thanks for the re-post

 

Thanks again for the re-post.

You can bring as much rubbish you can trawl from the web, it doesn't matter, brexit is happening!

[Airbagwill]

15 hours ago, vogie said:

You can bring as much rubbish you can trawl from the web, it doesn't matter, brexit is happening!

Reality check.......

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/17/business-pressure-may-hard-soft-brexit-eu-single-market

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Reality check.......

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/17/business-pressure-may-hard-soft-brexit-eu-single-market

Again, purely speculation. 'A no deal is better than a bad deal' must be better than 'a soft deal is a pointless deal'

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

Again, purely speculation. 'A no deal is better than a bad deal' must be better than 'a soft deal is a pointless deal'

Yes, speculation, as are your posts.

[vogie]

15 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, speculation, as are your posts.

Do you feel better now you've got that off your chest. 

[evadgib]

Government to confirm two-year Parliament to deliver Brexit and beyond

[Orac]

Government to confirm two-year Parliament to deliver Brexit and beyond

So the govt now realise how much work they have to do over the next two years. Shame they wasted three months of those precious two years by triggerring art 50 and then calling an election that wasn't needed - utter incompetence!

[evadgib]

14 minutes ago, Orac said:

So the govt now realise how much work they have to do over the next two years. Shame they wasted three months of those precious two years by triggerring art 50 and then calling an election that wasn't needed - utter incompetence!

 

The election was necessary in order to neuter the SNP and address the deadlock in Northern Ireland that looked set to revert to being governed by Westminster. The fact that it backfired in England could not have been foreseen.

[Airbagwill]

33 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

So the govt now realise how much work they have to do over the next two years. Shame they wasted three months of those precious two years by triggerring art 50 and then calling an election that wasn't needed - utter incompetence!

 

Does TM seriously think she will get through 2 months, let alone 2 years?....all it takes is a couple of by-elections and "puff"....no more majority

Not to mention a stalking horse from her own hard right....the very ones she was trying to control with the election

She hasn't just weakened herself, she's weakened the country.

The truth is the people of UK have had a taste of Brexit and they don't like it.

This winter the economy will be in shambles and the electorate will be pleading with whoever has been left with this poison chalice to stop Brexit.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Airbagwill

[Airbagwill]

Brexit ranks as one of the greatest blunders in British history, it is the most embarrassing thing the UK has done since Suez and the most stupid since the loss of the American colonues or the loss of Calais.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Airbagwill said:

Brexit ranks as one of the greatest blunders in British history, it is the most embarrassing thing the UK has done since Suez and the most stupid since the loss of the American colonues or the loss of Calais.

Well that has cleared everything up, might as well close the thread now, btw the last time I looked, Calais is still there. 

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

Do you feel better now you've got that off your chest. 

Don't try to tell others off for speculation when that is all you;re doing yourself.

[Orac]

The election was necessary in order to neuter the SNP and address the deadlock in Northern Ireland that looked set to revert to being governed by Westminster. The fact that it backfired in England could not have been foreseen.

Sir Lynton Crosby sent a memo to TM before she officially called the election pleading with her not to go ahead with it so hardly unforeseen.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-how-theresa-mays-two-aides-seized-control-of-the-tory-campaign-to-calamitous-effect-a3566796.html