It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
I’m not sure that the government has to want a referendum in order for there to be one? Parliament has, essentially, positioned itself as the main arbiter of what happens. It is entirely possible (though not necessarily likely) that the day after May’s WA is defeated that someone tables a motion to withdraw A50 and/or call a second referendum. If that motion can command a majority (and by this point it would be that or leaving with no deal in two months) then that’s what will happen regardless of what May thinks.
Referendum will probably be the subject of a legal challenge should one actually be voted for. As @PragueAddick has said. Its too late. EEA looks iffy to me so Im sticking with it being Mays deal. She will go down in history as one of our villians. I can see effergies of the woman on a bonfire every 29th March.
Greece managed to knock up a referendum in less than 3 weeks back in 2015 over the terms of the EU bailout conditions. Despite 'No' winning by more than 60% the Greek government still signed up to a worse deal than was originally proposed, so a fat lot of good it did anybody. People are backing the wrong horse if they think another referendum is going to fix any of this. Another referendum is totally in the gift of the government who can rig the question to whatever ends suits them and still not be bound by the result in any case. It's pointless and it's not going to happen. A general election is going to be our next chance to have our say. If it wasn't a mess before, it's going to get messier.
May is just pushing this down the road, burning up time, so that all that's left is her deal or no deal. It just ends up a game of chicken.
All it needs is a real leader to say something like:
After two and a half years of attempting to exit the EU with no to minimal negative impact on our country's wellbeing, it is clear that this cannot be achieved.
The primary, and some would say sole, purpose of parliament is to protect its citizens and it is concluded that to avoid unnecessary harm, and with reference to the non-binding nature of the referendum result, the decision has been taken to revoke Article 50.
It is HMG's intention to work with our partners in the EU to bring about reform that will tackle the issues which lead to the views expressed in the referendum campaign and since.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
If we revoke, we do what we should have done two years ago and negotiate the PD which is now, belatedly, available.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
I never said temporary
Perhaps I misread the thrust of your point. I thought you implied that revoking article 50 would allow time for a referendum. As stated it wont do any such thing. Revoking means we remain members.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
I never said temporary
Perhaps I misread the thrust of your point. I thought you implied that revoking article 50 would allow time for a referendum. As stated it wont do any such thing. Revoking means we remain members.
I’m not convinced it does but only events will tell. It could mean negotiation of the PD, it could mean a second referendum, it could be a combination of these and more.
It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
All the time,even in this digital age, people tend to leave things to the last minute for all sorts of reasons, but my point is that it isn't too late. And when Labour don't get their desired election, there is a majority for a referendum in the house when there isn't a majority for anything else. The problem is that the majority is small and requires Tory MPs who might change their mind. So we should all be worried, but the numbers do work. They might be more likely to work the nearer the edge of the cliff we are although it is frustrating continuing to run towards it.
I think you have to have faith in two things - which I do - and that is there are enough sensible Tories who won't allow the damage a hard Brexit will cause and secondly, you have to believe the EU will be supportive around us having a second vote, and I think they will, especially as they have hinted so.
I simply can't believe that the least popular option which everybody who is remotely sensible can see has the potential to be highly damaging will be allowed to happen.
It is frustrating that the no confidence vote in the Government hasn't happened, but it is important that May's plan is given its chance to be passed first. The delay is the fault of the government and nobody else.
It is a good point about the questions. This I am unsure about, but if a referendum is voted on, couldn't the terms of the referendum be included in that vote. I think and hope that some of the Christmas break time will be spent with like minded people of all parties working out the strategy and the numbers and the question so it plays out as soon as May's deal has been voted against.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We cant temporarily revoke A50. If we revoke it then we remain. We can beg for an extension but all 27 need to agree that. Referendum is dead.
I never said temporary
Perhaps I misread the thrust of your point. I thought you implied that revoking article 50 would allow time for a referendum. As stated it wont do any such thing. Revoking means we remain members.
I’m not convinced it does but only events will tell. It could mean negotiation of the PD, it could mean a second referendum, it could be a combination of these and more.
We will see over the next six weeks.
I presume you could invoke it again after you have revoked it- heaven forbid why we would want to though! Better to get this sorted out in the coming months with an extension. Bit if the EU refused to extend, it could come into play, but I think they will be more than happy to help us stay in.
The French running financial deficits has been the definition of the Gallic shrug since WW2.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
A vote of no confidence in May achieves? These attacks are puerile. HMG will block the debate. Want an Election? Go for it. Let's see the DUP lose their £1bn.
This debate goes beyond personalities and party labels to factional "ghettos" resembling gangs fighting for terrority as a tsunami of global irrelevance sits offshore.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
No matter the outcome we are diminished.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you say. But I feel you have been far too easy on the Tory Party. The anti EU forces have been raging in the Tory Party like a festering cancer for decades and now it has broken out and infected the whole of our political system and is rapidly destroying the very fabric of this once great nation. The EU will be glad to see the back of us and the rest of the world looks on in disbelief. Meanwhile, as we head ever closer to the cliff edge towards the worst self inflicted Armageddon in the history of mankind we are being asked to be careful not to cause offence to the sensitive souls who helped visit this shitfest on us all.
The French running financial deficits has been the definition of the Gallic shrug since WW2.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
A vote of no confidence in May achieves? These attacks are puerile. HMG will block the debate. Want an Election? Go for it. Let's see the DUP lose their £1bn.
This debate goes beyond personalities and party labels to factional "ghettos" resembling gangs fighting for terrority as a tsunami of global irrelevance sits offshore.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
No matter the outcome we are diminished.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you say. But I feel you have been far too easy on the Tory Party. The anti EU forces have been raging in the Tory Party like a festering cancer for decades and now it has broken out and infected the whole of our political system and is rapidly destroying the very fabric of this once great nation. The EU will be glad to see the back of us and the rest of the world looks on in disbelief. Meanwhile, as we head ever closer to the cliff towards the worst self inflicted Armageddon in the history of mankind we are being asked to be careful not to cause offence to the sensitive souls who helped visit this shitfest on us all.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
Oh right. So you were saying if we made a decision that the EU had no say in and couldn't object to, they wouldn't object to it.
So based on my access to EU media and discussions with friends from various countries, I can certainly agree that in general terms the EU - whatever you mean by that - is likely to want to help with avoiding a hard damaging Brexit.
However no one should underestimate the damage that has been done to the image of this country and its citizens since the referendum, but particularly in the last two months. People in EU countries tended to regard us as a sober, thoughtful bunch, with strong parliamentary government processes, much admired especially by the newer democracies.
The mask has slipped and I cannot overstate how much of a shock that has been to people.
There is now a sizeable feeling that even if it means pain on this side too, it might be just better if the U.K. leaves. Politicians are resentful of the time and energy it has taken up when they have more important issues to address. If we were to somehow seek to change our minds, people here will ask, "that's all very well, but that Rees-Mogg won't just go away will he? We really don't want all this shit again in five years time."
When they here of Brits talking about revoking Article 50 and then invoking it again - well that is exactly my point.
The French running financial deficits has been the definition of the Gallic shrug since WW2.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
No matter the outcome we are diminished.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you say. But I feel you have been far too easy on the Tory Party. The anti EU forces have been raging in the Tory Party like a festering cancer for decades and now it has broken out and infected the whole of our political system and is rapidly destroying the very fabric of this once great nation. The EU will be glad to see the back of us and the rest of the world looks on in disbelief. Meanwhile, as we head ever closer to the cliff towards the worst self inflicted Armageddon in the history of mankind we are being asked to be careful not to cause offence to the sensitive souls who helped visit this shitfest on us all.
Behave yourself FFS!!
So we are not heading towards a cliff edge? It is not self inflicted? You have an example of a worst self inflicted national disaster from history? I can’t think of anything that compares apart from Germany in the early thirties.
The French running financial deficits has been the definition of the Gallic shrug since WW2.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
No matter the outcome we are diminished.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you say. But I feel you have been far too easy on the Tory Party. The anti EU forces have been raging in the Tory Party like a festering cancer for decades and now it has broken out and infected the whole of our political system and is rapidly destroying the very fabric of this once great nation. The EU will be glad to see the back of us and the rest of the world looks on in disbelief. Meanwhile, as we head ever closer to the cliff towards the worst self inflicted Armageddon in the history of mankind we are being asked to be careful not to cause offence to the sensitive souls who helped visit this shitfest on us all.
Behave yourself FFS!!
So we are not heading towards a cliff edge? It is not self inflicted? You have an example of a worst self inflicted national disaster from history? I can’t think of anything that compares apart from Germany in the early thirties.
Yeah we definitely are heading towards a cliff edge and it’s conoleteky self inflicted but I definitely think that example of early ‘30s Germany is slightly worse than what we’re heading for!
So based on my access to EU media and discussions with friends from various countries, I can certainly agree that in general terms the EU - whatever you mean by that - is likely to want to help with avoiding a hard damaging Brexit.
However no one should underestimate the damage that has been done to the image of this country and its citizens since the referendum, but particularly in the last two months. People in EU countries tended to regard us as a sober, thoughtful bunch, with strong parliamentary government processes, much admired especially by the newer democracies.
The mask has slipped and I cannot overstate how much of a shock that has been to people.
There is now a sizeable feeling that even if it means pain on this side too, it might be just better if the U.K. leaves. Politicians are resentful of the time and energy it has taken up when they have more important issues to address. If we were to somehow seek to change our minds, people here will ask, "that's all very well, but that Rees-Mogg won't just go away will he? We really don't want all this shit again in five years time."
When they here of Brits talking about revoking Article 50 and then invoking it again - well that is exactly my point.
I do get this, but the UK staying with its tail between its legs is the best outcome for the EU and for that reason you woudl expect them to be supportive.
I do agree much damage has been done, but a big fear of the EU is contagion. If the UK doesn't leave it will send a clear message to others. Mind you, I think that message should already be sent. But we still have people wanting a Brexit which I find incredible. And unlike you, I am not a great fan of the EU. I am not a great fan of running off a cliff either though!
The French running financial deficits has been the definition of the Gallic shrug since WW2.
This pantomime noise is deafening.
For 60yrs, 1/3rd of Tories under Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Cameron & May have hated the EU. The ERG bid was another day at the office. It failed.
The Commons forest of strutting indignants continue their "what about me" cries like passengers fighting for a place in a lifeboat.
What about me in Scotland, N Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, middle England, the shires, the Tory whip & remain, the ERG, the Labour whip & remain, the Lib Dems, the people's vote and ...Denis Skinner. What about WTO, Norway, Norway +, Norway ++, Canada, Canada +, what about Facebook?
Still no viable solution in sight. The issues remain.
Cameron was last elected on the back of those who, had never voted Tory, condemned a LibDem coalition, but rejected Labour by favouring UKIP.
The 2016 result was the voice of people who argue they were not being heard. In a democracy voices must be heard.
They gave a bloody nose to the entire political system - nobody listened.
To those "believing" leaving the EU meant leaving a Customs Union repeating the argument does not validate such assertion.
Parliament stated the referendum was advisory.
HMG stated it would trigger Article 50 to leave the EU. It did.
If No deal was the agreed path why did the Tories elect May as PM?
Why did HMG then seek a renewed mandate via a General Election?
Two main parties stated they would effect Brexit. Neither stood on a mandate of leaving the CU. HMG policy enshrined in the WA and Labour's 6 criteria today reference a CU.
"No deal" revisionists in Davis & Johnson led the EU negotiations. Where at any point did they state they were negotiating WTO terms?
The ERG do seek a No Deal Brexit but as 110 (per leadership bid) out of 650 MPs they are 17% of elected representative. No Deal is a minority view for 3 reasons
1. There is no mandate for No Deal
2. WTO "non discrimination" requires border controls or specific EU sanction
3. Democratic freedom carries the responsibility of the governance of law.
The UK has a peace accord with Eire requiring an open border between the countries. It is binding under international law. You may wish to trifle with the law. HMG has no such freedom.
Anglo Irish conflicts arising from English colonial rule were an open wound for decades. The terrorist acts on our doorstep were horrific as was the savagery of colonial rule. If we move on from the former it I'll behoves us to renege on the accord which brought an end to the latter.
The lack of interest in trying to reconcile the complexities of this negotiation borders neglect. Would their critics explain how they believe EU should behave in this matter and on what basis they have such expectancy?
In negotiation you understand the goals, fears & ambitions of the other party. Such understanding appears beyond the comprehension of many.
We are leaving. The EU need do nothing.
References to despotic EU demands on Italy, Greece, Spain & Portugal ignore such challenges arise to members of the Eurozone where weak financial disciplines directly impact a common currency. Each has a duty to meet the criteria they signed up to.
The EU is a flawed democracy, MEPs have questionable expense allowances but is that why we are leaving the EU? The UK democratic process is also a flawed. We know every democracy on the planet is flawed. What is this democratic nirvana of which some speak?
The EU administration has a duty to protect the rules, regulations & laws of the European Union in which the UK has fully participated for 40yrs in the pursuit of the common interests of mutual benefit, relative prosperity and relative peace.
To argue the referendum went beyond commercial interest is valid yet even the scantiest review of history will recognise the creation of the EU goes far beyond economic disciplines.
Such experiences are a microcosm of large parts of mainland Europe where divisions spawned two World Wars. I suggest some need to be more measured as to where they point their fingers of elitism, federalism and privilege.
The EU is there to give voice. It is there to enable debate in the common interest. Across 440mn people there will be many different and yes some very strident voices arguing to the extreme. It is the nature of democracy for those voices to be heard and challenged.
Yet today we are proposing division. We are running away from the debate. We have chosen to acclaim xenophobic politicians who in our name proclaim nationalism.
Much has been made of the comments made by Merkel and Macron yet they have largely merely served to explain the legal consequence of the UK decision.
Where the UK offers confusion & obsfucation EU clarity serves to explain for example my legal status. I know where I will stand.
The UK Parliament triggered Article 50 in response to the referendum result. The UK chose this path. It is for the UK to resolve.
Will the EU be damaged? Undoubtedly but to blame them for the consequences of our actions is akin to a drunk driver blaming the victim of any ensuing collision. It reflects the fantasy evident in so much of the public debate.
If the political establishment were an animal so rabid is its behaviour you would put it down. So bereft of any evident integrity it is hard to identify a single avenue worthy of support.
We face a crisis yet our focus is merely to denigrate, heap opprobrium on and almost celebrate the failure of a flawed individual pursuing a flawed agreement trying to make sense of a flawed strategy initiated by a flawed society in a flawed democracy.
We are broken. We have no cause to celebrate. This is how society has evolved on our watch.
A new referendum will resolve nothing. Every nuance will be open to debate. It will offer no further clarity. Crucially referenda offer no accountability beyond a collective political establishment which has already failed.
The 2016 referendum has rewritten the political landscape. It unwittingly may have sponsored the final chapter of a United Kingdom.
There is one course. This has to come back to the people via a General Election.
Each politician will have to confirm their position on the EU to their constituency party. The possibility for a new centrist party exists. I believe Brexit will win but we have the right to demand clarity on its terms.
No matter the outcome we are diminished.
Excellent post. I agree with everything you say. But I feel you have been far too easy on the Tory Party. The anti EU forces have been raging in the Tory Party like a festering cancer for decades and now it has broken out and infected the whole of our political system and is rapidly destroying the very fabric of this once great nation. The EU will be glad to see the back of us and the rest of the world looks on in disbelief. Meanwhile, as we head ever closer to the cliff towards the worst self inflicted Armageddon in the history of mankind we are being asked to be careful not to cause offence to the sensitive souls who helped visit this shitfest on us all.
Behave yourself FFS!!
So we are not heading towards a cliff edge? It is not self inflicted? You have an example of a worst self inflicted national disaster from history? I can’t think of anything that compares apart from Germany in the early thirties.
Not sure about history, but a Corbyn government would be a bigger disaster.
I don't agree that a five year Corbyn government would be worse than a forever no deal brexit.
Incidentally the phrase 'leave on WTO terms' is being bandied around all over the place.
WTO terms would require border checks.
So I ask those advocating a WTO crash out, how will the land border on the island of Ireland then work in day to day practical terms, and also square with the Belfast Agreement?
It seems that no one even attempts to advocate the supposed benefits of Brexit anymore, just how the UK might be possibly just about be able to cope with it. Still not clear in any way why the UK are putting themselves through this - it just seems totally masochistic and self-defeating.
This farce gets more and more ridiculous every day. One minister says the army is on standby, the brexit minister says they would never use the army under any situation. Complete asshats. They contradict themselves and eachother constantly and they all get away with it.
It's as if parliament sees it as some kind of game that doesn't really matter.
Whoever gets elected next and possibly for quite a few elections after that won’t have a majority so excesses will by definition be curbed.
I actually think that the public might actually like the majority of Corbyns manifesto. It’s going to hinge on how whoever is in government handles the shock waves to our economy.
Most of the next ten years for any government will be sorting out new trade deals and mopping up the shit that Brexit created.
So based on my access to EU media and discussions with friends from various countries, I can certainly agree that in general terms the EU - whatever you mean by that - is likely to want to help with avoiding a hard damaging Brexit.
However no one should underestimate the damage that has been done to the image of this country and its citizens since the referendum, but particularly in the last two months. People in EU countries tended to regard us as a sober, thoughtful bunch, with strong parliamentary government processes, much admired especially by the newer democracies.
The mask has slipped and I cannot overstate how much of a shock that has been to people.
There is now a sizeable feeling that even if it means pain on this side too, it might be just better if the U.K. leaves. Politicians are resentful of the time and energy it has taken up when they have more important issues to address. If we were to somehow seek to change our minds, people here will ask, "that's all very well, but that Rees-Mogg won't just go away will he? We really don't want all this shit again in five years time."
When they here of Brits talking about revoking Article 50 and then invoking it again - well that is exactly my point.
I do get this, but the UK staying with its tail between its legs is the best outcome for the EU and for that reason you woudl expect them to be supportive.
I do agree much damage has been done, but a big fear of the EU is contagion. If the UK doesn't leave it will send a clear message to others. Mind you, I think that message should already be sent. But we still have people wanting a Brexit which I find incredible. And unlike you, I am not a great fan of the EU. I am not a great fan of running off a cliff either though!
Well, it was. Or rather, the UK public were told it was by UK politicians and media. I'd go so far as to say that some hoped it would be so. Well that went well for them.
"Over two-thirds of respondents (67%) are convinced that their country benefits from being a member of the EU. This is the highest score ever measured since 1983."
Now I have got my doubts about Eurobarometer as a piece of research, but its a tracker, so the trends rather than scores are important. In that study the UK was second bottom, and one of very few to see a lower score. Italy was bottom but had improved 4 points. It is of course Britain and Italy where politicians have been actively slagging off the EU for their own electoral purposes. Away from the barometer, you find that even in countries which you suppose are troublesome from what you hear, Italy, Hungary, even Le Pen in France, you see politicians rowing back from any suggestion they want to quit the EU. The timing is not coincidental. In the Netherlands, PM Mark Rutte in a speech just yesterday openly held up the UK's chaos for the Dutch to consider. (He also categorised anti-EU politicians in his country as “screaming sideline football dads” :-))
No I heard from someone on this thread five minutes ago that the EU will definitely make England pay more money if we stay in!!
All of the EU will have to pay more money whether we are in or out. They’ve budgeted to spend more money and contributions have to increase. Some of those countries that were net receivers are in for a shock and if we are out and not contributing they are in for a bigger shock.
Comments
May is just pushing this down the road, burning up time, so that all that's left is her deal or no deal. It just ends up a game of chicken.
After two and a half years of attempting to exit the EU with no to minimal negative impact on our country's wellbeing, it is clear that this cannot be achieved.
The primary, and some would say sole, purpose of parliament is to protect its citizens and it is concluded that to avoid unnecessary harm, and with reference to the non-binding nature of the referendum result, the decision has been taken to revoke Article 50.
It is HMG's intention to work with our partners in the EU to bring about reform that will tackle the issues which lead to the views expressed in the referendum campaign and since.
I won't be holding my breath.
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
If we revoke, we do what we should have done two years ago and negotiate the PD which is now, belatedly, available.
Can’t happen. I made a post a few days ago which clearly states that we go back in on our original terms. This cannot be changed.
We will see over the next six weeks.
I think you have to have faith in two things - which I do - and that is there are enough sensible Tories who won't allow the damage a hard Brexit will cause and secondly, you have to believe the EU will be supportive around us having a second vote, and I think they will, especially as they have hinted so.
I simply can't believe that the least popular option which everybody who is remotely sensible can see has the potential to be highly damaging will be allowed to happen.
It is frustrating that the no confidence vote in the Government hasn't happened, but it is important that May's plan is given its chance to be passed first. The delay is the fault of the government and nobody else.
It is a good point about the questions. This I am unsure about, but if a referendum is voted on, couldn't the terms of the referendum be included in that vote. I think and hope that some of the Christmas break time will be spent with like minded people of all parties working out the strategy and the numbers and the question so it plays out as soon as May's deal has been voted against.
However no one should underestimate the damage that has been done to the image of this country and its citizens since the referendum, but particularly in the last two months. People in EU countries tended to regard us as a sober, thoughtful bunch, with strong parliamentary government processes, much admired especially by the newer democracies.
The mask has slipped and I cannot overstate how much of a shock that has been to people.
There is now a sizeable feeling that even if it means pain on this side too, it might be just better if the U.K. leaves. Politicians are resentful of the time and energy it has taken up when they have more important issues to address. If we were to somehow seek to change our minds, people here will ask, "that's all very well, but that Rees-Mogg won't just go away will he? We really don't want all this shit again in five years time."
When they here of Brits talking about revoking Article 50 and then invoking it again - well that is exactly my point.
I do agree much damage has been done, but a big fear of the EU is contagion. If the UK doesn't leave it will send a clear message to others. Mind you, I think that message should already be sent. But we still have people wanting a Brexit which I find incredible. And unlike you, I am not a great fan of the EU. I am not a great fan of running off a cliff either though!
Incidentally the phrase 'leave on WTO terms' is being bandied around all over the place.
WTO terms would require border checks.
So I ask those advocating a WTO crash out, how will the land border on the island of Ireland then work in day to day practical terms, and also square with the Belfast Agreement?
It's as if parliament sees it as some kind of game that doesn't really matter.
Whoever gets elected next and possibly for quite a few elections after that won’t have a majority so excesses will by definition be curbed.
I actually think that the public might actually like the majority of Corbyns manifesto. It’s going to hinge on how whoever is in government handles the shock waves to our economy.
Most of the next ten years for any government will be sorting out new trade deals and mopping up the shit that Brexit created.
Insidious politics at its best
"Over two-thirds of respondents (67%) are convinced that their country benefits from being a member of the EU. This is the highest score ever measured since 1983."
Now I have got my doubts about Eurobarometer as a piece of research, but its a tracker, so the trends rather than scores are important. In that study the UK was second bottom, and one of very few to see a lower score. Italy was bottom but had improved 4 points. It is of course Britain and Italy where politicians have been actively slagging off the EU for their own electoral purposes. Away from the barometer, you find that even in countries which you suppose are troublesome from what you hear, Italy, Hungary, even Le Pen in France, you see politicians rowing back from any suggestion they want to quit the EU. The timing is not coincidental. In the Netherlands, PM Mark Rutte in a speech just yesterday openly held up the UK's chaos for the Dutch to consider. (He also categorised anti-EU politicians in his country as “screaming sideline football dads” :-))
That ship has sailed, mate. It's only blinkered little Englanders like IDS who still want to tell you otherwise.