• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Brexit rebellion building in Parliament

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cirrus
    replied
    Originally posted by Mordac View Post
    Remind me when we voted for this? We didn't, of course, but we did vote for "not this".
    Legs don't vote to be attached to your body but if they try to detach themselves and to walk off it's only a matter of seconds before they realise the massive mistake they've just made. Whether or not you La-La Land Brexiteers like the idea that we are embedded in the EU, the fact is we have grown into one huge, massively interconnected economic entity. Trying cut a bit of that out is a major operation involving all the vital organs.

    Your vote was just a black mark on a piece of paper. Stop trying to pretend it represents any kind of plausible reality.

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by Mordac View Post
    Remind me when we voted for this?
    Every few years, on average. We're a representative democracy, where we vote for MPs to govern and make political and legislative decisions.

    If you mean specifically European integration, this is a bit more complex. This is not just political integration. We're also entwined through combined agencies, trade, services, etc. You don't get to vote on whether or not resources are pooled into a central and singular EMA, for example.

    Originally posted by Mordac View Post
    We didn't, of course, but we did vote for "not this".
    Well done. The main problem is that "not this" has been argued back and forth ad nauseum by the Leavers, and we still don't know exactly what it means. Put the detail down on paper in a draft Withdrawal Agreement then get back to the rest of us.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordac
    replied
    Originally posted by Cirrus View Post
    Of course not. Brexit is like children running away from home. It doesn't take too long before it dawns on them how much they rely on their home and their family. The Brexiteers totally ignored the reality that we were part and parcel of the EU and running away from it was only going to last a few hours before the panic set in.

    (I know that PosterBhoy is as cool as a cucumber. But thats' only because he is a cucumber...)
    Remind me when we voted for this? We didn't, of course, but we did vote for "not this".

    Leave a comment:


  • Cirrus
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    if this was presented to them pre-referendum as "a lot of work and some hardship for the less well-off" I don't think there would be the same appetite for it.
    Of course not. Brexit is like children running away from home. It doesn't take too long before it dawns on them how much they rely on their home and their family. The Brexiteers totally ignored the reality that we were part and parcel of the EU and running away from it was only going to last a few hours before the panic set in.

    (I know that PosterBhoy is as cool as a cucumber. But thats' only because he is a cucumber...)

    Leave a comment:


  • meridian
    replied
    Originally posted by Cirrus View Post
    I don't think that is true. That has been the thing everyone has been focusing on recently but if that were magic-ed away then you would see loads of other factors tearing the whole thing apart - UK-EU borders elsewhere, banking passporting etc etc.
    This is conflating the exit from the EU (the Withdrawal Agreement) with the future relationship. Imagine for a moment if there was a United Ireland and the only party exiting was Great Britain (Eng, Wales, Scot, plus dependencies). There's already a hard border at Gibraltar, and all other borders are sea-based. The only things really to discuss are the settlement of financial obligations and the rights of citizens.

    Passporting, rules of origin, phytosanitary checks, mutual recognition of standards, etc, this all depends on the future relationship, not actually leaving.


    Originally posted by Cirrus View Post
    Basically the Government had two choices 1) Brexit or 2) Cancel Brexit. They all decided Brexit was unacceptable but they didn't do anything about Bracktrack. Without cancelling Brexit they should have spent time negotiating a future with 100% of the world. Instead they have spent almost all their time on the EU - OK it's 50%. But not 100%.
    There were many reasons why they couldn't - not least because the rest of the world had other things to do. India was in but they wanted an FTA with increased FoM to the UK; Japan and Singapore were negotiating with the EU; the USA was talking about tariffs on Bombardier and pulling out of the WTO. And most countries were waiting to see what our trading relationship with the EU would look like before they moved.


    Originally posted by Cirrus View Post
    The reason they did this is they had not read the Referendum. They were still banging on like they had been for decades wanting a special version of the EU. Right from the start the EU said "We are not creating an AEFTA - Anglo-European Free Trade Association" . That would have been great for us but it was never going to happen. Sadly the Tory Brexiteers are still going for this (see today's news).

    Brexit (aka Hard Brexit) was a valid idea. It would have been damaging. Not catastrophic, but not pretty. But it needed people to face reality. It needed a lot of work. And it needed the Government to wait for 5 years before triggering Atricle 50. Once the flight crew failed to initiate those actions, the plane was doomed to crash.
    Almost completely agree here. 2+2 years sounds about feasible for a Norway exit, 5+2 years for Canada. With a government and parliament doing their job and rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it, once they'd decided what direction they wanted the UK to go in.

    It's this bit though - no matter how valid or correct you think this is, if this was the Leave position before the referendum would it have gained a majority?:
    Brexit (aka Hard Brexit) was a valid idea. It would have been damaging. Not catastrophic, but not pretty. But it needed people to face reality. It needed a lot of work.
    Part of the reason why we are in this position is because the government is trying to square the circle of "sunny uplands" with the reality of leaving. People in general are lazy and want an easy life; when push comes to shove, if this was presented to them pre-referendum as "a lot of work and some hardship for the less well-off" I don't think there would be the same appetite for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cirrus
    replied
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    The only reason the Withdrawal Agreement has taken so long is because of the difficulties surrounding the U.K. border with Ireland and the unique circumstances of the GFA. .
    I don't think that is true. That has been the thing everyone has been focusing on recently but if that were magic-ed away then you would see loads of other factors tearing the whole thing apart - UK-EU borders elsewhere, banking passporting etc etc.

    Basically the Government had two choices 1) Brexit or 2) Cancel Brexit. They all decided Brexit was unacceptable but they didn't do anything about Bracktrack. Without cancelling Brexit they should have spent time negotiating a future with 100% of the world. Instead they have spent almost all their time on the EU - OK it's 50%. But not 100%.

    The reason they did this is they had not read the Referendum. They were still banging on like they had been for decades wanting a special version of the EU. Right from the start the EU said "We are not creating an AEFTA - Anglo-European Free Trade Association" . That would have been great for us but it was never going to happen. Sadly the Tory Brexiteers are still going for this (see today's news).

    Brexit (aka Hard Brexit) was a valid idea. It would have been damaging. Not catastrophic, but not pretty. But it needed people to face reality. It needed a lot of work. And it needed the Government to wait for 5 years before triggering Atricle 50. Once the flight crew failed to initiate those actions, the plane was doomed to crash.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Hobosapien View Post

    So we as citizens shouldn't be angry with each other but with the government that has done the damage. It's not 'remoaners' vs 'brexidiots' but the government would prefer we vent the frustration and resulting anger on ourselves than them so they can continue to be corrupt self serving duplicitous scumbags pretending to be incompetent buffoons.

    Twas ever thus.

    It'll be alright in the end, so 'chillax'.
    You'll get nowhere on here talking sense like that. Once the Bremaoners get back from changing their underwear they will be all over it like a cheap suit.

    Leave a comment:


  • darmstadt
    replied
    Originally posted by DoctorStrangelove
    Feck that, I'm buying baked beans & shotgun cartridges.

    You can never have too many shotgun cartridges.

    I wonder if there'll be plenty of tinned unicorn in Tesco's.
    Amazon is your friend:

    https://www.amazon.com/ThinkGeek-Eas.../dp/B0089KZPNU

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    No deal is no problem.



    Last edited by BlasterBates; 17 November 2018, 13:25.

    Leave a comment:


  • jamesbrown
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    Slight logic failure there.
    CUK expats won't be hit by failures in the supply chain, gammons like you will.
    But then you're not the sharpest tool in the box, are you?
    Weak.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X