The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Who says all that didn't vote couldn't be bothered? Vote was 23rd June. Hundreds of thousands of students would be returning home from college. Where were they registered to vote? Home or college? Had they even applied? Most would never have seen a ballot paper. Probably had important stuff like exams to worry about and switched over when Boris or Farage were on TV. This is why a 1st past the post vote on a non-binding referendum should not lead us over the cliff edge.
I'd list those people very firmly in the "couldn't be bothered" camp.
Stu. Like your posts but when did you last spend any time in the shithole that this country is fast becomming? Did you vote for or against Armageddom? Or couldn't you be bovvered?
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Who says all that didn't vote couldn't be bothered? Vote was 23rd June. Hundreds of thousands of students would be returning home from college. Where were they registered to vote? Home or college? Had they even applied? Most would never have seen a ballot paper. Probably had important stuff like exams to worry about and switched over when Boris or Farage were on TV. This is why a 1st past the post vote on a non-binding referendum should not lead us over the cliff edge.
I'd list those people very firmly in the "couldn't be bothered" camp.
Stu. Like your posts but when did you last spend any time in the shithole that this country is fast becomming? Did you vote for or against Armageddom? Or couldn't you be bovvered?
I was last back in London during December, I suffered really badly from 'reverse culture shock' to be honest and found my entire trip quote depressing, although it was great to see my family, I'm in no rush to go back again though.
Voting or not was a very tough decision for me, as I felt like I shouldn't, as I don't ever see England as being my home again, however, in the end, yes, I did vote. If I can manage it from the other side of the world I don't think being 'away at college' is much of an excuse!
As to which way my vote went, I think that's pretty obvious
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
Don't mention Google when Yoda Chippy is around - it's like a red bull to a rag (oops sorry wrong thread).
Its not a red bull mate, its the copying and pasting from it and pretending its your own work, as has happened here too many times, the culprits know i know and this behaviour gladly has declined a little.
Can you provide an example of someone posting a link and pretending it is their own work? How would that even work? Unless they copy an article and paste it in a post without the link?
Easy like this : -
Two leading Conservative MPs have launched a bid to make Theresa May keep the UK in a customs union with the European Union, as the prime minister faces cabinet and party splits over the issue.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
I find the Italian comment very interesting.
For what it's worth, I do too.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.
According to the quotes, he definitely did state it, and also mentioned that support exists elsewhere.
There was always going to be eventual movement on their side.
Lots of brinkmanship to come and may be who blinks first ... which is unlikely to be the UK as May does not know what she wants.
Chips! Are you a member of the Supporters Trust? Now is the time to join, if not, as we approach a new ownership and the chance to get things back in a normal footing. The Trust is of course Brexit neutral, so why not stop by at the stall outside the Covered End, and allow me to personally relieve you of a fiver?
Well lots of people who knew they didn't know enough to form an opinion voted, hence " what is the EU" was the most Googled term in the UK the day AFTER the referendum
Sure... They were all brexiters... Theres mountains/swathes of evidence to support this.
No, the circumstantial evidence suggests it was government ministers and their civil servants doing the googling. That's why Cameron resigned cos he opposed the best option.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
I find the Italian comment very interesting.
For what it's worth, I do too.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.
According to the quotes, he definitely did state it, and also mentioned that support exists elsewhere.
There was always going to be eventual movement on their side.
Lots of brinkmanship to come and may be who blinks first ... which is unlikely to be the UK as May does not know what she wants.
I finally got around to watching the video.
Gentiloni's perspective is interesting and thoughtful (if possibly of limited value, given the upcoming General Election - I could live without the Berlusconi come back).
What he is suggesting, IMHO, is that financial services will not be subject to separate trade deal (which suggests more negotiating time developing the trade deal post-Brexit) and that the EU27 are prepared fo compromise in any deal (but this is the nature of a negotiated agreement - achieving agreement requires compromise).
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what has been said before (or since). The nature and degree of any proposed trade association between the UK and EU will determine the kind of access that UK financial services will have to the EU Single Market.
It is still up to the UK to detail the relationship that it wants, and how it sees it working, and then, if considered by the EU27 an acceptable model, post-Brexit detailed negotiation.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
I find the Italian comment very interesting.
For what it's worth, I do too.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.
According to the quotes, he definitely did state it, and also mentioned that support exists elsewhere.
There was always going to be eventual movement on their side.
Lots of brinkmanship to come and may be who blinks first ... which is unlikely to be the UK as May does not know what she wants.
I finally got around to watching the video.
Gentiloni's perspective is interesting and thoughtful (if possibly of limited value, given the upcoming General Election - I could live without the Berlusconi come back).
What he is suggesting, IMHO, is that financial services will not be subject to separate trade deal (which suggests more negotiating time developing the trade deal post-Brexit) and that the EU27 are prepared fo compromise in any deal (but this is the nature of a negotiated agreement - achieving agreement requires compromise).
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what has been said before (or since). The nature and degree of any proposed trade association between the UK and EU will determine the kind of access that UK financial services will have to the EU Single Market.
It is still up to the UK to detail the relationship that it wants, and how it sees it working, and then, if considered by the EU27 an acceptable model, post-Brexit detailed negotiation.
No argument with that. The question is whether or not May will detail what she wants ...or even knows.
Perversely, the longer she prevaricates, the more likely it could be that the EU may move its position in the direction Brexiters prefer, so as to avoid a ‘no-deal’ which would harm everyone.
Personally I am getting to the stage where I believe May will be ousted this year - she is a fence-sitter and that is of no use to the country at this stage.
Unless she can show commitment and a sense of purpose ... unlikely ... the move towards a vote of confidence gets closer. Such a possibility requires 48 letters to the chairman of the 1922 committee - it is rumoured that the number has already passed 40.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
I find the Italian comment very interesting.
For what it's worth, I do too.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.
According to the quotes, he definitely did state it, and also mentioned that support exists elsewhere.
There was always going to be eventual movement on their side.
Lots of brinkmanship to come and may be who blinks first ... which is unlikely to be the UK as May does not know what she wants.
I finally got around to watching the video.
Gentiloni's perspective is interesting and thoughtful (if possibly of limited value, given the upcoming General Election - I could live without the Berlusconi come back).
What he is suggesting, IMHO, is that financial services will not be subject to separate trade deal (which suggests more negotiating time developing the trade deal post-Brexit) and that the EU27 are prepared fo compromise in any deal (but this is the nature of a negotiated agreement - achieving agreement requires compromise).
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what has been said before (or since). The nature and degree of any proposed trade association between the UK and EU will determine the kind of access that UK financial services will have to the EU Single Market.
It is still up to the UK to detail the relationship that it wants, and how it sees it working, and then, if considered by the EU27 an acceptable model, post-Brexit detailed negotiation.
No argument with that. The question is whether or not May will detail what she wants ...or even knows.
Perversely, the longer she prevaricates, the more likely it could be that the EU may move its position in the direction Brexiters prefer, so as to avoid a ‘no-deal’ which would harm everyone.
Personally I am getting to the stage where I believe May will be ousted this year - she is a fence-sitter and that is of no use to the country at this stage.
Unless she can show commitment and a sense of purpose ... unlikely ... the move towards a vote of confidence gets closer. Such a possibility requires 48 letters to the chairman of the 1922 committee - it is rumoured that the number has already passed 40.
There's a real problem for the Tories, though, in that there is enough factionalism to undermine any leader - May represents her party perfectly.
The bigger worry I would have is that the additional uncertainty and delay caused by an internal Tory process would damage the country's chances of getting a reasonable outcome.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
I find the Italian comment very interesting.
For what it's worth, I do too.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.
According to the quotes, he definitely did state it, and also mentioned that support exists elsewhere.
There was always going to be eventual movement on their side.
Lots of brinkmanship to come and may be who blinks first ... which is unlikely to be the UK as May does not know what she wants.
I finally got around to watching the video.
Gentiloni's perspective is interesting and thoughtful (if possibly of limited value, given the upcoming General Election - I could live without the Berlusconi come back).
What he is suggesting, IMHO, is that financial services will not be subject to separate trade deal (which suggests more negotiating time developing the trade deal post-Brexit) and that the EU27 are prepared fo compromise in any deal (but this is the nature of a negotiated agreement - achieving agreement requires compromise).
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what has been said before (or since). The nature and degree of any proposed trade association between the UK and EU will determine the kind of access that UK financial services will have to the EU Single Market.
It is still up to the UK to detail the relationship that it wants, and how it sees it working, and then, if considered by the EU27 an acceptable model, post-Brexit detailed negotiation.
No argument with that. The question is whether or not May will detail what she wants ...or even knows.
Perversely, the longer she prevaricates, the more likely it could be that the EU may move its position in the direction Brexiters prefer, so as to avoid a ‘no-deal’ which would harm everyone.
Personally I am getting to the stage where I believe May will be ousted this year - she is a fence-sitter and that is of no use to the country at this stage.
Unless she can show commitment and a sense of purpose ... unlikely ... the move towards a vote of confidence gets closer. Such a possibility requires 48 letters to the chairman of the 1922 committee - it is rumoured that the number has already passed 40.
There's a real problem for the Tories, though, in that there is enough factionalism to undermine any leader - May represents her party perfectly.
The bigger worry I would have is that the additional uncertainty and delay caused by an internal Tory process would damage the country's chances of getting a reasonable outcome.
Yes it is a major worry, but of course that won't bother the Tory party. Party first, country a distant second.
The brexiters have created a great string to avoid responsibility.
It goes something like brexiters saying it was the will of the people and it is up to our elected politicians to then make it happen. Then the elected politicians saying it was the will of the UK and it is up to the EU to make it happen.
Whatever 'it' is.
Those who voted brexit didn't know what they were voting for however many times they say they did, because they don't have a clue what they want, and even less of a clue as to how to make it happen.
It's as if everybody voted for eternal life, but it is up to the doctors to make it happen, and the doctors saying to the religions that the people voted for eternal life and the religions have to make it happen.
They say nothing will be agreed until all of a sudden everything is agreed. The only problem is that no brexiters have explained what that actual 'thing' is, and I suspect it is because the brexiters xenophobia trumps their ability to think.
Come on brexiters. Suggest a workable idea. Even one might help to get us started. One measly idea. One. Come on.
The brexiters have created a great string to avoid responsibility.
It goes something like brexiters saying it was the will of the people and it is up to our elected politicians to then make it happen. Then the elected politicians saying it was the will of the UK and it is up to the EU to make it happen.
Whatever 'it' is.
Those who voted brexit didn't know what they were voting for however many times they say they did, because they don't have a clue what they want, and even less of a clue as to how to make it happen.
It's as if everybody voted for eternal life, but it is up to the doctors to make it happen, and the doctors saying to the religions that the people voted for eternal life and the religions have to make it happen.
They say nothing will be agreed until all of a sudden everything is agreed. The only problem is that no brexiters have explained what that actual 'thing' is, and I suspect it is because the brexiters xenophobia trumps their ability to think.
Come on brexiters. Suggest a workable idea. Even one might help to get us started. One measly idea. One. Come on.
The brexiters have created a great string to avoid responsibility.
It goes something like brexiters saying it was the will of the people and it is up to our elected politicians to then make it happen. Then the elected politicians saying it was the will of the UK and it is up to the EU to make it happen.
Whatever 'it' is.
Those who voted brexit didn't know what they were voting for however many times they say they did, because they don't have a clue what they want, and even less of a clue as to how to make it happen.
It's as if everybody voted for eternal life, but it is up to the doctors to make it happen, and the doctors saying to the religions that the people voted for eternal life and the religions have to make it happen.
They say nothing will be agreed until all of a sudden everything is agreed. The only problem is that no brexiters have explained what that actual 'thing' is, and I suspect it is because the brexiters xenophobia trumps their ability to think.
Come on brexiters. Suggest a workable idea. Even one might help to get us started. One measly idea. One. Come on.
Neither did you
You can't expect the losers to come up the solutions - surely?
Your side won, Chippy - the winners decide what to do, don't they?
Come on, give us a clue.
Just re-read your post and maybe the 'neither did you' refers to remainers also not knowing what they voted for. Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? No change - remain as is, status quo. It was simple - only remainers knew what they were voting for.
The brexiters have created a great string to avoid responsibility.
It goes something like brexiters saying it was the will of the people and it is up to our elected politicians to then make it happen. Then the elected politicians saying it was the will of the UK and it is up to the EU to make it happen.
Whatever 'it' is.
Those who voted brexit didn't know what they were voting for however many times they say they did, because they don't have a clue what they want, and even less of a clue as to how to make it happen.
It's as if everybody voted for eternal life, but it is up to the doctors to make it happen, and the doctors saying to the religions that the people voted for eternal life and the religions have to make it happen.
They say nothing will be agreed until all of a sudden everything is agreed. The only problem is that no brexiters have explained what that actual 'thing' is, and I suspect it is because the brexiters xenophobia trumps their ability to think.
Come on brexiters. Suggest a workable idea. Even one might help to get us started. One measly idea. One. Come on.
Neither did you
You can't expect the losers to come up the solutions - surely?
Your side won, Chippy - the winners decide what to do, don't they?
Come on, give us a clue.
Just re-read your post and maybe the 'neither did you' refers to remainers also not knowing what they voted for. Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? No change - remain as is, status quo. It was simple - only remainers knew what they were voting for.
Don't make me laugh....if we didn't know what we were voting for and have no answer then the flip side must be you do....you have had 19 months reading bollocks from so called experts no-one has heard off, and listening to that bollocks from experts here (lol) and then all of a sudden you become worldy on those subjects.
Anyway whats your view of the game today...assume you went.
Chips! Are you a member of the Supporters Trust? Now is the time to join, if not, as we approach a new ownership and the chance to get things back in a normal footing. The Trust is of course Brexit neutral, so why not stop by at the stall outside the Covered End, and allow me to personally relieve you of a fiver?
Chips! Are you a member of the Supporters Trust? Now is the time to join, if not, as we approach a new ownership and the chance to get things back in a normal footing. The Trust is of course Brexit neutral, so why not stop by at the stall outside the Covered End, and allow me to personally relieve you of a fiver?
What time were you there as I bought a shirt and programme at 10.15
The brexiters have created a great string to avoid responsibility.
It goes something like brexiters saying it was the will of the people and it is up to our elected politicians to then make it happen. Then the elected politicians saying it was the will of the UK and it is up to the EU to make it happen.
Whatever 'it' is.
Those who voted brexit didn't know what they were voting for however many times they say they did, because they don't have a clue what they want, and even less of a clue as to how to make it happen.
It's as if everybody voted for eternal life, but it is up to the doctors to make it happen, and the doctors saying to the religions that the people voted for eternal life and the religions have to make it happen.
They say nothing will be agreed until all of a sudden everything is agreed. The only problem is that no brexiters have explained what that actual 'thing' is, and I suspect it is because the brexiters xenophobia trumps their ability to think.
Come on brexiters. Suggest a workable idea. Even one might help to get us started. One measly idea. One. Come on.
Neither did you
You can't expect the losers to come up the solutions - surely?
Your side won, Chippy - the winners decide what to do, don't they?
Come on, give us a clue.
Just re-read your post and maybe the 'neither did you' refers to remainers also not knowing what they voted for. Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? No change - remain as is, status quo. It was simple - only remainers knew what they were voting for.
Don't make me laugh....if we didn't know what we were voting for and have no answer then the flip side must be you do....you have had 19 months reading bollocks from so called experts no-one has heard off, and listening to that bollocks from experts here (lol) and then all of a sudden you become worldy on those subjects.
Anyway whats your view of the game today...assume you went.
Yes I have an answer - cancel the bollocks that is brexit. You voted leave so what’s your answer (apart from the obvious just leave)?
250 miles away with a broken hip - so no, I didn’t go to the game today.
Chips! Are you a member of the Supporters Trust? Now is the time to join, if not, as we approach a new ownership and the chance to get things back in a normal footing. The Trust is of course Brexit neutral, so why not stop by at the stall outside the Covered End, and allow me to personally relieve you of a fiver?
What time were you there as I bought a shirt and programme at 10.15
Chips! Are you a member of the Supporters Trust? Now is the time to join, if not, as we approach a new ownership and the chance to get things back in a normal footing. The Trust is of course Brexit neutral, so why not stop by at the stall outside the Covered End, and allow me to personally relieve you of a fiver?
What time were you there as I bought a shirt and programme at 10.15
Rest assured, when Brexit bombs, it won’t be the fault of the Tory right
Nick CohenSun 4 Feb 2018 00.04 GMT The civil service is the latest to be flamed by Jacob Rees-Mogg and co, who blame everyone but themselves
‘The cowardice of May and Corbyn is preparing the ground for a nationalist reaction to Brexit’s inevitable disappointment.’ The right does not want British institutions to take back control from the EU. It wants to take control of British institutions. Understand its raging ambition and you will understand why self-proclaimed Conservatives are so anxious to destroy.
Patriots who shout about their love of country daily announce their hatred of every British principle that might constrain them. The rule of law and sovereignty of parliament? The Mail echoed every totalitarian movement since the Jacobins and denounced judges as “enemies of the people” for ruling that Brexit couldn’t be triggered without the approval of parliament. Academic freedom? A government whip demanded universities tell him what lecturers were teaching about Brexit. The right of MPs to follow their conscience? Liberal Tories received death threats after the Telegraph called them “mutineers” for not obeying orders and thinking for themselves. Now the civil service is having its ethics besmirched and neutrality threatened. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker accused it of plotting to undermine Brexit by producing needlessly pessimistic forecasts. The lie was so demonstrably false even Baker had to apologise. Tellingly, Rees-Mogg did not. Unnervingly, he may be our next prime minister.
You do not have to know much history to recognise a stab-in-the-back myth in the making. German militarists and fascists explained away defeat in the First World War with the dolchstosslegende: the German armies had not been defeated by their enemies in France but by communists, Jews and pacifists at home. So Brexit will not be defeated because the Tory right sold the British a fantasy but because judges, civil servants, saboteurs and mutineers subverted a glorious victory.
Far from holding back the growth of extremism, our leaders encourage it. The received wisdom holds that Theresa May does not know what she wants from Brexit. As my colleague Rafael Behr says, Mrs May has told us exactly what she wants. She wants Britain to walk away from the EU, its single market, customs union and courts, while retaining privileged access to its markets. The trouble with what she wants is not that she does not know it but that it’s impossible to achieve.
“We can have our cake and eat it” is no longer the slogan of that asinine opportunist Boris Johnson but of the post-Brexit establishment. Both Conservatives and Labour pretend there is no hard choice between taking back control and economic hardship. May tells the BBC we can have it all because that’s “what the British people voted for”. Presumably, if the British people voted for unicorns to deliver hot and cold running champagne, she would say they must have that too.
Rather than challenge her, Jeremy Corbyn echoes her. He insists we can leave the single market, while “retaining the benefits” of being in the single market. Brexit is performing a reverse alchemy on British parties, turning their golden principles into base metal. The Tories are threatening business. The anti-racist, pro-union Labour left still thinks it has the right to brand Labour leaders of the past as sell outs. Yet it sits on its hands as Corbyn maintains immigrants are wrecking job opportunities for natives and does nothing as he ignores the TUC’s warning that leaving the single market will threaten job security and workers’ rights.
Britain is a lucky country. It was on the winning side in two world wars and in the Cold War. Unlike virtually every other European, African and Asian state in the 20th century, we were never invaded or occupied. The British were the colonisers, not the colonised; the victors, not the vanquished.
British exceptionalism helps explain why 17.4 million voted to leave the EU. Countries with more tragic histories would never have taken such a reckless step. The smugness stability has given Britain has a further consequence. It makes it next to impossible to warn about the corruption of national life. Point to the Trumpian contempt for independent institutions, the impatience with checks and balances on power and disdain for truth and you are told to keep calm and carry on. These ills may afflict foreigners but they can’t happen here.
For all the complacency, cowardice still comes at a price – even in Britain. The cowardice of May and Corbyn is preparing the ground for a nationalist reaction to Brexit’s inevitable disappointment. Millions will find they can’t have it all and look for someone to blame. It is not alarmist to imagine a rightwing government deflecting attention from its own culpability and using conspiracy theory to justify attacks on the independence of the judiciary, civil service and BBC. A far-left government would be as eager to assault all three and replace neutral men and women with forelock-tugging ideologues. No one, indeed, should be more grateful to Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail than John McDonnell. They are providing the ammunition he may reach for in office.
Britain might have voted to leave the EU, but it cannot leave the modern world. In Russia, Hungary, Poland, the US and Venezuela, we have seen elected autocrats sweeping aside, or attempting to sweep aside, constraints on their power. They have the people’s mandate. Anyone who stands in their way is therefore an enemy of democracy itself. We should look at countries where extremists, who bear a striking similarity to our extremists, are in power and remember that the past doesn’t determine the future. Just because it hasn’t happened here does not mean the British can console themselves with the happy thought that it can’t happen here – the more so when it already is.
I'm thinking of starting a business selling hair shirts. I reckon that I might get a few customers if I promote them on this thread.
I don't think Leavers are at the stage where they are ready to be penitent yet though. I suggest you give a few years for the full affects of their actions to kick in and try again then.
Comments
Voting or not was a very tough decision for me, as I felt like I shouldn't, as I don't ever see England as being my home again, however, in the end, yes, I did vote. If I can manage it from the other side of the world I don't think being 'away at college' is much of an excuse!
As to which way my vote went, I think that's pretty obvious
Two leading Conservative MPs have launched a bid to make Theresa May keep the UK in a customs union with the European Union, as the prime minister faces cabinet and party splits over the issue.
There was always going to be eventual movement on their side.
Lots of brinkmanship to come and may be who blinks first ... which is unlikely to be the UK as May does not know what she wants.
Gentiloni's perspective is interesting and thoughtful (if possibly of limited value, given the upcoming General Election - I could live without the Berlusconi come back).
What he is suggesting, IMHO, is that financial services will not be subject to separate trade deal (which suggests more negotiating time developing the trade deal post-Brexit) and that the EU27 are prepared fo compromise in any deal (but this is the nature of a negotiated agreement - achieving agreement requires compromise).
I still don't see how this is inconsistent with what has been said before (or since). The nature and degree of any proposed trade association between the UK and EU will determine the kind of access that UK financial services will have to the EU Single Market.
It is still up to the UK to detail the relationship that it wants, and how it sees it working, and then, if considered by the EU27 an acceptable model, post-Brexit detailed negotiation.
Perversely, the longer she prevaricates, the more likely it could be that the EU may move its position in the direction Brexiters prefer, so as to avoid a ‘no-deal’ which would harm everyone.
Personally I am getting to the stage where I believe May will be ousted this year - she is a fence-sitter and that is of no use to the country at this stage.
Unless she can show commitment and a sense of purpose ... unlikely ... the move towards a vote of confidence gets closer. Such a possibility requires 48 letters to the chairman of the 1922 committee - it is rumoured that the number has already passed 40.
The bigger worry I would have is that the additional uncertainty and delay caused by an internal Tory process would damage the country's chances of getting a reasonable outcome.
It goes something like brexiters saying it was the will of the people and it is up to our elected politicians to then make it happen. Then the elected politicians saying it was the will of the UK and it is up to the EU to make it happen.
Whatever 'it' is.
Those who voted brexit didn't know what they were voting for however many times they say they did, because they don't have a clue what they want, and even less of a clue as to how to make it happen.
It's as if everybody voted for eternal life, but it is up to the doctors to make it happen, and the doctors saying to the religions that the people voted for eternal life and the religions have to make it happen.
They say nothing will be agreed until all of a sudden everything is agreed. The only problem is that no brexiters have explained what that actual 'thing' is, and I suspect it is because the brexiters xenophobia trumps their ability to think.
Come on brexiters. Suggest a workable idea. Even one might help to get us started. One measly idea. One. Come on.
Your side won, Chippy - the winners decide what to do, don't they?
Come on, give us a clue.
Just re-read your post and maybe the 'neither did you' refers to remainers also not knowing what they voted for. Well that's pretty obvious isn't it? No change - remain as is, status quo. It was simple - only remainers knew what they were voting for.
Anyway whats your view of the game today...assume you went.
250 miles away with a broken hip - so no, I didn’t go to the game today.
Was you there?
Nick CohenSun 4 Feb 2018 00.04 GMT
The civil service is the latest to be flamed by Jacob Rees-Mogg and co, who blame everyone but themselves
‘The cowardice of May and Corbyn is preparing the ground for a nationalist reaction to Brexit’s inevitable disappointment.’
The right does not want British institutions to take back control from the EU. It wants to take control of British institutions. Understand its raging ambition and you will understand why self-proclaimed Conservatives are so anxious to destroy.
Patriots who shout about their love of country daily announce their hatred of every British principle that might constrain them. The rule of law and sovereignty of parliament? The Mail echoed every totalitarian movement since the Jacobins and denounced judges as “enemies of the people” for ruling that Brexit couldn’t be triggered without the approval of parliament. Academic freedom? A government whip demanded universities tell him what lecturers were teaching about Brexit. The right of MPs to follow their conscience? Liberal Tories received death threats after the Telegraph called them “mutineers” for not obeying orders and thinking for themselves. Now the civil service is having its ethics besmirched and neutrality threatened. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker accused it of plotting to undermine Brexit by producing needlessly pessimistic forecasts. The lie was so demonstrably false even Baker had to apologise. Tellingly, Rees-Mogg did not. Unnervingly, he may be our next prime minister.
You do not have to know much history to recognise a stab-in-the-back myth in the making. German militarists and fascists explained away defeat in the First World War with the dolchstosslegende: the German armies had not been defeated by their enemies in France but by communists, Jews and pacifists at home. So Brexit will not be defeated because the Tory right sold the British a fantasy but because judges, civil servants, saboteurs and mutineers subverted a glorious victory.
Far from holding back the growth of extremism, our leaders encourage it. The received wisdom holds that Theresa May does not know what she wants from Brexit. As my colleague Rafael Behr says, Mrs May has told us exactly what she wants. She wants Britain to walk away from the EU, its single market, customs union and courts, while retaining privileged access to its markets. The trouble with what she wants is not that she does not know it but that it’s impossible to achieve.
“We can have our cake and eat it” is no longer the slogan of that asinine opportunist Boris Johnson but of the post-Brexit establishment. Both Conservatives and Labour pretend there is no hard choice between taking back control and economic hardship. May tells the BBC we can have it all because that’s “what the British people voted for”. Presumably, if the British people voted for unicorns to deliver hot and cold running champagne, she would say they must have that too.
Rather than challenge her, Jeremy Corbyn echoes her. He insists we can leave the single market, while “retaining the benefits” of being in the single market. Brexit is performing a reverse alchemy on British parties, turning their golden principles into base metal. The Tories are threatening business. The anti-racist, pro-union Labour left still thinks it has the right to brand Labour leaders of the past as sell outs. Yet it sits on its hands as Corbyn maintains immigrants are wrecking job opportunities for natives and does nothing as he ignores the TUC’s warning that leaving the single market will threaten job security and workers’ rights.
Britain is a lucky country. It was on the winning side in two world wars and in the Cold War. Unlike virtually every other European, African and Asian state in the 20th century, we were never invaded or occupied. The British were the colonisers, not the colonised; the victors, not the vanquished.
British exceptionalism helps explain why 17.4 million voted to leave the EU. Countries with more tragic histories would never have taken such a reckless step. The smugness stability has given Britain has a further consequence. It makes it next to impossible to warn about the corruption of national life. Point to the Trumpian contempt for independent institutions, the impatience with checks and balances on power and disdain for truth and you are told to keep calm and carry on. These ills may afflict foreigners but they can’t happen here.
For all the complacency, cowardice still comes at a price – even in Britain. The cowardice of May and Corbyn is preparing the ground for a nationalist reaction to Brexit’s inevitable disappointment. Millions will find they can’t have it all and look for someone to blame. It is not alarmist to imagine a rightwing government deflecting attention from its own culpability and using conspiracy theory to justify attacks on the independence of the judiciary, civil service and BBC. A far-left government would be as eager to assault all three and replace neutral men and women with forelock-tugging ideologues. No one, indeed, should be more grateful to Rees-Mogg and the Daily Mail than John McDonnell. They are providing the ammunition he may reach for in office.
Britain might have voted to leave the EU, but it cannot leave the modern world. In Russia, Hungary, Poland, the US and Venezuela, we have seen elected autocrats sweeping aside, or attempting to sweep aside, constraints on their power. They have the people’s mandate. Anyone who stands in their way is therefore an enemy of democracy itself. We should look at countries where extremists, who bear a striking similarity to our extremists, are in power and remember that the past doesn’t determine the future. Just because it hasn’t happened here does not mean the British can console themselves with the happy thought that it can’t happen here – the more so when it already is.
;-)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2018-02-03/comment/tories-are-lying-to-the-voters-and-themselves-over-brexit-r7nc79cw5