Reply to: Letwin amendment and extension

[Zigenare]

Farage was always on about a Norway style deal, he is on record for saying that numerous times. A Norway deal would mean virtual EU rules and free movement without a say in the EU Parliament. It is only recently that history has been changed to "it was all about a no-deal".

History has always been "modified" to fit rhetoric.

[Paddy]

It is not just a question of change. After 40+ years of tieing the UK closer to the EU, reversing that is incredibly difficult. I thought it was the one good reason to stay.

I am stunned there is going to be any deal - I always expected that if the UK left it would be with no deal.

And now I prefer for the UK to stay in the EU. Westminster has shown how corrupt and undemocratic it has become. IMO this started in 1996 with that massive pay rise. That needs to be reversed.

Farage was always on about a Norway style deal, he is on record for saying that numerous times. A Norway deal would mean virtual EU rules and free movement without a say in the EU Parliament. It is only recently that history has been changed to "it was all about a no-deal".

[meridian]

No I have read many - but none of them seem to explain why we have to stay in Europe and why the UK could not possibly survive if it is not part of the EU.

Who has said that? Nobody has said the U.K. could not possibly survive.

What a lot of people (both leave and remain) have said is that they would have been happy with the compromise of an EFTA / Norway type solution, phased in over a transition period to minimise the minor shock to the economy.

What happened was that the hard Brexiters took over and gave two fingers to any compromise solution, in a “winner takes all” mindset instead of respecting that it was a near-50/50 vote.

This would have still been acceptable if the Brexiters had come out with any sort of impact assessments and detailed statements that gave body to their claims that it would all be great.

So it’s no surprise that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we don’t believe the hard Brexiters and seek to limit their mandate to the one they were given through the Leave campaign in 2016 - a Withdrawal Agreement, with a transition period, with the expectation of a comprehensive trade deal with the EU.

We don’t have to stay in the EU. But we also don’t have to leave without a carefully planned exit that will minimise any potential damage to ordinary citizens of the UK

[BrilloPad]

What about that in the period since UK joined EU, UK has been the FASTEST growing economy of ALL the members states!!!?? Is that not proof enough that EU was the best thing that happen to the UK and that it should be in the UK interest to stay!?

It could have done better outside the EU.

And I see the UK economy booming after Brexit. Its back to Victorian times. UK to become world's biggest tax haven. The plebs can eat chlorinated chicken.

[CryingSheep]

I agree - what I have yet to hear from any remainer is why Brexit is so bad and why the EU is so good.

It just seems to be change which scares them.



"The bad

Brexit

The one big failure of Jean-Claude Juncker and his Commission is of course the loss of the United Kingdom as a member state. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation the morning after the referendum result was announced in June 2016. That Juncker did not do the same is not only due to a difference in political culture, it’s mainly because of a belief within EU institutions that they shouldn’t be blamed for anything Brexit related. That’s bizarre thinking. Brexit is partly the result of the EU ignoring British discontent over the ever greater concentration of power and money at the EU level. Juncker and co. even obstructed Cameron when he attempted to reform the EU and the UK’s relationship with it, even if Cameron himself wasn’t ambitious enough in the negotiations.

There is very little introspection within the EU institutions as to why Brexit happened, even if two out of five of Juncker’s recent objectives for the EU were about ‘less EU’. But these objectives were also partly a response to the recent success of eurosceptic ‘anti-establishment’ parties across Europe. It seems that Juncker hasn’t been able to respond to the rise of populism. During the last five years, people only supported the EU Commission’s preferred option in one in six referendums. Opinion polls also indicate that in mainland Europe, people want the EU to lose powers.

In response, the European Commission has not done much more than coming up with mere pledges supporting ‘subsidiarity’. In practice, the body has simply continued with business as usual, proposing to scrap national vetoes for foreign policy and taxation, while it pushes for European taxes."

Don't even know where to start...

David Cameron, resigned because he realised the massive mistake he did allowing this referendum and he wouldn't want to be around when the ship thinks!
Why Juncker should resigned based on Cameron mistakes, and a non legally binding referendum!? Did UK already leave the EU?!

UK always had a preferential relationship with EU, being granted several exceptions, when compared to other member states so can't really understand 'EU ignoring UK discontent'...

As for those polls, let me guess they were conducted by someone in the UK!?

[CryingSheep]

It is not just a question of change. After 40+ years of tieing the UK closer to the EU, reversing that is incredibly difficult. I thought it was the one good reason to stay.

I am stunned there is going to be any deal - I always expected that if the UK left it would be with no deal.

And now I prefer for the UK to stay in the EU. Westminster has shown how corrupt and undemocratic it has become. IMO this started in 1996 with that massive pay rise. That needs to be reversed.

What about that in the period since UK joined EU, UK has been the FASTEST growing economy of ALL the members states!!!?? Is that not proof enough that EU was the best thing that happen to the UK and that it should be in the UK interest to stay!?

[Zigenare]

How about a dictatorship because that is what the Tories, and to quite an extent, Brexiters, seem to want, so much for Parliament being sovereign.

Of course.

[Platypus]

How about a dictatorship because that is what the Tories, and to quite an extent, Brexiters, seem to want, so much for Parliament being sovereign.

Dictatorship? Seems to me that Bercow is dictator and remainers love it.

[darmstadt]

Westminster is corrupt and undemocratic - as is the EU.

I guess for me we just need less politicians.

How about a dictatorship because that is what the Tories, and to quite an extent, Brexiters, seem to want, so much for Parliament being sovereign.

[original PM]

It is not just a question of change. After 40+ years of tieing the UK closer to the EU, reversing that is incredibly difficult. I thought it was the one good reason to stay.

I am stunned there is going to be any deal - I always expected that if the UK left it would be with no deal.

And now I prefer for the UK to stay in the EU. Westminster has shown how corrupt and undemocratic it has become. IMO this started in 1996 with that massive pay rise. That needs to be reversed.

Westminster is corrupt and undemocratic - as is the EU.

I guess for me we just need less politicians.

[BrilloPad]

I agree - what I have yet to hear from any remainer is why Brexit is so bad and why the EU is so good.

It just seems to be change which scares them.

It is not just a question of change. After 40+ years of tieing the UK closer to the EU, reversing that is incredibly difficult. I thought it was the one good reason to stay.

I am stunned there is going to be any deal - I always expected that if the UK left it would be with no deal.

And now I prefer for the UK to stay in the EU. Westminster has shown how corrupt and undemocratic it has become. IMO this started in 1996 with that massive pay rise. That needs to be reversed.

[original PM]

It just goes to show that you haven't read, or probably understood, one single post in this sub-forum.

No I have read many - but none of them seem to explain why we have to stay in Europe and why the UK could not possibly survive if it is not part of the EU.

Most of it seems to be based on maintaining the status quo whilst slowly ceding more power and control to a central european parliament.

Not sure where you are actually from but you seem to be really against the UK leaving the EU - and I do not think it is because you have the greater interests of the UK at heart which makes me wonder exactly what your angle is.

[darmstadt]

I agree - what I have yet to hear from any remainer is why Brexit is so bad and why the EU is so good.

It just goes to show that you haven't read, or probably understood, one single post in this sub-forum.

[original PM]

United States of Europe - Wikipedia

Admittedly I'm being quite lazy taking the Wiki route here. However, look at the Verhofstadt section, and bearing in mind how much influence he now has, would you argue that no-one should be crapping themselves that someone who in EU terms has never been elected above the level of an MEP is now considered the first horseman of the EU Apocalypse. The intention, and direction of travel, is very, very clear. If you can't see it, some very well known high street opticians will be delighted to assist you.

I agree - what I have yet to hear from any remainer is why Brexit is so bad and why the EU is so good.

It just seems to be change which scares them.



"The bad

Brexit

The one big failure of Jean-Claude Juncker and his Commission is of course the loss of the United Kingdom as a member state. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation the morning after the referendum result was announced in June 2016. That Juncker did not do the same is not only due to a difference in political culture, it’s mainly because of a belief within EU institutions that they shouldn’t be blamed for anything Brexit related. That’s bizarre thinking. Brexit is partly the result of the EU ignoring British discontent over the ever greater concentration of power and money at the EU level. Juncker and co. even obstructed Cameron when he attempted to reform the EU and the UK’s relationship with it, even if Cameron himself wasn’t ambitious enough in the negotiations.

There is very little introspection within the EU institutions as to why Brexit happened, even if two out of five of Juncker’s recent objectives for the EU were about ‘less EU’. But these objectives were also partly a response to the recent success of eurosceptic ‘anti-establishment’ parties across Europe. It seems that Juncker hasn’t been able to respond to the rise of populism. During the last five years, people only supported the EU Commission’s preferred option in one in six referendums. Opinion polls also indicate that in mainland Europe, people want the EU to lose powers.

In response, the European Commission has not done much more than coming up with mere pledges supporting ‘subsidiarity’. In practice, the body has simply continued with business as usual, proposing to scrap national vetoes for foreign policy and taxation, while it pushes for European taxes."

[original PM]

groupies doesn't rhyme, the song is taking the mick out of being a rock star from a working man's prospective.

It's also banned in Canada

It's Not Always About Me: Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free : Who Banned My MTV?

or was at least anyway.